in my last post i referred to a post by robert ambrogi on unbundling of legal services. i also left this comment to the post:
the so-called unbundling of legal services has been on the ABA’s radar for a decade (at least) yet we still coo as if it represents a radical new concept when the fact is given the ramifications of the web, and web 2.0 in particular, it is inevitable. in other words, once again technology and economics have done what politics and legal suasion could not do (viz. fall of the berlin wall, etc.).
so why do we need the permission of the courts? so they will recognize the “limited” or “sometime” attorney? they’ve been unofficially doing that for years. no, i think that the single biggest advantage here is that individual judges in california will no longer be able to keep a lawyer in a case against his or her will (i’ve been there) if they are just the client’s “discrete task” counsel.
amen to that, brother.
ed. note: i have the same objection to much of what lawyers, judges, and lawmakers do when we try to legislate a state of affairs that shouldn’t have adhered in the first place or on those occasions when we should allow that state of affairs to die a natural death (but we don’t for one reason or another). consider the mosaic of arcane rules that governs delivery of legal services. can you imagine the pent up positive forces that would be unleashed if the best lawyers were allowed to do their best work anywhere, anytime, when and where we were needed? the result would be better services at a lower cost of all involved. but then, what do i know?