Unlimited client advocacy and broad access to the law are mutually exclusive

Evidence

But if all clients’ legal needs were fully pursued there would be no time for additional clients. The dilemma is exquisite. To limit lawyers’ advocacy is to deny poor people equal access to the law. To permit unbounded advocacy is to limit the number of poor people who can have such access. — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy, 727

Categorization

• XREF: Parallels the diamond bourse finding that full information about every trader is costly and unnecessary for efficient trade — full-diligence ideals collapse under scale. — connects to: Clients who learn their rights can force agencies to expand services. — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of…, 1037; Bar restrictions on unauthorized practice serve lawyers’ interests more than the public’s — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 738; Court advocacy assumes roughly matched adversaries to reach justice — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 262
• SEED: Article angle: ‘The Triage Trap’ — why every equity-oriented public service eventually converts equal access into rationed case selection.

Broader Connections

• Court advocacy assumes roughly matched adversaries to reach justice #corroborates (0.85) — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 262
• Bar restrictions on unauthorized practice serve lawyers’ interests more than the public’s #expands (0.80) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 738
• Clients who learn their rights can force agencies to expand services. #qualifies (0.75) — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy, 1037