“Having access to a lawyer” isn’t necessarily very helpful, anyway.
I envisioned to hire one once. But I needed one specialized in a specific area of law* (if the lawyer you have “access to” handle family law cases, you won’t hire him for a business contract case, will you?), so except if you have “access” to a couple dozens lawyers, I’m not sure how useful it is.
(*)Even more true since it turned out that there was no legal precedent for the issue, despite it appearing extremely basic to me. One who couldn’t help me with it told me it would be interesting to go up to the highest court with this case. Last year, I noticed in a paper that a similar case did indeed go up to the Supreme Court. The guy did won it. So, I missed my chance to have my name attached to a minor caselaw, apparently. Anyway, I eventually decided not to sue, and it was the wisest decision, I think, so no regret.
By the way, it caused one of those discussion between me and a lawyer that lawyers must hate. I kept insisting that the lawyer must had misunderstood something about the situation and that what he said couldn’t be right, repeating again and again my situation :
Me : “But see…It’s written in this statute that…”
Lawyer : “Yes, but this statute only applies if you’re in situation A, and you aren’t”
Me : “But yes, in fact, I’m in situation A. Watch this document”
Lawyer : “No, you aren’t”
Me: “blahblahblah… Yes, I am”
Lawyer :“No, you aren’t”
[…] Later :
Me : “then if I’am in situation B, it means that…”
Lawyer : “You aren’t in situation B, either”
Me : But…blahblahblah…
Lawyer : You already told me that. Doesn’t change a thing. You aren’t.
[…] Later :
Me : “But I have to be either in situation A or in situation B.”
Lawyer : “Yes, you should, but you aren’t in either. That’s precisely the problem with your case and what I said since the beginning”
To my defense, I would say that I was incredulous that my situation could not be covered by any existing regulation and it took me a while to intellectually accept the concept that it might not.