5.03. Justification for Unauthorized Practice of Law

There are four primary justifications given for restricting the practice of law to those licensed by the state.  First, and by far the most common reason given, is to protect the public from unqualified persons rendering legal advice.  The requirements to obtain a license – undergraduate degree, law license, bar exam, and character and fitness – all serve as a gate-keeping function to ensure that those providing legal advice have minimal competence.  Individuals that do not have the state stamp of approval (license) have not met these minimal requirements.

The second reason is to prevent harm to the legal system.  Our legal system is based on an adversarial model, with each side putting forward their best case and a neutral arbiter issuing a decision.  If parties are not represented by those who know and understand law and procedure, the body of case law becomes skewed and unreliable. 

The third reason given for limiting law practice to those with a license is the need to ensure that those acting unethically can be disciplined.  Without the requirement to have a license to practice, there would be no way to suspend or disbar a lawyer because they could continue to practice law even without a license.  This would mean that the very individuals that the license is meant to exclude could continue to practice law outside the disciplinary system.  The final reason is less sanguine.  There is an argument that the purpose of restrictions on who can practice law is to protect lawyers from competition from those outside the guild.  If the gates were open and anyone could practice law, what would be the purpose of licensing lawyers?