Greenfield on Non-lawyers Practicing Law

Scott Greenfield has a post at his blog, Simple Justice, responding to the idea that some of the simplier areas of law should be opened to non-lawyers:

The simple will, for example, which, assuming it satisfies the needs and desires of the testator, can be prepared from a fill-in-the-blanks form. Whether it's the correct vehicle for a fellow requires a judgment call, of course, but once past that decision, the blanks themselves are fairly self-explanatory. But does the guy who bought the $19.95 will know that he can't cross out his brother's name when he has a falling out and fill in his sister's? Does he realize that his executor may have to locate the witnesses some day to prove the will, when he pulled a couple folks off the street to complete the execution? Of when he rips the will in half to show his kids what could happen if they continue to piss him off, does he realize that he can't tape it back together?

Greenfield suggests that the solution is not to allow non-lawyers to practice law, but to expect more of practicing lawyers:

Maybe the reason the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Brookings and Cato think we don't deserve the exclusive right to practice law is that we have forsaken our intellectual and educational authority to help others. But the solution isn't to place law in the hands of everyman, but to elevate the profession to those worthy to practice it.