You're not a lawyer. YOU'RE A CHIMP WITH A MACHINE GUN!
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 ...
Erle Stanley Gardner who wrote the Perry Mason series of books did not attend law school. He did pass the California bar tho.
ways to improve law school.
1. strict merit based admission. NO PC, NO QUOTAS
2. NO bankruptcy protection for law school loans after 5 years. I a Juris Doctorate is worthless after 5 years then the law school is worthless.
3. NO professor tenure. Law professors should not be refugees from the real world legal profession.
Hillary Clinton flunked the DC bar but later passed the Arkansas bar. Not quite enough screening in her case.
Also, the states that really use the bar exam to restrict competition are those that require established members of other states' bars to take their bar exams as a condition of practicing in their states. The most notorious are California, Florida and Arizona, which transparently require their bar exams in order to keep retired attorneys from other states from setting up shop there.
In every case that was over-turned due to improper/poor representation, just remember that a lawyer who PASSED the bar exam was involved!
I agree that there should be a requirement to attend school, pass your classes, maybe a continuing education requirement, etc... but the bar exam does NOT prove, nor guarantee, competency and dedication.
I’ve never passed a bar in my life.
I do not believe California allows sitting for the bar exam without law school any more.
If someone wants to hire a lawyer who hasn’t passed the BAR I think that is there business, or perhaps folly. It really depends on the complexity of the case. Just as you don’t need a licensed structural engineer to design a house but I would not want to drive across a bridge where the contractor just winged it.
Forcing everyone who wishes legal representation to pay extra for someone who passed the barriers to entry is in my opinion wrong however I do believe that any public defenders should be required to have jumped through some hoops.
That would mean the false answer is true.
Sounds like some of the questions on the bar.
Does anyone remember the Oklahoma State University grad who was also an NFL star yet could not read or write.
He somehow got through grammar school, middle school, high school, and the university without learning to read or write.
I could imagine the same thing happening in law school if the person were one of Obama’s children.
The Bar Exam is just one part of competence for “admission to the bar,” which means essentially that you can charge money to represent a person or business in court. You are a lawyer when you graduate law school, but you can’t appear in court in a representative capacity. To be admitted you need to pass the bar and be “fit to practice” according to standards set by the Court. There are many, many fitness disqualifiers.
The “knowledge of the law” you must demonstrate to pass the bar is minimally relevant to your ability to practice because each case is different factually and legally. Passage of the bar exam shows you can prepare for a complex exercise and perform under pressure. If you can’t do that, you will likely not represent a client in court as well as one who has. So, I believe the bar exam should be required before admission to the bar.
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”. The last Supreme Court justice that did this was James Byrnes appointed in 1941. He didn’t go to college either.
Excellent point! The Professor quoted dissing the bar exam is the primary beneficiary of the guild system that requires people to spend three years (which is at least a year too many, maybe 2) at an accredited law school, where accreditation requires a minimum faculty : student ratio.
I agree that the voluntary cooperation and competition in the free market is a better way to achieve optimal quality that these artificial governmental and conflicted-interest licensing requirements.
The rule is, we consumers are better off when the government stays out of the marketplace.
Ping for later
I agree that there will be those who slip through the cracks. But, in fairness, we are talking about Oklahoma!
Being from Texas, I wouldn’t hire an Oklahoma lawyer...to cut my grass, much less represent me in a court of law!
I like the idea of multiple “bar” accrediting agencies, instead of just ONE of which you MUST be a member.
Word.
“The National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) is a U.S. based non-profit organization that develops national (”multistate”) standardized tests for admission to the bar in individual states.” From Wiki. As of 2014 only @ 14 (smaller) states use this method. Other states have their own exam, typically administered by or through the auspices of the state’s highest court. It’s that court that usually admits the student/lawyer to actually practice law in the state.
Lawyers-to-be first have to take LSAT exams to exhibit a certain level of intellectual ability before getting into law school. Then, after completing a 3 year course of study, they have to take a bar exam that shows whether they understand the law they studied.
That is the standard route; obviously there are exceptions to how one gets admitted to the bar (i.e., clerkship instead of law school). In either case the process is fairly rigorous. And, of course, some incompetents and a fair number of corrupt individuals manage to navigate their way thru. No system is perfect. But doing away with the system is asking for serious trouble.
I want the best. 1-800-DIALABASTARD works for me.
That's one of those things that if you need one, you REALLY need the best you can get.
Trust a guy that has been divorced 3 times. ;)
/johnny
and the endless appeals that would be the natural response.
My neighbor lawyer is also a CPA. While we were discussing the Bar exam I asked him about the CPA exam.
He replied that the CPA exam was much more difficult.
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.