All around the world, lawyers generate more hostility than the members of any other profession—with the possible exception of journalism. But there are few places where clients have more grounds for complaint than America.

During the decade before the economic crisis, spending on legal services in America grew twice as fast as inflation. The best lawyers made skyscrapers-full of money, tempting ever more students to pile into law schools. But most law graduates never get a big-firm job. Many of them instead become the kind of nuisance-lawsuit filer that makes the tort system a costly nightmare.

     There are many reasons for this. One is the excessive costs of a legal education. There is just one path for a lawyer in most American states: a four-year undergraduate degree in some unrelated subject, then a three-year law degree at one of 200 law schools authorized by the American Bar Association and an expensive preparation for the bar exam. This leaves today’s average law-school graduate with $100,000 of debt on top of undergraduate debts. Law-school debt means that they have to work fearsomely hard.

     Reforming the system would help both lawyers and their customers. Sensible ideas have been around for a long time, but the state-level bodies that govern the profession have been too conservative to implement them. One idea is to allow people to study law as an undergraduate degree. Another is to let students sit for the bar after only two years of law school. If the bar exam is truly a stern enough test for a would-be lawyer, those who can sit it earlier should be allowed to do so. Students who do not need the extra training could cut their debt mountain by a third.

    The other reason why costs are so high is the restrictive guild-like ownership structure of the business. Except in the District of Columbia, non-lawyers may not own any share of a law firm. This keeps fees high and innovation slow. There is pressure for change from within the profession, but opponents of change among the regulators insist that keeping outsiders out of a law firm isolates lawyers from the pressure to make money rather than serve clients ethically.

     In fact, allowing non-lawyers to own shares in law firms would reduce costs and improve services to customers, by encouraging law firms to use technology and to employ professional managers to focus on improving firms’ efficiency. After all, other countries, such as Australia and Britain, have started liberalizing their legal professions. America should follow.

答案精析：根据题干中的guild-like ownership structure和“restrictive”可定位至原文第五段第一句。该句提到诉讼费用高昂的另一个原因是法律行业限制性的行会式的所有权结构。之后对这一体制解释道，除了哥伦比亚地区以外，非律师不得持有律师事务所的任何股份。这使得费用居高不下，创新缓慢。故正确答案为A。

错项排除：原文说的是非律师不得持有律师事务所的任何股份，而不是律师，B项与原文内容相悖，故排除。原文中并没有提到过对律师行业道德状况的评论或批判，C项在原文中没有依据，故排除。第五段最后一句指出，这种体制减轻了律师赚钱的压力，并非阻碍，D项与原文内容相悖，故排除。

长难句分析：There is pressure for change from within the profession, but opponents of change among the regulators insist that keeping outsiders out of a law firm isolates lawyers from the pressure to make money rather than serve clients ethically.

本句由but连接的两个并列分句构成，but表示转折意义。第一个分句较为简单，there be句型，for change from within the profession作后置定语，修饰pressure。第二个分句的主干为opponents…insist…，opponents为主语，insist是谓语。insist后的that引导宾语从句，从句的主语为keeping outsiders out of a law firm，谓语为isolates，isolate sb. from sth.表示“让某人与……隔绝”，to make money rather than serve clients ethically为动词不定式结构作后置定语，修饰pressure。

句意为：律师行业内部存在变革的压力，但监管机构内部反对变革的人士坚持认为，防止法律行业外的人士进入律师事务所减轻了律师赚钱的压力，从而确保他们可以遵从优良的职业道德服务于客户。