Written by Tom Gordon

In the 1990's, Canon aired a series of commercials for its Rebel line of cameras featuring Andre Agassi. The implication was that Agassi was a rebel since he had (at the time) long hair and occasionally wore a splash of color on traditionally white tennis apparel. After viewing these commercials, I coined the term "tennis rebel" to describe someone who is completely mainstream, but who is deemed a rebel for ever-so-slightly pushing the boundaries of a staid subculture.

Written by Tom Gordon

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) yesterday issued a ruling on whether lawyers are required to be present at real estate closings. In Real Estate Bar Association v. National Estate Information Services, the Court held that, although non-lawyer "conveyancing" companies that provide closing services are not practicing law, they nevertheless are prohibited from providing closing services, because those must be provided by a lawyer. Major media outlets have covered the ruling as the resolution of a turf battle between lawyers and non-lawyers in providing services. That's certainly one aspect of the case, but it also has important implications for legal consumers in Massachusetts, both in real estate transactions and in other legal matters.

A recent unpublished study by two Harvard researchers has arguably called into question the effectiveness of free legal aid and started a conversation as to whether such organizations help or hurt those they serve. It’s a conversation, however, that should be placed in a wider context. The vast majority of Americans are priced out of the legal system, not just the indigent. The question should not be about the effectiveness of legal aid societies – such organizations are struggling with limited resources to meet huge demand.  Instead, we should be asking how the legal profession has continually permitted the need for affordable legal services go unmet, not just for the poorest amongst us, but indeed for the majority of American consumers.