Amidst some nice buzz-wording, the article notes this:
Underserved markets will save the day: Legal experts estimate that 85 percent of people in the U.S. involved in civil cases are without legal representation. New models for the delivery of services at reasonable rates will change that dynamic. "This is the law. This is what lawyers do ... So that people who need legal representation can have it, and people who have legal training can do meaningful work."Such dulcet and harmonious breath you utter!
Let's assume - arguendo! - that shoddy statisticians like Matt Leichter are correct and that there is currently an oversupply of attorneys. Shit, let's assume a 2-1 oversupply.
If, currently, only 15% of the population is hiring attorneys in situations that warrant the hiring of an attorney, an increase to 30% would gainfully employ every attorney and virtually guarantee a shortfall. An increase to 60% (which will happen when legal services are more reasonable in price) and suddenly we would be underlawyered by a factor of 2! And that's assuming - arguendo! - that there currently IS an oversupply, which is about as real as saying global warming exists.
A 1-to-2 undersupply of attorneys would mean that greedy lawyers [a redundancy] could charge more, which would make their services again non-cost-effective for the poor and middle class.
So, in summation, the poor and middle class are going to start purchasing legal services in the future at a higher percentage because of "new models" [models and bottles, indeed!] that will be "dynamic" in bringing about "reasonable rates." We should err on the side of oversupplying to meet this potentially massive demand. QED.
It's economics, folks.