Once you're a lawyer checks like malpractice insurance are great for everyone.
But just as I wouldn't trust a plumber or electrician to work on my house without being licensed to perform those tasks (despite acknowledging that this licensing process is not perfect), I wouldn't trust a lawyer to represent me whose only independently-assessed qualification was that someone thought they were an ethical person.
> free market and who customers choose to rank the merits of their lawyers is their own prerogative.
We can't even get reliable, non-gamed restaurant recommendations, for crying out loud. What makes you think consumers will be able to make an informed decision about lawyers in the absence of any sort of licensing body?
Why should someone be prohibited from hiring such an person as their attorney though? The implication of what you say is that people shouldnt want them as an attorney but the question is if they should be disallowed.
Being presumed to be unskilled just doesnt seem like a good reason especially since you grant they are fit.
Consumers already make gamed personal injury recommendations on who has the most audacious commercials, I don't think anything here re: gatekeeping will change that.
If you serve cockroaches in your food or give fraudulent advice, you should be blasted on the local news (and sued).
