At the Brennan Center for Justice, Elizabeth Wurtzel makes the case for abolishing the bar exam:
In 2005, Kathleen Sullivan, then dean of Stanford Law School, took and failed the California bar exam. After many years in legal academia—Ms. Sullivan literally wrote the book on constitutional law—she was going to practice law and needed a license. Ms. Sullivan has since passed the bar and is a very successful appellate attorney.... If the bar exam was meant to be more than an empty and painful ritual, if the American Bar Association was anything more than an absurd and fusty guild, when Kathleen Sullivan failed the bar, bar administrators might have used Sullivan’s failure to pass the test as the occasion to ask whether, perhaps, something is wrong with the exam and process of bar admission. After all, if the results of the bar exam were meant to matter—if it were meant to predict the likelihood of success as a lawyer—the failure of a great legal mind ought to alarm the people in charge....
But nothing changed.
And there’s a long, proud tradition of gifted attorneys who failed the bar, at least on their first try. Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jerry Brown—who is now California’s attorney general—all screwed up once, as I discovered when I myself failed. Both Pete Wilson, the former governor of California, and Antonio Villaraigosa, the current mayor of Los Angeles, took the bar four times; Benjamin Cardozo, one of the greatest justices of the Supreme Court, sat for it six times. Harold Ford Jr. still has not managed to pass the bar in Tennessee—a State in which the curve cannot be terribly dangerous—but that didn’t keep him out of Congress, though he’s been less lucky with the Senate.
Given this simple data point—that many gifted people fail the bar exam while plenty of plucky idiots who you wouldn’t trust to haggle over a parking ticket in White Plains traffic court get through the test with the greatest of ease—it is curious that it endures.
I agree with Wurtzel’s point that the bar exam is primarily a test of memorization that covers huge amounts of material most lawyers won’t need. For this reason, among others, I’m all in favor of abolishing the bar exam myself. If we retain the exam, it at the very least should not be administered by bar associations, which have a vested interest in reducing the number of lawyers so as to increase the demand for their members’ services.
I’m not sure, however, that I agree with all of Wurtzel’s argument. Most of the “gifted people” she mentions had their greatest successes as politicians, not lawyers. It’s perfectly possible to be a great politician while also being a poor lawyer. Moreover, it’s hard to evaluate a system that tests thousands of applicants on the basis of a few individual cases that could be atypical.
I also disagree with Wurtzel’s view that government needs to adopt various policies to reduce the number of lawyers (which of course is the main real function of bar exams):
There are many better ways that the ABA could keep the numbers down in the profession: for instance, while there are only 130 accredited medical schools, there are nearly 250 law schools that have been approved by either the ABA or a state equivalent..... And there are many more students in a law school than a medical school, given the lack of need for cadavers and the like: for instance, the entering class at Harvard Medical School has 165 slots, whereas the 1L class at Harvard Law School contains 550 people. Plainly, the population of legal academia is excessive.
I see no reason why the number of medical schools should have any bearing on the number of law schools, especially since the former is also artificially restricted by regulation. These are two different professions that face different market conditions. More importantly, I think that the high salaries of lawyers combined with the high cost of even very basic legal services show that we have too few lawyers rather than too many, and that the best way to determine the “right” number of lawyers is through market competition, not government mandate. To that end, I would abolish ABA accreditation of law schools as well as the bar exam. As law school faculty and administrators who have gone through the ABA accreditation process know, many of the ABA’s requirements add nothing to the quality of legal education, and are just as ridiculous as the more arcane questions on the bar exam.
Both the ABA and state bar associations have strong incentives to regulate the profession in ways that reduce competition for their members rather than benefit consumers of legal services. If we must have government-mandated accreditation and licensing (which I doubt), it should at least be conducted by independent agencies insulated as much as possible from lobbying by the organized bar. Giving lawyers the power to exclude potential new members of their profession is much like giving Ford and GM the power to exclude new car manufacturers from the market.
Connecticut Lawyer says:
There is a legitimate public interest in requiring litigators to be qualified since the public pays for the courts and bad lawyers use those scarce resources inefficiently. However, the bar exam is a poor way to screen lawyers for this purpose.
Otherwise, I concur with Ilya’s caveat emptor approach. Connecticut Lawyer(Quote)
rb1971 says:
I read this article yesterday. It’s completely self-serving.
As Eugene noted, all of the examples provided are of people that either had success outside the mainstream legal field and/or were otherwise occupied with more important matters at the time of the exam (an argument not available to Ms. Wurtzel, who presumably was dedicating her life to preparing for the exam like most students just out of school).
For example, it is relatively common for senior partners even in firm practice to fail a bar exam in a new state when moving between offices. Why? Because they are working full (and more than full) time jobs. Just like Ms. Sullivan, but not like Ms. Wurtzel.
I’m not sure, however, that I agree with all of Wurtzel’s argument. Most of the “gifted people” she mentions had their greatest successes as politicians, not lawyers. It’s perfectly possible to be a great politician while also being a poor lawyer. Moreover, it’s hard to evaluate a system that tests thousands of applicants on the basis of a few individual cases that could be atypical.
Sure, lots of gifted folks fail. But I don’t know anyone that did reasonably well in law school, prepared in a manner substantially similar to all of their classmates, and had a straightforward test experience (no dying grandmothers, etc.), and failed the exam. I know several who lacked one of those characteristics — usually preparedness — who had to go back and buckle down a second time, and zero that failed that time.
From the article: The common denominator among the bar-failers in my class at Yale Law School—and there were a few—was a complete inability to comply with senseless rules; they weren’t the best students, but they were the tartest and the sharpest people—and the least likely to accept the constraints of Big Law that make neither financial nor intellectual sense: the fifty-state survey to prove a negative, the memo to nowhere, the repetitive brief that says nothing and gets read by no one.
Really? The sharpest Yale grads fail the bar? Not in my experience. And although I’m not a litigator, “failure to comply with senseless rules” would not be my favorite strategy to win a lot of motion practice and go through substantial discovery. rb1971(Quote)
Stamper says:
I would be happy enough if the Washington Bar simply removed Commercial Paper from its testable subjects. I have to sit for the bar at the end of the month and am sick to death regurgitating the rules for negotiable instruments, holder in due course, properly payable rule and contract/presentment/transfer warranties.
Secured Transactions could, imho, could be removed. Stamper(Quote)
TomHynes says:
Why don’t you go Full Libertarian and abolish licensing of lawyers completely?
Libertarians would make litigants pay for civil courts, to answer Connecticut Lawyer.
