<...>
>I just think people are duped into that; there's way more room for discussion, negotiation, and resolution without resorting to lawyers than many people are frightened (largely by lawyers) into believing. Mostly people don't know what is acceptible behavior; a kitchen contractor should be helping their customer to understand what will happen, when it will happen, and what can be done if it doesn't. Because that's what they do all day long. Instead, what many do, if they have a written agreement at all, is disclaim everything. <..sn ip>
>It would be useful to have agreements that are easy to read, understand, and utilize; most lawyers would never be caught dead writing such a document or making it available. Fortunately there are a few out there who do care about this kind of thing; self-help law is gaining a lot of ground in the US and is characterized by, IMHO, more fair and honest agreements with paths to dispute resolution rather than litigation.
Here are some problems:
1) We are currently in a capitalist society. Yes there are legitamate misunderstandings. But there are a large number of cases where contactors try to screw their customers. There are also a fair number of cases where customers try to scew the contractors. Unless customer and contractor know each other very well indeed, you need to take precautions against this - and a written contract is one of the few precautions you can take that protects both sides.
2) In terms of writing contacts that are easy to read. Remember the contact only becomes important after things break down the contractor does not deliver as promised, the customer does not pay as promised or there is a misunderstanding.
That means a conttact has to be written in such a way that someone reading it IN BAD FAITH will have difficutly interperting it to mean something other than what as intended. To completely eliminate the possiblity of bad faith reading is impossible, but if you make it difficult enough you lower the odds of bad faith readings being accepted by third parties (such as judges).
Now try and write a clear simple explanation of anything, while taking precautions against in bad-faith mis-readings. It can sometimes be done, but not always. And even when it can be done it requires more effort that a difficult to read contract -- which means more of an expensive lawyers time, which means more cost to the client.
3) OK this misses your larger point of lawyers in socialism. I'll simply say that you cannot, in advance, know that humans will suddently turn into angels, that no one will try to interpert agreements or rules in an unfair way that benefits themeselves. Socialist legality will have to be based on the premise that humans are not angels. If it turns out they are, then fine, the law will wither away unused. I'd bet against that, except I suspect that the day socialism comes to the U.S. neither of us will be alive to settle the bet.