Read the Wall Street Journal article "Eliminate the Bar Exam for Lawyers". The article blames the bar exam on the ABA and blames the ABA for the high cost of legal services. First of all, the States license professionals like lawywers not the ABA which is a voluntary organization. Secondly, allowing folks to attend law school in one year for a bachelors of law degree as advocated by the author will increase the supply of lawyers to the point where no one will make any money. We already have paralegals and document preparation services chipping away at the business. We already have too many lawyers who are licensed and too many law schools pumping out graduates. The private practice of law is becoming less and less lucrative and more difficult to make a living. The whole premise of this article is faulty. The ABA has been involved with setting standards for legal education and accreditation but even this is done also by the respective state where the law school is located.
Guest
Anonymous
March 18, 2021 5:44 pm
Agree with 10:18's comments. I do think the bar exam is a waste of time. All it did was cost a lot of money and time to prepare for. I think a more effective way to prepare new lawyers would be apprenticeship programs. It'd definitely be more cumbersome, but at least we'd learn something before being turned loose on the world.
The bar exam serves a useful purpose. If you advocate for no bar exam admission, you would also opt in for no medical board examinations, no cpa examinations, etc.
Law schools appear to be dumbing down the curriculum and flunking out fewer students (no offense Boyd). The profession needs and requires standards.
Devilling. Studying under another lawyer in lieu of law school requirements?
California allows that; and BTW, how is that working out for a certain Kardashian?
Statistics show that individuals who study law under an attorney, rather than attending law school, do not do very well on the California Bar Exam.
Guest
Anonymous
March 18, 2021 8:46 pm
I loved studying for and taking the bar exam. I felt as if I was being baptized into something larger and greater than myself. That was one of my best summers ever — and I've had some great summers in my life.
Three years of keggers and tomfoolery provided good preparation for "thinking like a lawyer;" but it was the intense preparation and then three days of grueling examinations that prepared me to be the reasonably competent attorney I am today.
That said, there's no reason we can't have private certification companies instead of our bumbling and highly politicized State Bar. Just realize that the purpose of a cartel is to keep prices artificially high. We get rid of barriers to entry and, on average, prices (our income) will drop.
Guest
Anonymous
March 18, 2021 9:08 pm
2 years of law school and 2 years of a formal apprenticeship, followed by a bar exam. 1L year stays pretty much the same. 2L year is 1/3 writing, 1/3 black letter law and 1/3 skills. Everything but the black letter law is taught by practicing adjuncts. An apprentice would have a provisional license with limited authority.
The academics in the legal academy would hate this, but that's ok. Most of them have never practiced law in any meaningful way. We need instructors with more real world experience than the current system offers.
Guest
Anonymous
March 18, 2021 9:13 pm
Why do we need a bar exam. We just appointed a bunch of federal judges and a Supreme Court justice that has never been in trial.
Other than Sotomayor and Gorsuch, I don't think any of the justices have been to trial. Kagan once said that the first time she ever appeared in court was when she was arguing to the Supreme Court as solicitor general. But why does that matter? The Supreme Court isn't a trial. The tip-top appellate practices and tip-top law school faculties (i.e., where Supreme Court candidates come from) don't need or value trial experience.
You mean like Kris Pickering, who's a pretty fair jurist I would say. Oh, sorry, forgot — Bulla was just Discovery Commissioner for more than 12 years, doing pretty much the same kind of things appellate judges do. 3:12 — where did you get your law degree from, a Cracker Jacks box?
You are putting Bonnie Bulla in the same class as Kris Pickering? What? Where did you get your law degree, ASU? You need better self-esteem about the shit opinions you put out. You are no Kris Pickering.
Kristine Pickering went after Esther Rodriguez for not being a judge before running for Nevada Supreme Court, but the same criticism does not apply to Bonnie Bulla? Are Bonnie Bulla an Kris Pickering new besties?
Be consistent, be logical.
Pickering did not nor would she have criticized Rodriguez for not being a judge prior to running for Supreme Court because Pickering herself was not a judge prior to running for Supreme Court.
She did. Ask Dave Thomas. She made comments that the state of the legal community should not be compromised by a non-judge in the tole of the Nevada Supreme Court.
10:32 and 1:32 — Wrongo bongo! (PS — 10:32: Bulla didn't criticize her opponent for not being a judge when she ran and won her election? Hell, her opponent didn't even show up. 1:32: What is a "tole"?)