Full disclosure: I passed the California Bar in 1981, but were I to resume practicing would be the first to join the Facebook group “Tom Hynes is a danger to the legal profession” TomHynes(Quote)
rb1971 says:
Whoops, Ilya not Eugene, my apologies. Clearly my reading comp has fallen off since the LSAT approximately one million years ago. rb1971(Quote)
B.D. says:
I question whether Benjamin Cardozo really had to sit six times. According to wikipedia (I know, I know), he passed the bar in 1891, when he was 21 years old. B.D.(Quote)
abe says:
The opposite would be better. Do away with the law school degree requirement and administer a rigorous test to all comers.
Clients who pay good money and whose interests are in the hands of hired counsel would prefer proved competency over grades inflated parchment framed on the wall. abe(Quote)
Blue says:
I agree. Keep the basic Bar procedure, perhaps change if it needs to be changed, then open up the ability to practice to anyone able to pass the exam. Law school would be one route...but you could also self-study, serve apprenticships, etc. Blue(Quote)
anomdebus says:
Perhaps specialist bar exams are in order. You wouldn’t have to know as much about all of the different types of law, but would have more detail in the subject in question. anomdebus(Quote)
alkali says:
For anyone who thinks that the bar associations are engaged in a conspiracy to limit the supply of legal services by using the bar exam to exclude qualified individuals from legal practice: Who are these wonderful people who are being victimized by the ABA? Where do they go once they decide they cannot pass the bar? I am not aware of any person who has been successful in any field of endeavor who went to law school but did not practice law because they could not pass the bar exam. alkali(Quote)
Steve says:
We could double or triple the number of lawyers but there would be an awful lot of externalities. Steve(Quote)
Kenvee says:
I would be happy to get the ABA out of the equation entirely. It’s become nothing but a political organization than neither I nor most of the lawyers in my acquaintance want anything to do with. Get rid of the ABA-accredited schools. Let the states choose whether the accredit schools and what kind of Bar exam to set. Kenvee(Quote)
hattio says:
Alkali says;
I’m aware of several who excelled in some field of endeavor. Of course, one of the guys was successful at drinking his life away, another at a basic handyman business. Another was a successful musician. Lots of very smart people have issues with taking tests and tend to do poorly the higher the stakes. The stakes increase (or at least the stress would seem to) each time you take the bar.
As to the more central point, I would agree with Ilya that the article doesn’t really prove it’s thesis when it cites those who are successful as politicians, in academia, etc. I question whether doing away completely with bar exams and law school accreditation is the answer though. An independant agency providing the bar exam would be a different story though. hattio(Quote)
MonkeyEsq says:
I’m not horribly opposed to having some licensing procedure for lawyers; picking a competent lawyer is already hard enough for the general public without opening the door to anyone who thinks that they can do it. However, I think that the bar exam is a lousy means of sorting the competent from the incompetent. I would much prefer some sort of residency program.
Pretty much every other profession — doctors, psychologists, architects, pilots, etc. — require some sort of residency before you can go it on your own. On the other hand, so long as you can get through law school and pass the bar, you can hang up a shingle and call yourself an attorney. I would fully support a move from the bar exam to requiring 1000 hours of supervised practice. That way, when you higher a lawyer, you at least have some guarantee that they know what the heck they are doing. MonkeyEsq(Quote)
gullyborg says:
Do away with the bar, the accreditation, and the education requirements. Let anyone who wants to do so practice law and call himself a lawyer. But let the ABA copyright the term “Attorney.” You know, like Realtor (C). And let the ABA do whatever it wants to in order to certify its members — as a private matter, not a government regulation. Then let consumers hire anyone they want to hire — and if consumers place value on recognition by the ABA, so be it. Would I hire a lawyer who, in this scenario, was not an “Attorney (C)” certified by the ABA? Probably not. But I should be free to contract with whom I please. gullyborg(Quote)
hattio says:
Kenvee says;
The states do decide who gets to take their bar exam. Wisconsin (I believe it is) doesn’t make students take an exam if they graduated from a Wisconsin Law school. California lets anyone take the bar (or at least they did) and has a number of non-ABA accredited schools. hattio(Quote)
Cornellian says:
If the bar exam is an arbitrary restriction, why do nearly all the failures consist of people from bottom tier law schools? Why do the vast majority of grads from top tier law schools pass on the first try?
I passed the California bar exam on the first try. It’s not that big a deal. Cornellian(Quote)
Jardinero1 says:
The law profession enjoys a massive subsidy in the form of state funded law schools and the guaranteed student loan program. As a tax payer I see no benefit to subsidizing the education of several thousand new lawyers a year. I would be in favor of eliminating both subsidies.
If a person wants to become an attorney let him find some other means. If firms and corporations need more lawyers, they can train their own, either through apprenticeships or by paying the tuition of those who they feel would be successful in their firms or corporations.
The current model of loan, schooling, exam, look for a job is relatively new. There once were both fewer lawyers and more avenues to the legal profession than today. Everything worked out alright. Jardinero1(Quote)
Can't find a good name says:
I don’t think it’s accurate that Franklin Roosevelt failed the bar exam. As I understand it, he took the bar exam while still enrolled at Columbia Law School (which was allowed at that time), passed, and then withdrew from Columbia without completing his degree so he could go directly into law practice. Can’t find a good name(Quote)
Alast says:
I agree. Do away with all of it. Let anyone read for the bar, with a simple test that only weed out the idiots who don’t know simple things and will clog up the system due to ignorance.
But then frequently wield a disbar axe to people who demonstrate in their legal practice, that they are incompetent. Alast(Quote)
geokstr says:
Somewhat on topic:
Before I sat for the CPA exam 35 years ago, I took the months-long Becker CPA review course (which is still around), where they taught you how to pass the exam. They had analyzed the past exams for decades, and determined which subject areas were most likely to be on the next exam, as lots of issues were predictably covered every other exam or every third exam, some were on every exam, and others which were very topical and would likely be on this next exam. They gave us the actual problems in those areas that were on prior exams so we’d be familiar with the formats.
They had also determined how the exams were graded. You needed to get 75 or better on all four parts to pass. But what was interesting was how points were awarded. You got points for heading up the workpapers correctly on each problem, i.e.:
XYZ Company
Statement of Retained Earnings
January X, XXXX
...would get points.
If you headed up each section of the statement correctly, or used the correct terminology for each line item, you got more points. Hell, I think you got points for putting your name on each worksheet.
You could theoretically blow the math entirely, get concepts completely wrong, but if you did the technical parts of the presentations like this properly, you could still pass, because there were 300 possible points on each exam, and you only needed 75 of them.
