Posted on 04/22/2015 10:40:40 AM PDT by reaganaut1
The correct answer is false. Instead of ensuring that all legal practitioners are competent, the bar exam (and its long prelude, law school) merely creates an artificial barrier that keeps many people from competing in the market for legal services.
That has two main consequences. First, some people who could earn a pretty good living as attorneys are prevented from doing so; they have to look for work in other fields. Second, some people (quite a large number in fact) are unable to afford legal help when they need it because few of those who do overcome the barrier to entry can accept cases that won’t pay them enough to cover their heavy costs.
But back to the competency question.
Whenever special interest groups seek to stifle competition so those in the group can earn more, they try to justify their restrictions as consumer protection measures. That is exactly what Erica Moeser, president of the National Conference of Bar Examiners told New York Times writer Elizabeth Olson for her March 19 article “Bar Exam, the Standard to Become a Lawyer, Comes Under Fire.” Moeser declared that the bar exam “is a basic test of fundamentals that has no justification other than protecting the consumer.”
Not so, responded law professor and former dean Kristin Booth Glen, who observed that the bar exam “only shores up the guild mentality that there should be a barrier to prevent the legal market from being flooded during times when fewer jobs are available.” She’s right. In truth, that was the original reason why the legal profession began pushing for high barriers to entry back in the 1920s. The rhetoric was about “raising standards” but the motive was to limit competition in the field.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
What dimwit wrote this article?
Well, to be fair, the exam is only good for the initial “you get a license because you know some s**t” requirement. And, not everything needs a always (real estate closings for example). But States do require continuing legal education course to maintain competence. And you can certainly be sanctioned by the bar for incompetence. But the implied “we can’t ensure that all lawyers are competent so let’s let anyone do it” is stupid beyond reason. Why not apply that to doctors or any other specialty?
I swear some people who write articles have WAY too much time on their hands.
I like the idea of testing a person’s smarts. My brother failed twice before he passed. My English teacher failed SEVEN times before he passed. That expert pilot kennedy failed a lot of times too before he passed.
As somebody who has taken the bar exam and used to practice law before I had kids, I think the BAR exam is necessary. It eliminates some people who really aren’t qualified, but have gone to schools where they were admitted and passed along as long as they paid their tuition. I worked with people who had taken the bar multiple times. They were truly not sharp enough or logical enough to think through complicated issues through very well. You wouldn’t want them to be the lead counsel on your case, although they might be able to assist, to some extent.
Also, I think it is good for people who are specializing in an area of law to know the main principles of the other areas, so they don’t make major mistakes, and so they know which issues really need to be farmed out to a different specialist.
It actually should be the other way around.
California, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming allow you to take the bar exam after studying/working under a judge or attorney. It’s referred to as “Reading the Law”.
People who take this route actually pass the bar exam at a higher rate than law school graduates.
Of course that used to be the way you became a lawyer but the ABA lobbied state legislatures about a century ago to change it.
The last Supreme Court justice that did this was James Byrnes appointed in 1941. He didn’t go to college either.
Also to pass the bar, or even to take to the Bar Exam for that matter, you must go through a thorough background check, and fill out an application, and you’d better not leave anything out, even a speeding ticket, or a late credit card payment.
This IS satire, right?
Right?!
The BAR exam should be required. Law school should not be required. Anyone capable of passing the text should be able to practice law regardless of how they obtained their education. Lawyers are expensive because the supply is controlled unnaturally.
What I would like to know is how the legal system is checked by civilian oversight. Who audits to see whether credentials are legit, let alone competency is sufficient?
Government isn't always the answer. Sometimes private enterprise is better.
Government sure doesn't keep people from getting crappy lawyers.
/johnny
The Bar is a Monopolized “guild” much like a Union Monopoly on a profession.
Under the anti-trust laws this would be illegal, but what lawyer is gonna stand against them?
What we need is more than one “Bar Association” or certification method for lawyers.
In many states, Georgia included, a person can apprentice his way with a firm and become a lawyer instead of going to an accredited Law School.
Few are aware of that. I think it was 5 years of work and study.
No one should be forced to join a union. Period. Or they should at least have a choice of unions. The Bar is no different.
Besides, it exists mostly as a Democrat money-laundering scheme to support and elect Democrats.
“It eliminates some people who really aren’t qualified...”
I respectfully disagree. A person’s own record and work would eliminate them just the same, or better.
Just like the rest of the world’s Trade professions, ie carpenter, framer, graphic designer.
And yes, the art of law is a Trade.
I have the suspicion that law-schools are actually indoctrination-centers, that they teach things in a screwed-up manner in order to keep things as-they-are… just take a look at how many lawyers are ok with the statement federal law is superior to state law
— sure they cite the supremacy clause, but there's one salient point that is left out: the supremacy clause is not unqualified, it is contingent on the law being made in pursuance of/to the Constitution. Look as well to the War on Drugs and how the courts carve out exceptions to the fourth amendment that simply don't exist (and the same with virtually all the other items of the Bill of Rights).
I think it no coincidence that there is a high number of legally-trained minds in high-office, and that the policies put forth show a generally homogeneous mindset towards statism.
I’ll be taking the bar exam in 2016. I fear the ridiculously intrusive application more than the exam.
isn’t the bar exam, with its 90%+ pass rate, pretty useless anyways?
ANYONE with a bachelor degree can be admitted to law school. I do mean ANYONE.
There is more profit in flunking out (rare these days) students after a year than not allowing them to pay money to flunk out.
If the exam is intended to demonstrate the knowledge required to be a practicing attorney why have any other requirement other than the exam?
There are lots of “legal services” that are not done by lawyers now. You meet with a lawyer but others do almost all the work. Still more jobs that really don’t need a lawyer. A house closing is a stupid use of a lawyers time. In Wisconsin, the lawyer doesn’t show up at the closing any more.
The term “Lawyer” is too broad an occupation to assume that a test determines competency. The reality is that there should be separate factions of law. And the education required should be different as well.
Unfortunately that would just cause a large set of lobbyists who advocate for their factions and make the laws complicated to insure that they have jobs.
Better call Saul
I agree.
I have a neighbor who is a lawyer. I was speaking with him a few weeks ago. He attended law school at Ole Miss and for that reason did not have to take the bar exam in Mississippi.
He did take the Florida Bar and he told me it is considered one of the 3 most difficult in the country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.