Heh, clearly not the best description, gotta stop HNing at 4am. ;)

His main point was that legal costs are out of control. One of the mentioned factors was that in the U.S., law school is 3 years, unlike most international law schools which are 2, and how it's sad that most law school graduates are unable to afford their own services. He discusses how the attorneys' self-imposed ethical rules contribute to the expense and prevent things that would improve the accessibility of legal services.

I'll post a transcript of his answer when I get back to my workstation. On phone now.

EDIT:

Video link from the hearing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWRzx3gZK7M&start=14409

Here's the transcript of his entire response to the question posed by Senator Cornyn according to C-SPAN's closed captioning (which is the only place I could find it recorded; lines and capitalization quickly corrected, please excuse any errors):

    > I really appreciate this opportunity to be talking about
    > these things.  Because I -- these I care about and can talk
    > about as a judge. I wrote that article in conjunction with
    > some input from a lot of wonderful people, so I can't take
    > total credit for it. And I thanked them. My point there was
    > three fold.  Starting with the fact that too few people can
    > get to court with legitimate grievances today.  That's a
    > fact. Too few people can get lawyers to help them with their
    > problem. I teach young folks law, who leave law school
    > unable to afford their own services.  Think about that.
    > think about that. And hundreds of thousands of dollars in
    > debt.  How do they go be "Main Street" lawyers?  How do they
    > help people who need legal services?  And I pointed to three
    > potential sources of problems where we lawyers maybe should
    > look internally rather than blame others for the problem.
    > there is plenty of blame to go around.  I'm not a big blame
    > guy. I am a look inside guy. What do I see in my profession.
    > three thing I pointed to, first, our own ethical rules. It
    > is a very unusual profession where we're allowed to regulate
    > ourselves.  It is quite an extraordinary privilegefvilege
    > privilege, usually the legislature.  Lawyers regulate
    > themselves.  And do all of our rules help clients or do some
    > of them help us more than they help our clients?  And i
    > point to some that for instance in regarding the
    > unauthorized practice of law, why is it you have to be a
    > lawyer to help parents with disabled children and
    > administrative proceedings to seek relief under idea? Was it
    > an example I pointed to. Why is it that every time certain
    > companies that provide online legal services for basic
    > things get sued every time they move into a new state?  Why
    > is it I can go to walmart and get my hair, teeth, eyes,
    > taken care of, but I can't get a landlord tenant contract
    > drawn up.  Those are all results of our ethical rules. I'm
    > not sure whether they're worth the price that we pay for
    > them. It is estimated I heard I can't verify it that our
    > ethical rules result in $10 billion a year surplus to
    > lawyers and clients every year. That was one.  Number two
    > was our own rules and procedure which yield cases like the
    > one we talked about, took 25 years to resolve.  That's
    > wrong.  That's wrong.  Should be able to resolve cases in
    > less time than it takes from my law clerks to be born,
    > raised and get through law school.  And the third thing i
    > pointed to was our legal educational system.  Where we have
    > three years of post graduate education for everybody who
    > wants to -- who have anything to do with lawyering.  The
    > best lawyer in the country in this history came from your
    > state, senator durbin, he didn't ever go to law school.  And
    > he always said the best way to become a lawyer, read the
    > books.  Still true. And other countries around the world
    > don't have three years of post graduate legal education.
    > this is where justice scalia and I -- a disagreement, he
    > thought three years was necessary for everybody.  I'm not
    > convinced.  In england where I studied, you could become a
    > lawyer through three years of an undergraduate degree or one
    > year as a post graduate degree followed by a lot of on the
    > job practical training.  I wonder whether all that debt is
    > worth it.  Whether it induces people to pick jobs they have
    > to pick to pay their debt ranger than serve the people they
    > like to serve.  Those are the problems I talk about in that
    > article.