[thegasman]

I don't think the government and guild protections are fictions. This article seems to be relevant:

http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/21/lawyer-disrupt-thyself/

I don't think they're fictions insofar as lawyers (and laws) command a unique place in our society that other industry inputs don't. Insofar as lawyers have the ability and the incentive to prevent sweeping changes to their industry, the guild mentality seems very real to me.

I take your point though: smaller firms are very willing to make technology changes to find themselves new competitive advantages. Here's hoping smaller firms like yours (and mine) keep nipping away at those monstrous firms =D. FWIW, I have not had positive experiences when dealing with them...

[rayiner]

The article is about non-lawyer ownership of law firms. Loosening the rules on conflicts and non-lawyer ownership of law firms would enable what happened in the accounting industry: consolidation of the industry into a handful of mega-firms. I don't see how that would be conducive to innovation. Exactly the opposite is true. A legal "Big Four" would be far more able to resist technological changes than the hundreds of firms competing with each other today.

I'm trying to think of a concrete example of protectionism keeping out new technology, and frankly I'm at a loss. I don't think it squares with the economics. Clients these days come with a budget in mind. If a law firm can do the work with say half as many billable hours by using technology, they can bid to do the work for a fixed fee 25% below the market rate, and then pocket the difference. It'd be a no brainer, if that technology existed. Instead, more often you see firms agreeing to a budget cap and just eating hours billed over the cap.