Sending anything to WikiLeaks, which provides information to anyone, is a pretty clear cut case of: * That he knowingly gave intelligence (indirectly) to the enemy. * That he was aware that his action would cause the intel to be published. * That he was aware that the enemy would have access to it.
They don't have to show any of this. As part of his security clearance he will have signed multiple NDAs that spell out exactly what he can and can't do with the information. To get a conviction all they have to show is that he released information in violation of the NDAs, which souldn't be that hard. Some of the charges might require more, but he will be convicted of at least that without much doubt.
...You go to a lawyer when you want to buy a house, and 3 years later find out the previous owners lied and the foundation was rotten. You go to a lawyer when you want to start a company and want to make sure that one person doesn't go off and bring it all down by their own mistakes. You go to a lawyer when the system has run you over and you don't know how to stand up for yourself...
Everything you listed are things people really need lawyers for. Does the young couple with no children and no assets in an uncontested divorce need lawyers? No, they need a form and a service that files that form with the court. Does someone who just wants to leave everything he has to his son need a lawyer? No, a will form in a standard format for his state is all he needs. The majority of health problems are things like a twisted ankle or the sniffles. You don't need a doctor to tell you to take it easy for a couple of days and take some asprin. Most regular people don't have anything complicated that a para-legal or some pre-formatted forms couldn't handle for them.
...Your mistakes are their mistakes. If you screw up, they may lose money, they may lose custody of their children, control of their business, their freedom, their life. Although your mistakes are your client's mistakes as well, if you screw up, they can come after you...legal advice is cheaper, but also that legal advice is of a poorer quality and less useful. It also means that unqualified people will be dispensing legal advice with real, detrimental, consequences to the lives of people that cannot afford quality legal advice....
And how does that malpractice against a lawyer work exactly? How rich does someone have to be to absorb your fees, the lost lawsuit, then float the losses and second lawyers costs for years through appeals? Why can't the cheaper "lower quality" provider be sued for incompetence just the same as you?
The implication of your argument is that those that can't afford quality legal advice should have no legal advice. WebMD and/or Google is good for the vast majority of cases. LegalZoom type services are also good for the vast majority of everyday cases. You need to see a doctor/lawyer if you have something that is complicated or uncommon. For those that can't afford the doctor/lawyer, how does removing the legalzoom/WebMD/Google options make them better off?
One person's error is another person's data.