Youa re arrogant, and foolsih, because you think that any literate person can do law, but it's not so. This has nothing to dow ith arcnae rituals or Latinm either of which have any relevance to US law, and I dount to the law of Australis. It's rather because legal analysis is quite difficult. It's not like mowing your own vs hiring someone to do it. it's more like building your own bridge or airplane vs using one designeda nd built by professionals.
There are one course simple legal activities that do not require an attorney's skills: most contracts are like this, simple license applications, drawing up form for your average business(I'd guess -- though I am not a transactional lawyer). An uncontested divorce with no property or kids involved. A property tax appeal. For many of thesea ctivities you don't need a lawyer, and I'd agree for many of the other you shouldn't have to have one. For litigation, it's a different story.
Individuals can represent themselves in court in almost any sort of litigation in the US. Here too corporations cannot. That is a very old rule, goes back at least 200 years. One might debate its merits, but it's not going away. I have rarely, however, seen a case where an individual acting pro se did anywhere near as well as even a bad lawyer, of which there are many.
jks
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com