Read the Wall Street Journal article "Eliminate the Bar Exam for Lawyers". The article blames the bar exam on the ABA and blames the ABA for the high cost of legal services. First of all, the States license professionals like lawywers not the ABA which is a voluntary organization. Secondly, allowing folks to attend law school in one year for a bachelors of law degree as advocated by the author will increase the supply of lawyers to the point where no one will make any money. We already have paralegals and document preparation services chipping away at the business. We already have too many lawyers who are licensed and too many law schools pumping out graduates. The private practice of law is becoming less and less lucrative and more difficult to make a living. The whole premise of this article is faulty. The ABA has been involved with setting standards for legal education and accreditation but even this is done also by the respective state where the law school is located.
Agree with 10:18's comments. I do think the bar exam is a waste of time. All it did was cost a lot of money and time to prepare for. I think a more effective way to prepare new lawyers would be apprenticeship programs. It'd definitely be more cumbersome, but at least we'd learn something before being turned loose on the world.
The bar exam serves a useful purpose. If you advocate for no bar exam admission, you would also opt in for no medical board examinations, no cpa examinations, etc.
Law schools appear to be dumbing down the curriculum and flunking out fewer students (no offense Boyd). The profession needs and requires standards.
The U.S. could switch to a devilling system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devilling
Devilling. Studying under another lawyer in lieu of law school requirements?
California allows that; and BTW, how is that working out for a certain Kardashian?
Statistics show that individuals who study law under an attorney, rather than attending law school, do not do very well on the California Bar Exam.
I loved studying for and taking the bar exam. I felt as if I was being baptized into something larger and greater than myself. That was one of my best summers ever — and I've had some great summers in my life.
Three years of keggers and tomfoolery provided good preparation for "thinking like a lawyer;" but it was the intense preparation and then three days of grueling examinations that prepared me to be the reasonably competent attorney I am today.
That said, there's no reason we can't have private certification companies instead of our bumbling and highly politicized State Bar. Just realize that the purpose of a cartel is to keep prices artificially high. We get rid of barriers to entry and, on average, prices (our income) will drop.
2 years of law school and 2 years of a formal apprenticeship, followed by a bar exam. 1L year stays pretty much the same. 2L year is 1/3 writing, 1/3 black letter law and 1/3 skills. Everything but the black letter law is taught by practicing adjuncts. An apprentice would have a provisional license with limited authority.
The academics in the legal academy would hate this, but that's ok. Most of them have never practiced law in any meaningful way. We need instructors with more real world experience than the current system offers.
Why do we need a bar exam. We just appointed a bunch of federal judges and a Supreme Court justice that has never been in trial.
Other than Sotomayor and Gorsuch, I don't think any of the justices have been to trial. Kagan once said that the first time she ever appeared in court was when she was arguing to the Supreme Court as solicitor general. But why does that matter? The Supreme Court isn't a trial. The tip-top appellate practices and tip-top law school faculties (i.e., where Supreme Court candidates come from) don't need or value trial experience.
And they are useless wanna-be politicians. Except for Justice Thomas and maybe Alito, they are complete wastes of space. Constitution my ass.
How can a federal trial judge be appointed if they have never done a trial? I get a Supreme Court Justice, but not a trial judge.
Who needs a bar exam when we have Bonnie Bulla on the Nevada Court of Appeals? She was never a judge before she was appointed.
You mean like Kris Pickering, who's a pretty fair jurist I would say. Oh, sorry, forgot — Bulla was just Discovery Commissioner for more than 12 years, doing pretty much the same kind of things appellate judges do. 3:12 — where did you get your law degree from, a Cracker Jacks box?
You are putting Bonnie Bulla in the same class as Kris Pickering? What? Where did you get your law degree, ASU? You need better self-esteem about the shit opinions you put out. You are no Kris Pickering.
Kristine Pickering went after Esther Rodriguez for not being a judge before running for Nevada Supreme Court, but the same criticism does not apply to Bonnie Bulla? Are Bonnie Bulla an Kris Pickering new besties?
Be consistent, be logical.
Pickering did not nor would she have criticized Rodriguez for not being a judge prior to running for Supreme Court because Pickering herself was not a judge prior to running for Supreme Court.
She did. Ask Dave Thomas. She made comments that the state of the legal community should not be compromised by a non-judge in the tole of the Nevada Supreme Court.
10:32 and 1:32 — Wrongo bongo! (PS — 10:32: Bulla didn't criticize her opponent for not being a judge when she ran and won her election? Hell, her opponent didn't even show up. 1:32: What is a "tole"?)