Is there any correlation in how the bar exam is structured or graded? geokstr(Quote)
Houston Lawyer says:
For lawyers in a big firm, finding recommendations for a qualified attorney is easy. For other folks, not so much. How many criminal cases do we need to throw out for ineffective assistance of counsel?
The bar exam serves as a quality check for law schools. An everyone passes standard would keep the tuition checks coming from everyone.
The bar exam poses a low hurdle for the vast majority of people who want to practice law. Many other professions have higher standards for licensing. How many pass the CPA exam the first time out? Houston Lawyer(Quote)
Constantin says:
This is an understatement, and a puzzling flaw in Wurtzel’s analysis.
Anyone who has read Michelle Obama’s semi-literate Princeton thesis knows that she’s not a great example to use here. I actually have no idea what she’s done post-law school, either, that would tip someone off that she’s gifted at anything except for apparently being a good mother and marrying well. Villaraigosa is a buffoon, but at least he managed to get elected to something. Same goes for Harold Ford and Jerry Brown and Hillary Clinton (and FDR, too, kind of), all of whom mainly got where they are/were because of their last names, but who at least sealed the deal in one way or another. Constantin(Quote)
Adam B. says:
Wurtzel herself failed at least once before passing, and still hasn’t passed Character and Fitness. Having being fired from the Dallas Morning News for plagiarism and later going on book tour while having her friends FedEx her cocaine using her publisher’s shipping number may work against her. Adam B.(Quote)
VFBVFB says:
— There is a legitimate public interest in requiring litigators to be qualified since the public pays for the courts and bad lawyers use those scarce resources inefficiently. —
Sometimes this is not the case. Often, a good lawyer provides a valuable service to his or her client by raising non-frivolous but losing arguments in court, simply to delay the process. For many defendants, the goal is not to win, but to lose as slowly as possible. For these defendants, legal fees are an expensive form of financing. VFBVFB(Quote)
Mark Field says:
Not when I was grading them, though that was a long time ago (in a galaxy far, far away). While headings, etc. were helpful to the reader in organizing the answer, they alone gained you no points.
That said, my daughter is currently studying for the CA Bar and BarBri’s practice tests demand that they provide headings, etc., to the extent that they’ll give you a “failing grade” if you don’t do it. I doubt this is anything more than a pedagogical exercise to make the students write their answers more clearly, but I don’t know. Mark Field(Quote)
Urso says:
Taking the bar for entrance to the profession is one thing, but requiring experienced attorneys to retake the bar if they want to cross a state line is simply silly. I know someone who moved from Louisiana after the storm, after 30 or so years of successful practice, only to fail the bar in his new state (he passed it the second time around). The guy certainly met the standards of minimal qualification but probably hadn’t read a criminal statute or dealt with a 4th amendment hypo since he was a 1L. Urso(Quote)
Dilan Esper says:
That said, my daughter is currently studying for the CA Bar and BarBri’s practice tests demand that they provide headings, etc., to the extent that they’ll give you a “failing grade” if you don’t do it. I doubt this is anything more than a pedagogical exercise to make the students write their answers more clearly, but I don’t know.
It’s an exercise to make you think that the ridiculously high fee for the bar review course is worth something.
I self-studied and had no problem passing. I’d have no problem outlawing the bar exam just to put BarBri and its competitors out of business. Dilan Esper(Quote)
Becky Chandler says:
Of course, it should be eliminated–we all know it does not weed out incompetent,ignorant lawyers. Back in law school everyone I knew agreed it should be given the heave ho. But, of course once they were admitted to the club–that tune changed. Becky Chandler(Quote)
Roscoe says:
In a portion of Ms. Wurtzel’s article not quoted by Ilya, she writes: “The common denominator among the bar-failers in my class at Yale Law School—and there were a few—was a complete inability to comply with senseless rules;”
Real practicing attorneys live or die by senseless rules. There is no reason why an appeal has to be filed in 30 days; it could easily have been 25 or 35 days. However, 30 days is the deadline provided by the FRAP. Attorneys who can’t comply with “senseless rules” like this are a danger to their clients. Roscoe(Quote)
Roger McCandypants says:
Q: How would “legal residency” sort anyone?
A: It wouldn’t. It would be nothing more than a cheap source of labor. Roger McCandypants(Quote)
Brian G. says:
The bar exam reminds me of an old Nancy comic strip, which said something like this:
“It’s not fair! Every time I study the teacher makes the test so easy and every time I don’t she makes it so hard!”
I would bet that most of the people that failed didn’t put forth the necessary effort. I studied (without taking BarBri) every day for 6 straight weeks (except for Super Bowl Sunday) and passed the first time out. You can’t just take a week or two. Sure, you might pass, but the less time you spend studying the greater the chance you’ll fail. My buddy and I easily predicted almost every single person from our class that failed. We guessed it not because they were dumb, but because we knew their laziness and sense of entitlement would doom them. I am sure that is what happened to many of the prominent names that you listed. I am sure that Mrs. Obama, Harold Ford, and anyone else listed, if they just spent 8–10 hours a day for 4–5 weeks studying, they’d pass no sweat. Brian G.(Quote)
Skibum3157 says:
I have to disagree that pumping more lawyers into a job market that is currently producing “entry level” jobs paying as little as $15 per hour is a good idea given the enormous cost of law school. Market competition is clearly failing in this instance due to the misconception held by most persons applying to law school that a J.D. is a ticket to print money. Skibum3157(Quote)
Roger McCandypants says:
As a taxpayer, I don’t want to have to pay for the courts to be clogged with your moron of a lawyer. Give me a Rule 11 with some real teeth and greater liability for the lawyer, and I’ll consider your plan. Roger McCandypants(Quote)
MLS says:
Not enough lawyers? 1.5M or so in a country with a population of 300M sounds like an incredibly large number to me.
A study done 3 or 4 years ago indicated that our country then had about 2M engineers.
At the rate membership in the bar is increasing it should be a relatively short period of time before the production of goods and services starts to lag paper shuffling. MLS(Quote)
Alan Polonsky says:
What subsidies. Law schools are a cash cow for the universities that house them.
see for example the numbers for a State owned university http://www.stateuniversity.com/universities/PA/Dickinson_School_of_Law.html
Tuition $29,200 for 496 students. $14,483,200
Faculty salaries Avg $106,777 for 32 full time and benefits of $703,000 (Total faculty and benefits a little over $4,000,000
Yes, of course there are various scholarships and grants that reduce tuition receipts and capital costs and other staff costs that increase expenses but in the end, law schools make money and don’t get subsidized at all.
The numbers for private schools with tuition of close to $40,000 per student are probably more lucrative for their parent schools.
