[ksdale]

I completely agree.

To your second paragraph, I would add that it's hard for customers (and lawyers) to figure out what is "good-enough" in the legal setting. I'm a lawyer and there's a lot of stuff you can find on the internet that I personally think is good enough (I would use it in my personal affairs because the risk of the missing edge cases being an actual problem is slim) but I wouldn't be comfortable recommending it as a solution to a client because those missing edge cases are a real malpractice risk.

In the case of a logo, good enough is whatever the client thinks is good enough. In the case of a lot of legal solutions, good enough is often a murky risk/reward calculation based on legal concepts the client may not understand completely.

I still think there's enormous room for improvement, both in helping clients understand the concepts and the risks they're taking, and also in providing better automated solutions.

[petra]

Is there a place for a law consulting company that just consults you on how to save money or how to find what's "good enoudg" ?

[ksdale]

I think it could be done, especially if you could gather enough information to show people the likelihood of certain problems happening given their circumstances. The biggest problem is that without software to do the heavy lifting, you're spending so much time talking to the client that you might as well be their lawyer. And then even if you save them money, their "real" attorney might argue against your advice or retrace all your steps at an hourly rate.

I'm sure that there are lots of legal consulting companies that do this for people and entities that consume lots of legal services but the real trick is providing it profitably to "unsophisticated" people doing a one time thing.