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.
Government isn't always the answer. Sometimes private enterprise is better.
Government sure doesn't keep people from getting crappy lawyers.
/johnny
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.