This Note explores the purported justifications for regulating the practice of law and finds that morally neutral regulations—regulations that neither comport nor are dissonant with accepted moral norms—are justified if, but only if, they correct for an imbalance in power between the attorney and his client.  This, however, presents a paradox, for if we portray the client as a general idiot qua “man on the street” and the lawyer as the intelligent but opportunistic shark, then on what basis do we justify allowing the deficient to sit on juries, elect judges, empanel ethics review boards, and vote in constitutional referenda? This Note argues that an application of the Aggregate Idiot Phenomenon—the notion that individuals generally decide things wrongly but when aggregated in groups reach inspired decisions—can mediate the professional paradox.