There is no matter a lawyer does not complicate

Nice to think of on the surface, but then who would you get to represent you if your rights were being violated? Two-edged sword.

I think about 75% of the reason we need to be represented has to do with the fact that lawyers have overcomplicated everything so that we need them. There was life before phones, and if you had to you could get along without one.

Lawyers are so adversarial and egotistical, I'm not really sure that they "represent" us.

...we could role civilization back to a time before we had courts, then we wouldn't need lawyers anymore. How's that sound?

:) That's regressive. How about we have true legal reform, so that it doesn't take a jd to understand a paragraph? Here's a crazy thought: what if, instead of speaking Latin, they had to say everything in /English/! What if we made lawyers obsolete? That's truly progressive.

You know why we have all those Latin phrases in law? Because the last person to try to simplify the legal code as a basis for laws in all countries to the degree you're talking about was the Byzantine Emperor Justinian. Hence why we call our current framework of Common Law the Justinian Code.

Obviously, it didn't eliminate the need for lawyers, but it was quite a revolution in making the legal profession more accessible to talented young people. Up until that point, a lawyer really had to have the level of expertise of the statesmen who made the law in the first place. That meant legal representation was really something only the very powerful could have; after the Justinian code, it still took a lot of training but you didn't need to BE a lawmaker to navigate the law.

The trouble with what you're saying, though, is that what you want is to simplify the legal code way further than as far as Justinian got, and you're talking about a lifetime of reform at the hands of people who have gone down as some of the best legal minds in history. You want to knock the Justinian reforms out of the water and make it look like babytown frolicks.

And prove me wrong! That'd be quite an amazing achievement and if you think you can do it, the world will pretty much be your oyster after that. But law is an inherently complicated thing when you've got pretty much every interaction between every human being raising ethical questions about what the law should and should not be. If you've ever been around children and gotten a taste of what happens when people defend themselves on grounds of a set of rules that literally nobody else has agreed to, you should be getting a feel for what a nightmare it is to get a group of adult people to play by the same set of rules.

Contrast that with all the trouble created by lawyers! Simple, effective, elegant solutions to local problems overidden by broad based statewide or national laws to get everyone "on the same page," while the same broad solutions repeatedly fail to meet the needs of those they are written to meet. Regulations and mandates written in "legal language" that contradicts English and makes it impossible for those who actually have to implement the law to understand the intent. All this talk about being progressive, and our law is based on a language that has been dead for over 1200 years.

That doesn't even begin to touch criminal law, which is an absolute morass further complicated by political power changing every 6-8 years. I'm not suggesting a single political party, just pointing out the consequences.

The divorce process is reported to be a keystone cop misadventure, billed to the client of course.

We can do much to reform the law without going to the extents that you insist. The law may be inherently complicated, but is further complicated by lawyers. And if you think they are so noble, set their maximum wage at ten dollars above minimum wage. Watch the charlatans flee.