Monopoly Reforms Yield New Monopoly
The State of Connecticut decided to "reform" its 300-year-old monopoly probate court system. The current system was heavily criticized for losing money and providing poor services. Rather then abolish the monopoly, however, and allow the market to provide probate services, Connecticut has simply re-arranged the deck chairs. The number of probate courts will be cut in half and financing will be centralized through the state treasurer.
The most interesting of these "reforms," however, regards the selection of probate judges themselves. As before, they will continue to be elected, but unlike before, now the judges must be members of the state's attorney monopoly. Currently, probate judges need not be lawyers. This horrified many probate reformers like Hartford Courant columnist Rick Green:
The whole idea of non-lawyer judges seems odd, like a practicing doctor without an M.D. But this is Connecticut, whereanyone with enough lawn signs or political connections can be elected judge and probate-sanctioned kidnappings remain frighteningly common.
[ . . . ]
Unfortunately for all of us, state law allows anyone to run for the office of probate judge. Twenty-six judges aren't lawyers. Many judges who are lawyers juggle private law practices with their public jobs, creating disturbing conflicts of interest.
Green feels that attorneys bring "professionalism" to probate judging that mere non-lawyers cannot replicate. But the problem here isn't that judges aren't lawyers -- or even that they're elected or have conflicts of interest -- but that they provide a service where competition is legally barred. Open up probate services -- and all legal services, for that matter -- to the marketplace and you'll see genuine reform. Shifting the monopoly from one privileged group to another won't accomplish anything, except to entrench a new group of rent-seekers who will oppose "reform" when the new system fails to deliver as promised.