As to Government student loans, my guess is that the default rate is low and the guarantee costs are minimal. Certainly not a major subsidy to anyone. Alan Polonsky(Quote)
Pliny the Elder says:
I remain unconvinced. Cardozo was a great judge, but I have not the faintest idea how good an attorney he was. (Given that SG Kagan is considered well qualified for the Court with only three years of law practice the relationship is unclear.) As for all the others, only Sullivan strikes me as a particularly gifted in law stuff. Abolishing the exam because of a few outlying gifted people does not strike me as justified. OTH I really do not care; I am 2–0 and unlikely to sit for another in any event. My daughter might care, but her intentions are about 100 miles north of Seattle. Pliny the Elder(Quote)
ruuffles says:
Other way around actually. ruuffles(Quote)
richard says:
Alkali:
I am not aware of any person who has been successful in any field of endeavor who went to law school but did not practice law because they could not pass the bar exam.
Antonio Villaragoia, mayor of Los Angeles. Went to law school, failed the bar exam four times, never practiced law. richard(Quote)
not a hacker says:
Interesting that folks who discuss nothing but constitutional questions could even have an opinion on whether there are too many or too few lawyers, since courts deal almost exclusively in non-con. issues. In reality, the matter can only be illuminated by anecdote. How about this case from Cal? Large supermarket chain brings “failure to defend” claim against its liability carrier. Several slip/fall plaintiffs had won small-claims judgments throughout the state. Market claims carrier should have sent counsel to the hearings. Here’s the colloquy from the SJ hearing in Napa County Superior Court:
J: You know counsel, I had the small claims assignment for several years, and I can’t remember a single time when a lawyer appeared in my court. Are you sure they had a duty to send counsel?
C (female): Yes your honor.
J. Are you sure you’re sure?
C: Yes, your honor.
Still think there are too few lawyers? not a hacker(Quote)
Bob from Ohio says:
Tartest? Bob from Ohio(Quote)
Greg Barnes says:
There is a view that the essay and “practical” portions of the CA bar are capriciously graded by the bar examiners, who themselves must demonstrate few qualifications. Evidence for this argument includes the fact that many who pass the ETS multistate flunk one of the other two portions of the CA bar. In other states that use the multistate in addition to a state-graded essay, passing the multistate is powerfully correlated with passing the entire exam. Greg Barnes(Quote)
BJones - JD2009 says:
I will be sitting for the Michigan Bar Exam in two weeks (July 27 /28, 2010) and have gone through the various stages of angst in preparing for the exam these past couple months. I agree whole heartedly that the breadth of knowledge required is both arcane, and entirely outside the scope of the general practitioner — we have been told by each Bar-Bri lecturer that it is impossible to retain all the knowledge required for the exam. So basically work your tail off preparing, hope you get tested on the areas of law you are the most studied up on and do a little praying to your deity.
Yet the argument I hear most, and have expressed on several occassions with my current bar examinee colleagues revolves around the fact that the Bar essay portion tests and rewards the exact behavior we were taught to step away from in law school — outline dumping / puking. “Spout out some ‘reasonably based’ nonsense, and pray that it sticks” is the number one piece of advice I have been given for the moment when I inevitably face a question that doesn’t “click” for me.
If I only understand 50% of the material in Secured Transactions / Commercial Paper / Conflicts of Law there is still about a 50% chance I either won’t see those topics tested at all in the essays, or that if I do, it will fit neatly inside what I do know. Does this benefit the ultimate consumer (the public)? To me the bar exam is less a test of knowledge and more a test of efficient study of probability as well as a general Rite of Passage.
The comments regarding allowing people to simply sit and take the bar without a JD seems a little outlandish to me though (I have a hard time believing that even 10% of those that went that route could / would pass). There is — in most cases understandably — a general contempt for the practice of law from the public. However those who ACTUALLY take in the ritualistic law school experience in my experience do generally come out the other side very aware of their profound duties to the we have and should jealously uphold to the public at large — which to me is more important than the extreme accumulation of largely irrelevant knowledge. (I don’t know a single lawyer — and I have worked for / with many — that simply “draw back” on their bar exam knowledge. Instead they unrelentingly research that which is even the slightest bit fuzzy)
Further, as a final point if you came into my office, gave me a five sentence statement on what someone did to you and I sat down, scribbled notes silently for 20 minutes (the time I have per essay), then stood up and proceeded to lay out my ideas / your possibilities — I have committed malpractice. Now if what I proposed to do is employed and works, I may never face a claim, but either way I have thrown my ethical obligations to you out the door. I understand that the test wants to see if I can think on my feet / “think like a lawyer”, but the implementation to me is Per Se Negligent (or a little Res Ipsa Loquitur if you like).
Forgive the rambling — I have two weeks left, and this seemed like a good soap box to stand on and vent. BJones — JD2009(Quote)
mrcausality says:
Have law students who fail the bar bound to serve as medical school cadavers. The bar standards may drop out of compassion, but I still think the giddiness of med students in anticipation of slicing up their future malpractice antagonists would strike enough fear to reduce the rolls. mrcausality(Quote)
David IAAL says:
Thank you, someone else who thinks there are too few lawyers and market forces should be allowed to determine numbers. Unfortunately, that means I’m making a lengthy post...
To me the only valid purpose of the bar exam is protection of the public, NOT an artificial limitation on the number of lawyers. California and New York have by repute (I can only speak to NY from personal experience!) the toughest bar exams, but they’re also among the most liberal/lenient in allowing those without ABA-approved law school degrees to become attorneys. I tend to agree in principle at least with “abe”, I think 6 states (there was an ABA Journal article within the last few years) currently allow one to become a lawyer without going to law school (or in the case of NY, only 1 year), by private study supervised by a lawyer or judge and then passing the bar. Which I think is great, much more egalitarian and no more “dangerous” to the public than some ABA-approved law school graduates...
I was fortunate enough to go to law school in a time and place (I went to law school and practice in Ontario, Canada, though I am American and am called to the bar in New York and as a patent attorney before the USPTO), where (and when) it cost about the same as undergrad (and even that wasn’t too expensive).
