Overly strict limits on legal advice by non-lawyers are hypocritical.

Heard the latest lawyer joke?

A federal judge in Texas has moved to outlaw Quicken Family Lawyer, a legal software program. The reason: It was too helpful.

No kidding.

Judge Barefoot Sanders determined that by helping people fill out their legal documents, the program treads illegally on lawyers' turf. Specifically, it violates laws that bar anyone but licensed lawyers from giving legal advice.

The case was brought by a lawyers' group, whose interest is clear enough. Lawyers typically charge anywhere from $100 to $650 an hour. Quicken costs $29.95 for life.

A silly ruling? Without a doubt. But not unusual. Computer programs aside, lawyers across the nation are using laws barring practice of law by non-attorneys to stymie competition, leaving the public less able to help itself.

The legal monopoly

An American Bar Association committee on non-lawyer practice in 1995 noted that enforcement of unauthorized practice laws declined after 1970, but rose again in the '90s. Recent cases suggest the trend continues:

• In Oregon, paralegal Robin Smith helped nearly 10,000 people over nine years to prepare paperwork for divorces, bankruptcies and other routine matters. She notified customers she wasn't an attorney and told them to see one if they needed legal advice. No customers complained, but the Oregon bar howled. It sued in 1995, forcing her to close her business and pay $16,000 for the bar's legal costs.
• In Delaware, Marilyn Arons, a nationally recognized expert on the rights of disabled students, helped parents there win special education services from local school boards. The parents were happy. School board lawyers were not. Their complaints led the state's Office of Judiciary Counsel to file an unauthorized practice suit that's still pending.
• In California, a lawyer used an unauthorized-practice-of-law suit to threaten 40 paralegals who were helping people write wills and file for bankruptcy and divorce. He offered to drop charges against them if each paid a $1,000 out-of-court settlement. They refused, and eventually got the state to protect their practices -- but only if they collectively hired a lawyer to oversee their work.
• In Florida, former brokers and others have been barred from representing investors in securities arbitration.
• In Ohio, the state Supreme Court ruled paralegals can't represent consumers making an auto accident insurance claim.
• In Virginia, Garrett Burris, a 20-year-old community college student hoping to become a lawyer, took time but no pay to help a fellow pizza delivery driver fight a speeding ticket. After Burris appeared in court with his friend, who spoke only limited English, prosecutors charged him with practicing law illegally. They forced him to hire a lawyer, who spared Burris any jail time. But Burris' record ruins his chances of ever becoming a lawyer in Virginia.

What kind of justice is that? Hypocritical.

The first unauthorized practice-of-law statutes were enacted in the late 19th Century, but the real onslaught of laws with tough enforcement didn't begin until the late 1920s.

Bar associations then argued that tough action was needed to protect the public from incompetent practitioners. But Stanford University legal ethicist and historian Deborah Rhode, past president of the American Association of Law Schools, found no studies were performed to see if consumers had been harmed. The few studies done since indicate the laws protect lawyers as much as the public.

The lawyers' complaint

Rhode's own survey in 1980 found only 2% of complaints against non-lawyer practice involved any claim of injury. A 1995 Arizona study of 550 complaints filed over five years found 70% came from lawyers.

The few studies comparing the performance of lawyers with layperson specialists all have found about equal performance in non-courtroom settings. A 1990 California state bar survey actually found people more satisfied with lay practitioners than lawyers.

One thing non-lawyers absolutely do better is charge less.

Indeed, the ABA has found high legal fees make legal services unaffordable to as many as 100 million Americans. Those needs underlie a USA TODAY report last month that found people in 60% to 80% of domestic cases in some states chose to represent themselves.

What's needed? The ABA committee on non-lawyer practice urged states to let non-lawyer specialists, properly regulated, help people deal with simple legal matters. But the ABA membership has yet to approve.

States also might learn from Arizona, where 800 numbers and Internet web sites help people answer legal questions and courthouse computer kiosks help them fill out legal forms.

Or there's a final option.

If lawyers really want to keep their monopoly, then states ought to regulate them like utilities and make them charge affordable rates.

Bet you'd see lawyers howling for Quicken Family Lawyer then.