The rule against sharing legal fees with non-lawyers traces back to a 1729 English Act of Parliament, that forbade an attorney to allow any non-attorney to use the attorney's name for profit. Regulation (1749)

The nineteenth century French political and economic thinker Frederic Bastiat said " see if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime." Leef (1997) A lawyer himself cannot limit his own competition, so he relies upon the "law" to do so. We are on our way to economic inefficiency, with a regulation.

The UPL statutes restrict freedom of the individual to engage in voluntary transactions. Every state except Arizona has a UPL, "unauthorized practice of law" statute. Arizona's UPL Statute expired in 1986 and was not reenacted by the legislature. Competitive cost have entered the marketplace, and time will tell whether unlicensed legal practitioners are seen by the consumer as a good alternative. Non-lawyers appear in some state and federal administrative agencies, tax court and patent applications.

Prof. Richard Epstein of University of Chicago Law School, wrote in "Simple Rules for A Complex World" (1995) that consumers should not be deprived of choice, including paying more for a "BAR" certified lawyer, if they believe that the bar's disciplinary system is worth the extra cost.

However, they might choose to purchase their legal skills at a lower price dictated by the market, from possibly someone who has a lower investment in education.

Milton Freedman wrote in "Capitalism and Freedom" that being able to get full information will make decisions of the consumers as whether to pay more for licensure or hire someone without a license, a fully informed decision. The ABA has lobbied to make full information very difficult to get. Full information would include complaints made against a member of the bar, which is not public today. Full information would include advertising by lawyers, which is not universally endorsed.