In this new age of transparency and openness, it’s near-impossible to bottle up information and sell it. Today, information begs to be free. This is especially true in the realm of digital information. Last month, Bob Dickie from the Aide-de-Camp blog sent me the Wall Street Journal article about a strange monopoly over a particular realm of information: the law.

The article states,

But with the possible exception of the ever-leaky CIA, no aspect of government remains more locked down than the secretive, hierarchical judicial branch. Digital records of court filings, briefs and transcripts sit behind paywalls like Lexis and Westlaw. Legal codes and judicial documents aren’t copyrighted, but governments often cut exclusive distribution deals, rendering other access methods a bit legally questionable…

In law school, I recall a lesson in Criminal Law where we were taught that “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” It was explained that there’s a presumption that everyone knows the law and purposely chooses to follow or break it. By itself, the presumption is obviously a huge stretch, but it’s also understandable.  Otherwise, could you imagine all the “I didn’t know” excuses?  But when we lock access to the law behind expensive pay-walls, doesn’t it fly in the face of this presumption of knowledge? On the one hand, we want to hold everyone to a standard of sophistication and understanding. On the other hand, we bury the laws behind expensive websites that are only accessible by law firms.

Hence, the monopoly over legal information. As lawyers, we make a living exploiting the ignorance of our clients. It’s true. They have a need, they have no idea how to solve it, we have access to the information to help them, and we earn a living by connecting the dots. There’s nothing wrong with this model. It’s been around a long time. In defense of this model, I’d argue we have a unique skill set to understand the issues and leverage the information to the client’s full advantage. And with skills, comes marketable value. Again, there’s nothing wrong with this.

But this model is on the wrong side of history… As an example, if you used to make a living setting up corporations and LLCs, you’ve probably moved on thanks to Legal Zoom. Who’s next? The problem with information is that it can easily devolve into a commodity.

So what’s the solution?  Be an expert, own a niche, and stay one step ahead of the commodity curve.  The legal profession needs to get out of the 20th century, embrace openness, and seek to empower average citizens with as much information as possible. Entrepreneurs are already trying to make this happen. Lawyers can share documents at JD Supra, law students can share case summaries at Advanced Advocates, lawyers can cheaply search for cases over at fastcase.com. Furthermore, the American Bar Association needs to end the requirement to be certified in each state separately to practice there. If I practice law in a state for 3 years, I’m more qualified to work in a different state than some law student that just crammed for the Bar exam. If you can practice in one state, guess what, you can practice in all states. Open up the doors of competition. Entrepreneurs will slowly pick this industry apart. Either accept openness, or be destroyed by it.

Tags: aba, advanced advocates, fastcase, jd supra, legalzoom