anomdebus: 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.

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.

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…

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!

undoubtedly, you were hiding your two month training stint to be a taliban terrorist.

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?

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

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.

Frank Drackman: BR>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.

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.

Randy: 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.

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.

Frank Drackman: 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.

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.

But as someone who has had the agony of flunking, I say keep the bar. It’s needed.

A. Zarkov: “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.

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.

whit: correction: replace “bar exams” with “law school”

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.

Heresy. Somebody get a rope.

Frank, M.D.

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.

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.

Bama 1L:
That Notre Dame had opened a law school in the 1860s should have indicated the obvious flaw in the plan.

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.

New Yorker: We should remember as lawyers that, while we may not all be worth the $400/hr fees charged by NYC law firm partners (yet),

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.

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.

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.

gullyborg: 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.

That’s “Realtor (R)”.

Consult with yer friendly local IP attorney for an explanation of the difference.

Are there bar exams in Canada and England?

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.

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:

The inefficiency of law and litigation in practice begin with the complete waste of effort that is its licensing ritual.

Alternative verb-subject agreement! Now that’s a creative thinker!! What … tartiness.

Cassandra: 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.

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.

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?

Prof. S.: Actually, that’s neither thinking like a lawyer. Nor is negligence per se the same as res ipsa loquitur.

And some states recognize negligence per se, but don’t recognize res ipsa loquitor.

Mike S.: It was designed, as the then head of the ABA said publicly, to keep Irish, Jewish and Italian immigrants out of the profession.

That Notre Dame had opened a law school in the 1860s should have indicated the obvious flaw in the plan.

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.

Mike S.: 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.

that’s a fair cop

whit:
so law school, like gun control and drug laws have a root in racism…

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.

Anonny: 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.”

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.