On the broader issue of public funding and student loans, I don’t see why e.g. public funding of humanities programs is okay but law isn’t? If one opposes all public funding (I don’t), okay, that’s consistent, but to “cherry pick” seems problematic to me. There are “good” and “bad” engineers, lawyers, historians, psychologists, etc., to try and choose only some as deserving of public funding is ridiculous. I do recognize that there are problems with student loan availability allowing universities to ratchet up tuition. I would prefer to see student loans as no more, and no less, dischargeable in bankruptcy than any other debt (or other “stupid” choices...), that would “level” the playing field. Or, albeit not libertarian, have government regulation of tuition fees. The hybrid model, government (through special bankruptcy provisions) subsidizing lenders and universities while not exerting any control to me seems even worse than a more strictly government-controlled system would be (I have a similar view of healthcare, purely private might be “best” though I do like the Canadian system, but the U.S. hybrid public-private is a nightmare that leads to spiralling costs in a way that purely private — or purely socialist — would not). David IAAL(Quote)
MonkeyEsq says:
Fine, include a pass-fail system into the residency — you need to be good enough to have another attorney employee you for 1000 (arbitrary number) hours, and have that attorney sign off that you are a competent attorney at the end of it. It probably wouldn’t result in too much “cheap labor” anyway, as most attorneys wind up working for another attorney at the beginning of their career anyway. MonkeyEsq(Quote)
Anonny says:
gullyborg–
The ABA has nothing to do with bar exams, which are administered by the states (often under the auspices of the state’s supreme court).
Also, you’re probably looking for the word “trademark,” not “copyright.” Anonny(Quote)
Mark Field says:
Again, it’s been quite a while since I graded, but this was not true when I did. We spent quite a bit of time trying to achieve a common standard for the grades. And since nobody knows what the qualifications are (except the Bar), whether the graders have many or none is pure speculation. Mark Field(Quote)
AJK says:
I have no problem with imposing artificial restrictions to raise demand for lawyers. I just wish we did a better job. The current system is a boon for low-quality law schools, but ill-serves pretty much everyone else. AJK(Quote)
Urso says:
I thought the California Bar kept those results locked tighter than state secrets. I know there’s a (UCLA?) professor who’s been unsuccessfully trying to get full information on bar pass rates for years. Urso(Quote)
Bored Lawyer says:
How about abolishing lawyers and judges altogether? Just flip a coin. Gives you a 50% chance of getting the right result, which is better odds of a just outcome than in most cases. Bored Lawyer(Quote)
ruuffles says:
But ... but ... I thought 99.9% of suspects in criminal trials are guilty!
Do you really think trial courts fail more than 50% of the time? ruuffles(Quote)
VALawyer says:
Does the current bar exam system weed out all the incompetent attorneys? Certainly not. Do people who later become brilliant attorneys sometimes fail the bar exam? Certainly. But the solution does not seem to be eliminating a licensing regime. The public surely has a strong interest in ensuring minimum competency of attorneys, just as they do in ensuring minimum competency of doctors. Malpractice suits often cannot remedy the harm done by an incompetent professional. The question, then, is how to improve the licensing system for attorneys. The idea of having legal residencies seems like a good one, and I’d be curious to read some fleshed out ideas for implementing such a system.
Most states require attorneys to complete continuing legal education (CLE) courses each year. Perhaps these courses ought to include testing with consequences for failure? For example, states could require attorneys to take classes every few years on civil procedure (that state’s and federal), contracts, family law, trusts & estates, real property, criminal law, etc. (True, most attorneys specialize and thus don’t “need” general legal knowledge. But that would seem to be the price of having a general license–as opposed to “licensed to litigate,” “licensed to draft contracts,” etc.) Attorneys who failed an exam could be given a certain period of time (e.g., 60 days) to study and re-take the exam before their license is temporarily suspended. VALawyer(Quote)
Skyler says:
The bar exam is silly, but what I’d rather have is a law school that teaches one how to become a lawyer instead of how to be a law review writer or a judge. In other words, law school should be more practical. After finishing law school and passing the bar, it should be more true than theoretical that a lawyer can function at a basic level in court without further guidance. Skyler(Quote)
troll_dc2 says:
Are there bar exams in Canada and England? troll_dc2(Quote)
Alast says:
Seconded. Alast(Quote)
gladetariba says:
Yes, let the market works gladetariba(Quote)
Alast says:
Last time I checked, at least 10 states permit it, with apprentice time substituting for classroom time. At one time, an Assistant AG in Virginia was a lawyer who never went to law school.
However, reciprocity and pro hac vice is a bitch for people that go that route. Alast(Quote)
Apperception says:
“A bunch of people qualified to practice failed. We can therefore infer that a bunch of people not qualified passed.”
Hm, I wonder if this tenuous grasp of logic had anything to do with her failure? Apperception(Quote)
whit says:
i once pulled over john kennedy jr., who had failed the bar exam twice before passing it and was at that time employed as a prosecuting attorney in the state of ny.
it was 0230 hrs, and he was... amazingly NOT DRUNK. he was also alone.
when i asked him for his driver’s license, he admitted that he had failed to take it with him, but that he was licensed in the state of new york. interestingly, out of state driver’s who did not have their licenses on them, TECHNICALLY were arrestable under a misdemeanor no license possession charge. i suspect this law stems from the days when interstate license checks were hit or miss and was a failsafe in case you couldn’t verify an out of state licensee, however, it did not require such a computer problem, only that he was 1) OUT OF STATE DRIVER 2) NO LICENSE IN POSSESSION
i always wondered what would have happened if i HAD arrested him. oh, the drama.
i *did* run his name through the radio to check license status (no CAD at that time), which i am sure pricked up the ears of everybody on the air...
“last name Kennedy... common. First name John with an “h”. Middle initial foxtrot. he’s a junior... date of birth XX/XX/XX”
i know that if you run certain names through the computer it automatically triggers a call to secret service, but i am pretty sure that as the adult son of a president, he was no longer in that system... i did not get any calls from the secret service.
he was speeding at 0230 hrs , at a speed it was reasonable to give a warning, so i did so, and wished him to have a good night.
but if kennedy HAD failed the bar 3 times, i am wondering if they would have changed the bar rules. after all, if a KENNEDY can’t pass the bar exam, clearly it’s defective... :l whit(Quote)
Mark Field says:
Correct. I have no idea what Greg Barnes is referring to. Mark Field(Quote)
jiffy says:
Is it really in the interest of state bar associations to limit the number of lawyers? Don’t more lawyers mean more revenue for the bar association? Doesn’t this claim confuse the interests of the bar associations with the interests of its members? jiffy(Quote)
whit says:
it is in the best interests of the bar association (and generally any guild or union, too) to set certain bars to entry. this is (one of the reasons why) teacher’s unions don’t like private schools... because private schools require no certification for their teachers (or at least do not... generally).
union, guilds, “associations” etc. are rather consistent with this. whit(Quote)
Cassandra says:
How about choosing lawyers from the first 100 entries in the local phone book? That would improve the quality.
I have no beef with lawyers any more than I do with hookers. Some are great, some awful. But hookers are not jaded ass-lickers in three-piece suits worrying about how many times their work has been cited on the web.
