The problem is that non lawyers are not allowed to own law firms. And what lawyer wants to work over low cost chat sitting in a room all day? That's part of why this sort of service doesn't and will not exist.

Maybe a lawyer who would like to work fewer hours, live anywhere in the world, make his own schedule, etc

Any reason why there is a restriction disallowing non lawyers from owning law firms?

State bars don't want outside investors or non-lawyer executives directing the conduct of lawyers. (Also, why would you want to allow non-lawyer ownership of law firms? The reason you have corporate structures is to be able to raise capital. Law firms require very little capital.)

Law as currently practiced, does not require much capital. You're correct about that.

But legal services in general are an expensive, labor-intensive craft industry. Just like any craft industry, there's probably scope for low-touch industrialization alongside high-end bespoke craftmanship. Clothing is a good example of what I'm talking about--rich people have tailors, everyone else buys off the rack. What you have now in law and may other professions only works for the high-touch case.

Atrium (google them) is trying to get around this by having a traditional high-touch law firm use a lot of software provided by a standard silicon valley-financed venture capital startup. They're basically laundering legal fees to the startup side via the law firm. I'm not sure of the exact legalities but we need more stuff like this.

Access matters. A system that, for completely well-intentioned reasons, attempts to guarantee that everyone only gets the best, means the low end will never have access at affordable rates. It's simple economics. Until practitioners work for free (they won't), or there's some way to do things more cheaply, the bottom won't get served.

The atrium model isn’t problematic at all. Law firms use software built by third parties all the time. (West Law, document review platforms, etc.) You don’t need to permit non lawyer ownership of law firms to have that.

“Also, why would you want to allow non-lawyer ownership of law firms?”

For the same reason or not-reason you can have any other company owned by people who are not experts in the company’s subject. This is probably good for lawyers but otherwise this restriction makes no sense.

Hey remember how intel suffered for years under CEOs who were chip engineers? And then started doing really great when they moved away from that model and started hiring MBA CEOs?

If law firms run by lawyers run better, then why do they need a rule to enforce this? Shouldn't the market take care of this? ie Law Firms with Lawyer owners will simply out compete clueless Law Firms with owners who are not lawyers.

Because you're not optimizing for the success of the law firms or their clients, but for the structure and integrity of the court system. That integrity depends heavily on the fact that lawyers are trusted repeat players who have a lot of exposure and are personally on the hook for any problem. (Moreover, because a law license is not a right, the due process requirements and burden of proof for disciplining lawyers is far lower than for imposing criminal penalties on non-lawyer individuals. You don't need a trial, you don't get a jury, there is no "beyond a reasonable doubt." Supervising lawyers can be held liable for the misconduct of their subordinates with little showing of knowledge or intent regarding the misconduct.)

"Better" is a value judgement, and the specific value you've chosen is "makes more money". One concern, I think, is that a non-lawyer may push employees towards legally-unethical behavior. Since the non-lawyer can fire the lawyers, that gives them a big stick they can use to influence the employees.

Lawyers are subject to ethical requirements that are not imposed on non-lawyers. And those ethical requirements are just that - requirements. If a lawyer breaks them, they jeopardize their entire careers. There's no equivalent for a professional CEO. Clients insist that their attorneys act in a fiduciary capacity.

This is very different from the chip engineer scenario. It is the most important reason why non-lawyers are not allowed to own law firms. Because non-lawyers are not bound by rules that require them to put profit motives second in many circumstances.

I am not saying it’s a good idea but such restrictions shouldn’t be there in a “free market/capitalist” country like the US.

Capital is only one of the things a founder brings in - a point of view and skills are others. The legal profession could be missing out on avenues of innovation by requiring a founder to be a lawyer.

Strong state bar lobbies

This is roughly the fix in place in other systems that inherit from the English system.

The McKenzie Friend rules says if you proceed pro se you can nevertheless have somebody who may or may not be trained as a lawyer present to help you by taking notes, prompting, and giving advice not so different from the way a lawyer might use assistants.

You have to do all the actual talking, most weight is on your shoulders - you can't use this to basically keep all the advantages of pro se (courts give people proceeding on this basis more leeway because they may not know and understand the rules a lawyer must master) while having a lawyer do everything, but you can at least have somebody to help you and it can be someone legally trained.

In the UK this principle is named for a Mr McKenzie who lost a divorce case because the lawyer sent to try to assist him after he lost funding for a "real" lawyer wasn't qualified to appear in front of that court (an Australian lawyer, in an English court), and the court reasoned that lawyer was thus prohibited from attending except to sit in the public gallery. On appeal a higher court concluded that nothing clearly prohibited this lawyer being present as "a friend" of McKenzie and so that's the McKenzie Friend rule.

Since they aren't a "real" lawyer it can be a paralegal working for cheap, somebody who has done a year's law school and dropped out, or even just your actual friend who is better at reading and thinking than you are. It all helps.

It sort of makes sense. A lawyer is authorized to represent someone in court, and what they do is binding. But anyone can give you advice in the court house parking lot.

It exists. One example is called Rocket Lawyer.

Looks like an expansion opportunity for Atrium.