Jacoby & Meyers v. Judges of the Superior Court: more questions, part 2

Paragraph 1 of the complaint reads in part: “This action seeks to redress an antiquated, “ethical” proscription which is impeding law firms’ ability to compete in today’s global marketplace and restricting the public’s access to affordable, quality representation.” To paraphrase it, the purpose of the action is to rid the profession and the pubic of an old rule that is making it impossible for US lawyers to compete in the global market place and is keeping the cost of legal services artificially high. ( If there is such a rule, surely it is time to get rid of it. More on that later).  It will be interesting to see what proof the plaintiffs’ offer that, for example, there is global competition among law firms to provide legal services to the lower, working and middle classes.”  I know of none.  In fact, is there even a global marketplace for licensed lawyers to provide legal services to the lower, working and middle classes?  There is a growing global marketplace for legal services for multinational companies but that, according to the complaint, is not the customer base Jacoby & Meyers exists to serve.  The evidence will be interesting, or maybe paragraph 1 has little substantive value.   Maybe the global competition that Jacoby & Meyers is facing is not from lawyers and law firms at all.  Maybe the competition is from non-lawyers like Legal Zoom that presumably can operate from anywhere in the world anonymously, through slick websites and fill in the blank forms assembled virtually anywhere and sent to the customer completely filled in all for an attractive price.  Maybe the Jacoby & Meyers lawsuit is meant to enable Jacoby & Meyers to compete with non-lawyers who claim not to offer legal services but who are targeting customers for legal services.