No, my beef is entirely with the government: the government that consists almost entirely of math-science-economics ignorant lawyers, that runs a lawyer monopoly in every state, that requires you to believe in God before you can sit for the bar, on the bench or on a jury in Texas and some four other states; the government that makes you hire a lawyer to sue a lawyer and to appeal to a lawyer to change the stupid laws that require this.
Though I’ve got a JD, I’m happy to fall back on my practice of nuclear physics, for which there is NO bar, NO certification, NO three-piece suits and no ass-liking; which I can practice in Louisiana or on the moon without having to memorize new laws; which, when the government denies me the right to practice, I can practice in China and Iran without US government approval.
I take comfort in the fact that Edison, Ford, Gates, Dell and the Wright Brothers were flunkies who never gained certification. That Einstein repudiated his country, his religion and his school system at age 15 and never looked back. That Milton Friedman advocated killing licensing for doctors and lawyers.
Freedom from lawyers in Amerika can still be gained, fortunately, with a passport and a valid visa to somewhere else, as Roman Polanski has shown us. Cassandra(Quote)
Fub says:
I heard the same years ago about full pass rate data. But I did hear a detailed explanation of essay/practice exam grading from one who had been a grader for several years.
I think that grading is anything but arbitrary. According to what I was told, graders are normed by grading “standard” essays generated for the purpose. The group of graders for any particular exam year are selected on the basis of being within some criterion (maybe one sigma, but whatever) on the numerical grades they assign to the standard essays.
That’s a quick and possibly too vague description of the process. I think many iterations of the norming process happen. But the point is that essay graders aren’t just turned loose to assign points arbitrarily. Fub(Quote)
Prof. S. says:
Either that or lawyers like to justify the importance of going to law school in order to (a) feel better about spending $100,000+ and (b) help keep the number of lawyers competing for spots down. Also, wait until you’ve been practicing for a few years and then tell me that every lawyer has “unrelentingly research[ed]” their arguments.
Actually, that’s neither thinking like a lawyer. Nor is negligence per se the same as res ipsa loquitur. Prof. S.(Quote)
LongCat says:
Most 15 year olds think its unfair to make them wait until 16 to drive. When they get older and change their minds, I don’t think its to maintain the 16+ monopoly, but because 15 year olds focus on their own selfish goals without consideration of the implications of letting any kid drive a car.
Any person of reasonable intelligence can pass the bar if they sit down and study. It serves to roughly weed out those who are too lazy to study or who care so little about being a lawyer that they can’t be bothered to. It’s accreditation by ordeal: not a guarantee of a good outcome, but at least a partial gatekeeper.
That was such a concentrated blizzard of stupidity that I’m sincerely thankful that (1) you don’t practice law and (2) that there is likely a rigorous permitting requirement for any use of your nuclear physics knowledge. LongCat(Quote)
ohwilleke says:
Law schools are among the least subsidized parts of any college campus in university budgets and often disproportionately contribute to university endowments, and law students rarely receive much of an in state student tuition benefit. The University of Wisconsin law school, for example, receives 10% of its budget from the state.
Grant aid to prospective law students is negligible, and interest on student loans (combined with the fact that they are non-dischargeable in bankruptcy and the fact that law school graduates have below average student loan default rates) overwhelmingly covers the cost of guarantees on law student loans. If anything, law students are cross-subsidizing other students in the guaranteed student loan program, where the losses are disproportionately among college dropouts from pre-professional and often proprietary programs. ohwilleke(Quote)
A. Zarkov says:
“And there’s a long, proud tradition of gifted attorneys who failed the bar, at least on their first try. Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jerry Brown—who is now California’s attorney general...”
Hillary Clinton, a “gifted” attorney– by what measure? She failed the DC bar exam– one of the easy exams to pass, but obviously not as easy as Arkansas bar. What has Hillary done in the field the law?
Even the California bar exam, which many people consider difficult, is’nt. My daughter passed it (on the first try) a few years ago, and told me it was easy. I think the exams should be made more difficult not eliminated to make it clear that most students are getting ripped off by their law school. If the bar failure rates get high enough then many students will realize they don’t belong in law school and won’t face years of debt burden. A. Zarkov(Quote)
Cassandra says:
Hey LongCat:
You will be happy to know that I do practice law, and quite successfully, but have gotten over the idea of hiring lawyers to represent me and that neither the Chinese, Iranians, nor Brazilians require certification before seeking my advice. Nor does the USSA, either. Indeed, when the CIA comes calling, they don’t come calling for lawyers before multilingual nuclear physicists! Cassandra(Quote)
Randy says:
And who can forget that famous headline when John Kennedy, Jr., failed the NY bar? “The Hunk Flunked”
Afterwards, he admitted he isn’t a legal braintrust.
As for the licensing part, I remember that when I applied for the New York State bar, I had to fill out an enormous form, asking every place I ever lived, every school attended, every place I’ve ever worked, detailed recommendations and so on. It was clear to me that no one was ever going to check up on any of this. Rather, it was all a ‘cover your ass’ stunt.
In other words, if a lawyer fails a client in some fashion, or gets people write letters about how crooked the law trade is, or some other outcry, the New York Bar can trot these extensive applications out and say, see — look at all the background material we require! We do EVERYTHING we can to weed out the bad ones, but still some bad ones slip in. So don’t blame us! Randy(Quote)
Randy says:
whit: “i once pulled over john kennedy jr., ”
(sigh) And? Was he as hot in person as we all think he was? Randy(Quote)
jiffy says:
Whit: I don’t think your example proves your point. Teachers unions don’t dislike private schools because they want to limit the number of teachers; they’d be perfectly happy if private school teachers were unionized and like the hiring of additional unionized teachers. My point was that bar associations have interests in increasing the number of lawyers that may not correspond to lawyers’ interest in restricting competition. jiffy(Quote)
whit says:
damn skippy, he was! as a confirmed heterosexual man, i can say that he was damn sexy. we were probably the two sexiest men on that roadway at that time :)
there were two voices in the back of my head telling me to mention the sexiest man alive article and/or make a snide comment about the difficulty of the NY state bar exam, but that third voice told me to “shut up shutting up” so i didn’t go there :) whit(Quote)
whit says:
i am not sure at all the bar associations have interests in increasing the # of lawyers, IF it means diminishing the bars to entry. it’s a club, just like any other. i am pretty confident, my police union would fight, for example, letting cops be hired who didn’t go to the academy, for similar reasons.
