All around the world,lawyers generate more hostility than the members of any other profession—with the possible exception of journalism.But there are few places where clients have more grounds for complaint than America.During the decade before the economic crisis,spending on legal services in America grew twice as fast as inflation.The best lawyers made skyscrapers-full of money,tempting ever more students to pile into law schools.But most law graduates never get a big-firm job.Many of them instead become the kind of nuisance-lawsuit filer that makes the tort system a costly nightmare.There are many reasons for this.One is the excessive costs of a legal education.There is just one path for a lawyer in most American states:a four-year undergraduate degree in some unrelated subject,then a three-year law degree at one of 200 law schools authorized by the American Bar Association and an expensive preparation for the bar exam.This leaves today’s average law-school graduate with$100,000 of debt on top of undergraduate debts.Law-school debt means that many cannot afford to go into government or non-profit work,and that they have to work fearsomely hard.Reforming the system would help both lawyers and their customers.Sensible ideas have been around for a long time,but the state-level bodies that govern the profession have been too conservative to implement them.One idea is to allow people to study law as an undergraduate degree.Another is to let students sit for the bar after only two years of law school.If the bar exam is truly a stern enough test for a would-be lawyer,those who can sit it earlier should be allowed to do so.Students who do not need the extra training could cut their debt mountain by a third.The other reason why costs are so high is the restrictive guild-like ownership structure of the business.Except in the District of Columbia,non-lawyers may not own any share of a law firm.This keeps fees high and innovation slow.There is pressure for change from within the profession,but opponents of change among the regulators insist that keeping outsiders out of a law firm isolates lawyers from the pressure to make money rather than serve clients ethically.In fact,allowing non-lawyers to own shares in law firms would reduce costs and improve services to customers,by encouraging law firms to use technology and to employ professional managers to focus on improving firms’efficiency.After all,other countries,such as Australia and Britain,have started liberalizing their legal professions.America should follow.
Hindrance to the reform of the legal system originates from
事实细节根据题干关键词“reform”进行回文定位到原文第四段“Reforming the system would help both lawyers and their customers.Sensible ideas have been around for a long time,but the state-level bodies that govern the profession have been too conservative to implement them.”即这一体系改革有益于律师和他们的客户。改革的合理建议很早之前就已形成，但是负责律师行业的州一级管理部门过于保守而并未实施。选项C“律师行业监管部门的僵化”明显为正确答案。选项A“非专业人士的尖锐批评”是原文未提及的信息；选项B“律师和客户们的强烈反对”，对应原文“Reforming the system would help both lawyers and their customers.”也就是说这一改革有益于律师和客户，选项表达的意思与原文正好相反；而选项D“对于准律师的严格考试”，对应原文“If the bar exam is truly a stern enough test for a would-be lawyer,those who can sit it earlier should be allowed to do so.”即如果律师资格考试对准律师而言是极为严格的，那就应该允许有能力提前参加考试的学生参加考试。很明显“严格的考试”并不是阻碍改革的原因，故排除。
