I’d love to see a legal system that is comprehensible enough for a layman so pro se is the go-to option and the lawyers are for the real tricky cases, or people who can’t or don’t want to even think about it.
Not happening, of course. Modern legal systems have incentives to build barriers.
(For what it’s worth, I’ve never needed a lawyer and I’ve dealt with immigration in two countries and some basic legal stuff. Wasn’t a rocket science - the worst of it were all the unwritten rules. But of course, that was quite simple and straightforward stuff - surely, there are legal issues that are much more complex.)
Alas, you wouldn't like a legal system which a layman could understand, any more than you'd like a computer which a layman could understand.
We are doing things, as a society and as a species, which take far longer than one individual lifetime to learn, so we divide up the work and specialize.
There's an important key difference - no one is forcing anyone to understand how computers work in detail, and the situation where one needs this specialized knowledge is quite uncommon. Thus, this can be left to the specialists.
I do believe, though, that everyone should probably know how the computers work at the extremely high level, though. Because virtually everyone deals with computers those days, so this knowledge is nearly essential. And if someone wants to learn more for whatever reason - they should be more than welcome to do so, without any artificial barriers. No one should ever say "computers are really hard, only licensed engineers should be allowed to... (idk what)"
In the same way of logic, consider that everyone is a part of a legal and political systems, whenever they want it or not. Which is why I'd like to make those as accessible as reasonably possible, with the basics well comprehensible so you don't normally need a lawyer.
I think a better comparison could be with electricians, plumbers or builders. And with those, no one should need a specialist to do basic stuff (like replacing a light bulb or installing a bidet), and no one should be actively discouraged from learning more advanced things.
I'm saying this as someone who re-wired a fire hazard of an old house (with copper-aluminium twists from '40s, no grounding, and so on) up to a proper code (checked with a real electrician, of course), installed a water heater after old one had failed, replaced a car radio, etc. - just because I had time and desire to learn and do it myself (also saved some money). At the same time, I've happily went to a mechanic when there was something with the starter and I'm about to call a contractor for a simple leaky faucet, just because I don't have time for this.
Computers or anything else - I'm all for all the modern man-designed systems to be understandable and/or serviceable. So anyone with a working brain can do things themselves if they want it and have time for it, and no one is forced to hire anyone unless they prefer it that way (which is totally fine - like you've said, we divide work and specialize, optimizing our resources). Save the obvious exceptions where the risk of harming others is too high - e.g. the building codes are there for a good reason.
And I'd say some legal systems look way too unnecessarily complicated (or poorly designed) to me. And popular culture is complicit in re-enforcing this isn't helping - it's reinforcing the current status quo. Which seems to contradict the whole idea of resource optimization.
// no one is forcing anyone to understand how computers work //
There is something very right about this, or the implication of this: Everybody, no matter how dumb or smart, rich or poor, educated or illiterate, is expected to comply with EVERY law, all day, everyday, 24/7, every minute of their lives. Whether they know about those laws or not.
So yeah, having a broadly understandable and accessible legal system is a necessity.
Nevertheless, at the rate we are inventing new algorithms (like LLMs), new financial techniques (like derivatives) and are going into new realms (like space), there are exponentially more opportunities for people to collaborate with each other--or, unfortunately--harm each other. So we need ever more laws. A few, simple laws just cannot give us all the protections we want, or create enough of a space for cooperation. There is an element of irreducible complexity.
I think there are many people who held no opinions about lawyers UNTIL they needed one :)
I personally have had only positive experiences, but I've heard the horror stories. Beyond just the expected divorce stuff. Of course what matters are the circumstances.
Not happening, of course. Modern legal systems have incentives to build barriers.
(For what it’s worth, I’ve never needed a lawyer and I’ve dealt with immigration in two countries and some basic legal stuff. Wasn’t a rocket science - the worst of it were all the unwritten rules. But of course, that was quite simple and straightforward stuff - surely, there are legal issues that are much more complex.)