ONCE a cop becomes a cop, these associations/unions will protect job status. it does not therefore follow that we welcome all and sundry to our elite ranks :l whit(Quote)
Mike S. says:
It is worth noting that when the bar exams were instituted, lawyers rarely went to law school; they mostly apprenticed. Law school was added to the requirements to keep immigrants out of the profession in the early 1900’s. If there is any quality contol over law schools from the accreditation process, there is no need for a bar exam. Mike S.(Quote)
Strict says:
“Give me a Rule 11 with some real teeth”
Ralph Nader has advocated for a stronger Rule 11, which would reduce the number of meritless [tort] claims filed. Strict(Quote)
whit says:
so bar exams, like gun control and drug laws have a root in racism... whit(Quote)
whit says:
correction: replace “bar exams” with “law school” whit(Quote)
Bruce Hayden says:
Agree with the later, but not necessarily with the former.
The ABA doesn’t control the exams, per se, BUT, most states seem to require graduation from an ABA accredited law school in order to sit for their bar exams. CA does not, which goes along with all of its non-ABA accredited law schools. But it does appear to make moving to other states for CA attorneys who did not graduate from ABA accredited law schools problematic. Bruce Hayden(Quote)
Mike S. says:
Not so much law school, which is an old institution, but the requirement that all lawyers attend one. It was designed, as the then head of the ABA said publicly, to keep Irish, Jewish and Italian immigrants out of the profession. Mike S.(Quote)
Pliny the Elder says:
Canadian provinces have bar exams, but one must endure an obstacle course of additional training and articling (sort of like interning) before taking
I beleive England has a similar system, but I know nothing about it Pliny the Elder(Quote)
whit says:
that’s a fair cop whit(Quote)
Anonny says:
Bruce–
While that’s entirely accurate, the ABA is still several steps away from the exam itself. Moreover, its “accreditation” of law schools (which is really just “approval”) only matters because states adopt the ABA’s judgment as to which schools pass muster.
In any event, if the gullyborg’s of the world want to advocate for sweeping change of lawyer licensing in America, they should probably start by getting the basic facts straight Understanding that the ABA is not a, let alone the, licensing body for lawyers, is important. Anonny(Quote)
Bama 1L says:
That Notre Dame had opened a law school in the 1860s should have indicated the obvious flaw in the plan. Bama 1L(Quote)
Alast says:
And some states recognize negligence per se, but don’t recognize res ipsa loquitor. Alast(Quote)
Cornellian says:
More importantly, I think that the high salaries of lawyers combined with the high cost of even very basic legal services show that we have too few lawyers rather than too many
High salaries of lawyers? Are you kidding? The giant law firms that pay the high salaries (actually partnership profits, for the most part, not salaries) don’t offer “very basic legal services” and the lawyers who offer “very basic legal services” don’t make high salaries.
Will you next be arguing that the high salaries of actors show that there are too few of them? Cornellian(Quote)
Alast says:
You obviously have never taken the PE or tried to practice engineering in Washington state.
As for the government, better not do any engineering work for anyone associated with a “terrorist” organization, or you’re committing a felony. Alast(Quote)
Cold Warrior says:
Wow, Elizabeth really is an idiot.
Poke around a bit and you’ll find out that she admits to scoring a 160 on the LSAT. That’s approximately the 82nd percentile, which is (of course) very decent, but hardly Yale quality.
So she wants to limit the supply of lawyers by closing down the law schools she ought to have attended. And she sees nothing inconsistent about advocating this while fearlessly taking on the artificial barrier to entry that is the bar exam.
I went to one of those law schools now referred to as “third tier,” and I passed two bar examinations on the first try. Hah! And Elizabeth knows she will never live down failing that bar exam after graduating from Yale. But then again, only the “tartest” and “sharpest” Yalies fail.
Oh, but she’s an accomplished writer! Just read that final sentence of her article:
Alternative verb-subject agreement! Now that’s a creative thinker!! What ... tartiness. Cold Warrior(Quote)
grendel says:
I can’t speak to England, but in Canada admission to the bar varies from province to province. I am a US trained lawyer who got called to the British Columbia bar through a side door, but for most law school graduates in BC, in order to get licenced one has to “article” for 9 months. Articling is essentially an apprenticeship. Your “principal” (apprenticeship supervisor) has to certify your competence at the end of your articles. Then you have to take a six week “Professional Legal Training Course” which concentrates on practical skills like trial advocacy, writing, etc, and finally a relatively short bar exam (open book). Do all that, and buy your robes, waistcoat and tabs and you’re golden. grendel(Quote)
Anon23 says:
That’s “Realtor (R)”.
Consult with yer friendly local IP attorney for an explanation of the difference. Anon23(Quote)
New Yorker says:
Seriously? Have you represented a client in any matter whatsoever? I recently represented a family friend against the IRS, charged a discounted rate but would hardly be able to make a living on such a fee when considering the enormous amount of work and expertise I brought to settling the client’s tax deficiencies — something ordinary CPAs were unable to achieve for the client up to that point. Moreover, the problem with excessive fees has nothing to do with too few lawyers; it has more to do with lawyers who do not abide by the Rules of Professional Responsibility by grossly overcharging clients for the services they render. Talk, for example, to any person who has been charged with a DUI and paid a lawyer $5000 to work a total of 4 hours on a case — the majority of their service involving working out a deal with the prosecutor.
We should remember as lawyers that, while we may not all be worth the $400/hr fees charged by NYC law firm partners (yet), those of us who care deeply about assisting those with legal problems should also not undersell the service we provide to the public. New Yorker(Quote)
yankee says:
Considering that a first-year biglaw associate has a posted billing rate of over $300/hour, I can only imagine what the partners at top NYC firms are charging. yankee(Quote)
Mike S. says:
Yes, but they charged tuition and required full-time study, which were the main barriers for many immigrants. My grandfather, for example, worked as a bookkeeper while apprenticed to an accountant, and then as an accountant while apprenticed to a tax attorney before taking the bar. Mike S.(Quote)
New Yorker says:
Cornellian
My sentiment exactly. Mr. Somlin simplifies application of macroeconomic principles (low supply = higher prices) to an entire professional market to make the point, I guess, that lawyers are overcharging generally and the public lacks access to affordable legal service. Indeed the public sorely needs these services, e.g. indigent criminal defense. But the miserable pay public defenders receive, almost always lower than that of prosecutors, is hardly an incentive for lawyers to flood into this area of practice. New Yorker(Quote)
Brent Cooper says:
Check out new Elena Kagan video — in shorts, wearing a cape, and vowing to “fix Washington.” (From 2009 Harvard Law parody production.) Seriously:
http://authorskeptics.blogspot.com Brent Cooper(Quote)
Frank Drackman says:
90% of M.D.s couldn’t pass the Medical licensing exams a year or 2 after graduation.
