Would it cut the need for the local experts? No. Would it reduce their numbers? Maybe, it could also diversify them. Would it lower the cost for the service? I also think so.
> The difference here is that there are professional associations with both the ability to discipline people who don't follow the rules, and a deep interest in doing so.
If I understand correctly, then indeed yes, it would be hard to disrupt this space. But I have a feeling someone smarter than me, perhaps even yourself, will find a way to go around it. At one point taxi medallions seemed unmovable.
Taxi disruption worked to various degrees depending on how much the local certification meant - in most locales it was just "Can drive cars" - in areas where there is a geographic knowledge test the ride-share disrupters have fared less well. I think it's essentially the same for lawyers - their certification is extremely non-trivial, a lot of laywers only ever get certified in a single state due to how much of an investment it is and how little value you get out of it.
I could see a proposition coming from the opposite side - trying to unify portions of the law so that the regional specialty becomes irrelevant - but you'd need to fight against a lot of unfriendly folks and sovereignty concerns to do anything on that front.
Instead, the market players we can see in the legal space today focus elsewhere - legal matters that are predictable enough that you can essentially mass-produce responses for needs. For common contract law this seems like a great fit - but as soon as anything gets complicated you need to pull a warm body into the mix.
So your target for disruption is law firms and your strategy is to do something illegal to build a huge business that destroys them?!?
You also have to take the CPA exam to become a CPA, but that looks like you can transfer your accreditation to another state.