Lawyers in the US and the UK justify their self-regulatory powers as serving the public interest, a claim that prominent sociologists in both countries long credulously accepted. But there are ample reasons for skepticism. Western societies are founded on the belief that individuals are self-interested. Free markets allow them to maximise utility. Free alienability of property ensures it will be put to its best and highest use. The laws of copyright, patent and trade mark protect intellectual property in order to encourage creativity. Meritocratic educational systems motivate students to acquire knowledge and skills. We seek to align the interests of lawyers and clients, for instance, through contingent or conditional fees; because this is not always possible, however, ethical rules require lawyers to avoid conflicts of interest. Liberal democracies allow citizens to shape governmental action through interest group pluralism. The legal system promotes justice by encouraging the adversarial clash of zealous advocates. Laws respect individual autonomy through doctrines of informed consent, the right to die, and privacy. Competition is the driving force behind artistic expression and athletic contests. And our understanding of international relations is dominated by the realist view that every nation does and should pursue its self-interest. Given all this, why expect the legal profession to be different? History documents the self-interest of lawyer self-regulation. The primary challenge for any occupation seeking to become a profession is to control supply. The first task is to restrict the production of producers. Civil law professions, like the notary, achieved the ultimate protection: a numerus clausus (in which positions often were handed down from father to son). Common lawyers had to use other devices. As Weber noted, examinations became the dominant entry barrier in the twentieth century. These have an unproven – and arguably dubious – relationship to the knowledge lawyers actually utilise in their daily practice (in the language of psychologists: they have never been validated). Let me offer some exotic

中文翻译：

---

律师自律与公共利益：反思

美国和英国的律师将他们的自律权力辩护为服务于公共利益，这两个国家的著名社会学家长期以来都轻信地接受了这一说法。但有充分的理由怀疑。西方社会建立在个人是自利的信念之上。自由市场允许他们最大化效用。财产的自由可转让性确保将其发挥到最佳和最高的用途。版权、专利和商标法保护知识产权以鼓励创造力。精英教育系统激励学生获得知识和技能。我们寻求使律师和客户的利益保持一致，例如，通过或有或按条件收费；然而，由于这并不总是可能的，道德规则要求律师避免利益冲突。自由民主允许公民通过利益集团多元化来塑造政府行动。法律制度通过鼓励热心拥护者的对抗性冲突来促进正义。法律通过知情同意、死亡权和隐私等原则尊重个人自主权。竞争是艺术表现和体育竞赛背后的驱动力。我们对国际关系的理解受现实主义观点的支配，即每个国家都在追求自身利益。鉴于这一切，为什么期望法律职业有所不同？历史记录了律师自律的自身利益。任何寻求成为职业的职业面临的主要挑战是控制供应。第一个任务是限制生产者的生产。民法专业，如公证员，实现了终极保护：a numerus clausus（职位通常由父亲传给儿子）。普通律师不得不使用其他设备。正如韦伯所指出的，考试成为 20 世纪的主要入学障碍。这些与律师在日常实践中实际使用的知识（用心理学家的话说：它们从未得到验证）之间存在未经证实的——而且可以说是可疑的——关系。让我提供一些异国情调 它们从未被验证过）。让我提供一些异国情调 它们从未被验证过）。让我提供一些异国情调