Especially with “Part 1″ with its Biochemical Pathways, Neuroanatomy trivia, and Bacterial Taxonomy that comes into play almost never in day to day practice.
Does Law School have Ribald Pneumonics like
“Oh Oh Oh To Touch And Feel A Girls Vagina and Hymen, So Heavenly” ???
to bad I can’t remember what it’s for.
The Pneumonic, I mean, I know what Vigina’s are for...
Frank, M.D. Frank Drackman(Quote)
tom952 says:
Plainly, the population of legal academia is excessive.
Heresy. Somebody get a rope. tom952(Quote)
Idag says:
I agree completely. Law school was a complete waste of time and money, and it did very little to prepare me for the actual practice of law. I learned more about the practice of law in the two months that I spent studying for the bar exam than I did in three years of law school. So I propose this: replace law school with an apprenticeship/residency program and make the bar exam tougher w/ an open research and writing component to weed out more potentially-incompetent lawyers. Idag(Quote)
Sally says:
Is it really that tough to find a competent attorney? People wail about how the exam doesn’t keep the inept boobs out and prevents some talented people from getting in but there are far more capable lawyers practicing than not so what would eliminating the Bar exam really accomplish? Clients would still be faced with trying to find the best lawyer money can buy. And sometimes you get more than you paid for and sometimes you don’t. Such is life. The Bar exam is a test of just how much a person wants to be a lawyer. Nobody makes you go to law school, nobody makes you sit for the Bar. You want in? This is what is required. If you can’t pass it or think it’s unfair or it should be easier, well then, go find something else to do. Sally(Quote)
Octavian says:
Abolishing the Bar Exam is THE dumbest idea I have ever seen espoused on this blog. Octavian(Quote)
Octavian says:
I agree. Not only should the Bar Exam be made harder, but there should also be a requirement for Lawyers to re-take the Exam every few years. Octavian(Quote)
Rebelyell says:
I took the bar and passed it, went 18 years without practicing, and then had to take the bar again to practice in a state that didn’t reciprocate. I flunked the state portion the first time I took 18-year-delayed bar and had to take it again. As an excuse I had a terrible sinus infection, but still, it did not kill me to have to take the exam again, and I really either re-learned or learned for the first time a lot of really useful stuff. Of course, no sooner had I passed and been admitted in my new state then it decided to offer reciprocity with my old one!
But as someone who has had the agony of flunking, I say keep the bar. It’s needed. Rebelyell(Quote)
mikeyes says:
But they also take that part of the exam (the National Boards) while in the second year of medical school so they are current with those concepts. (The other two parts are taken in the fourth year and following internship.)
It probably wouldn’t hurt law schools to look at the system of licensing exams that physicians use. Of course, each state has to include their own legal issues, but surely there are some universal concepts in law. mikeyes(Quote)
Urso says:
Hah! I filled out the addresses like so: “Lived at X, January 2000-June 2002. Lived at Y, July 2002-September 2004.”
I got a notice that my application was incomplete because I didn’t tell them where I lived between June and July 2002. The fear, I guess, is that I moved out of X on June 1st and into Y on July 31st, and they just desperately had to know what I was doing in between! Of course I had no idea what exact date I moved. Probably I just made something up. Urso(Quote)
Urso says:
No but we learned this in 9th grade bio. If I recall back then, it’s the major nerves that run back to the brain. Now I can’t remember any of their names, but I’ll certainly never forget that mnemonic. Urso(Quote)
bpbatista says:
She’s kidding, right? None of the people were “gifted” attorneys. Hillary was either a crook or committed malpractice in the Whitewater/Castle Grande fiasco. Michelle — what did she do again besides marry Barack? And FDR was a notoriously indifferent attorney. bpbatista(Quote)
Randy says:
” It was designed, as the then head of the ABA said publicly, to keep Irish, Jewish and Italian immigrants out of the profession.”
One would think, having failed miserably in achieving the stated goal, he would have eventually moved to abolish the exams. I wonder if he lived long enough to see his worst nightmares come true? Randy(Quote)
Randy says:
Urso: ” The fear, I guess, is that I moved out of X on June 1st and into Y on July 31st, and they just desperately had to know what I was doing in between! ”
undoubtedly, you were hiding your two month training stint to be a taliban terrorist. Randy(Quote)
Manju says:
I forgot to say over at the “Stereotypes Readers/Authors” thread, Elizabeth Wurtzel: Bookcover Judges. Manju(Quote)
Deaner says:
1) I imagine Justice Cardozo would have had trouble failing 6 bar exams, given that he was practicing law for 3 years before the New York State Legislature created the Board of Bar Examiners. Perhaps Ms. Wurtzel was as diligent in preparing for her first Bar Exam as she was in researching her facts for her article.
2) I don’t trust the impressions of a lawyer who has been part of the profession for maybe 2 months. In fact, Ms. Wutzel is so new to the law that she is not yet listed on her firm’s website.
The Bar Exam is a test of minimal competence; have you familiarized (read: memorized) enough general law in certain areas that you would have a basic idea of where to begin approaching a case, or at least a brief. IT is a flawed test, but so is the current model of the three-year law degree program.
This article seems to be more of an apology or explanation as to why people (the writer) who fail bar exams are still just as capable to be lawyers. Problem is that no one ever said we weren’t! Deaner(Quote)
Rich Rostrom says:
“reduc[ing] the number of lawyers (which of course is the main real function of bar exams)”
Then it’s done a very poor job.
The U.S. is swimming in lawyers compared to most countries, or our fairly-recent past.
In 1950, the U.S. had 184,000 lawyers and judges for 152M people.
In 2005, the U.S. had 961,000 lawyers and 70,000 judges for 297M people.
That’s almost a three-fold increase in lawyers per capita... Rich Rostrom(Quote)
KMills says:
Absolutely!!! That’s what I’ve been saying for the last few weeks after graduation. There should be specialist bar exams with Evidence and Civ Pro being standard. Then when you passed, you would get a Bar Card that limits your practice to the type of law you selected to be tested on. That would be a GREAT way to do it. I mean why the heck am I getting tested on Negotiable Instruments and Corporations when I want to practice Family Law. Uggh. It’s annoying. KMills(Quote)
Otto Stockmeyer says:
According to Andrew Kaufman’s monumental biograohy of Benjamin Cardozo, he applied for admission to the New York bar in June of 1891, upon turning the required age of 21, was duly examined, and was admitted that October. He did not “sit for it six times.” Now, it is true that Cardozo dropped out of Columbia without obtaining a law degree, but that’s another story. Otto Stockmeyer(Quote)