THOUGHTS ON THE FUTURE OF LAW PRACTICE: “First, routine legal work is likely to be responsible for a dwindling proportion of a lawyer’s fees. Wealthy, sophisticated clients will outsource their routine work and less wealthy, unsophisticated clients will turn to the Internet. Second, mere knowledge of the law is unlikely to command high fees, except perhaps in very technical, specialized areas. Lay people will no longer need lawyers to tell them what the basic legal rules are.”

UPDATE: Reader Jim Oz writes:

Several years ago, I found myself accused of a crime. I couldn’t afford a lawyer, so against the advice of the Judge, I defended myself. Prior to the trial I spent 4 weekends at Stanford Law Library, focusing on 1) Rules of Evidence; and 2) Courtroom procedure. I figured those topics would be most relevant. I was able to get the police report (I was never arrested) and obtain subpoenas from the clerk for my investigation.
The day of the trial, the ADA told me that he was an experienced proscecutor for 7 years, and if I did not reach an agreement with him before the Judge arrived, he would see me in jail for as long as possible. I thanked him for his offer of 10 days in jail, but declined.
The ADA kept trying to introduce evidence that was ‘hearsay’. I objected. The sweetest sound is to hear a Judge say, “SUSTAINED”! This went on and on. Objection!, Hearsay, I said. “Sustained.”, the Judge responded. Finally, the ‘experienced’ ADA started whining to the judge that he thought he could introduce evidence from a police officer, who did not in fact witness the alleged crime. Pitiful.
On cross examination of a witness, I tried to go beyond the scope of the direct, and the ADA objected. I pointed out to the Judge that it was within his discretion to allow the question, so that I did not have to recall the witness during my defense. He looked at me wide eyed and agreed, allowing the question
I destroyed the ‘star witness’, by proving she never witnessed the ‘crime’. She perjured herself, but I didn’t know how to press that, so nothing happened to her.
The Judge asked me if I was a lawyer, or had gone to law school. Fact is, I dropped out of High School, but I did not find the process all that difficult. It’s pretty logical if you think about it.
I tried to make a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution, but I did it wrong, or at the wrong time, so the case went to the jury.
I was acquitted. The ADA had to go back and explain how he lost a case to a high school dropout pro per. (or is it pro se? I don’t have my Black’s Law Dictionary anymore)

It seems to me, that lawyers try to make the law seem very complicated and difficult, when it really isn’t. Although politics will screw it up quite a bit, I suppose.

Well, yes. (And it’s pro se.) The thing is — and I’ve experienced this in some pro bono cases over the years — there are plenty of smart people who nonetheless don’t have a knack for the law. While there are some great pro se litigants, it’s a risky move.