Bar Stoolpigeon

Those of you who're fresh out of law school and prepping for your own bar exams may want to check out Doug Kern's piece at Tech Central Station examining what the test is really all about. In the immortal words of Senator Bullworth: "Let's hear that dirty word—socialism!"

Comments

[Gary Gunnels]

KentInDc,

That's essentially the case; law school is basically a crash course in working for a firm 60-70 hours a week. 🙂

Sandy,

"...malpractice against lawyers..."

The growing business of malpractice suits against lawyers should warm your heart then.

[joe]

I did RTFA. He clears his throat about licensing, then goes ahead and makes the argument anyway.

Lawyers aren't supposed to be impartial. They're supposed to zealously argue their client's side.

[Russ D]

You don't need a license to practice law, depending on the customer apparently. Or you do. Either way, the state wants money.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1085416917268

[Alex]

Kern is right about the purpose and use of the bar exam, but I am really put off by so-called free marketers who think the key to reducing legal costs in this country is lowering the barriers to entry to the legal profession and thereby the courts.

Any civil defense attorney will tell you that the only thing more unreasonably expensive to defend than a baseless lawsuit is a baseless lawsuit brought by a plaintiff representing himself. Plaintiffs who don't know what they're doing (as well as those represented by attorneys who don't know what they're doing, or who don't care) only cost your client more money as you have to spend more time making sure things get done properly. And these costs not only harm companies, their employees and their customers; they also increase the cost to taxpayers of running the courts.

If you want to point your finger at someone over the cost of legal services in this country, point your finger at the legislatures. They're the ones who pass stupid laws that encourage lawsuits and really raise the barriers to entry to the courts.

[Amy Phillips]

Joe: While I'm not sure I'd hire a non-lawyer to defend me on murder charges, I might hire a paralegal who has worked in family law for 20 years to draft my divorce, or allow my realtor to handle the sale of my house. There are plenty of non-criminal types of law where non-lawyers who have more hands on experience might actually be better for the job. Heck, in the case of the paralegal, under the status quo, people pay $200 an hour for a divorce lawyer, who promptly pays a paralegal $20 an hour to do all the paperwork anyway. Why not cut out the middleman?

[bruce]

Just for the record, here in Texas a person can only take the bar exam up to five times. So, it's not true, as the article says, that those with law degrees can keep taking the bar exam indefinitely until they eventually pass... at least not here in Texas. I think a majority of states have a limit as to how many times a candidate is allowed to attempt the bar exam in that state.

[Gary Gunnels]

I got an A in my Federal Courts course; indeed, I got the highest grade. 🙂 I "AMJURED" it in other words. 🙂 I suggest that anyone with an interest in seperation of powers and the role of the federal courts should take the course - its pretty fricking interesting stuff.

[jc]

If more laws were passed, there'd be plenty of work for everyone who wanted to be a lawyer.

[D Anghelone]

So, you've changed your mind about law school?

[KentInDC]

A few years ago, as I was preparing to begin law school at 40, an observant young coworker assured me that law school can't be THAT hard considering how many graduates are produced.

One student at my law school was near the bottom of his class after his first semester, even though he attended almost every class. For the second semester, he rarely attended class and used the time to study old "A" exams from his professors. He received the highest grade in three of his four classes that semester.

[joe]

Hire a lawyer that isn't certified to keep you out of jail?

OK, dude, you first.

[Gary Gunnels]

Good grades in law school are more about persperitation than intellect - in other words, how many times can I re-read this fricking outline I made.

[KentInDC]

Gary Gunnels,
I was amazed at high GPA students from bottom tier schools receiving interviews and offers in preference to average students from top tier law schools, despite that fact that few students at bottom tier schools could get into the top tier schools in the first place. However, I think I figured it out. Lawyers realize - although most would never admit - that it doesn't take a genius to be a lawyer. The students at each law school generally represent a fairly narrow band of abilities. Law firms tend to look for people willing to put in very long hours and those are the people who tend to get the highest grades.

[Tort-oise]

The current certification system is deeply flawed, so let's have no certification system at all?

That's pretty bizarre reasoning. Would you say the same about certifying medical doctors?

If your incompetent, uncertified lawyer fucks up and costs you your livelihood or your freedom, just sue him? Kind of hard to sue your fly-by-night lawyer from prison, especially if you're penniless. And how do you square your free-market, sue-the-bastards solution with all your libertarian passion for tort reform?

The main problem is two-fold: Law schools waste a great deal of students' time and leave them woefully unprepared for the practice of law; and the Bar Exam is largely unrelated to what most lawyers do in their day-to-day practice.

If law schools would abandon their silly, self-serving curriculum of mystification via the Socratic Method and just teach the basic intellectual skills needed by all lawyers (three semesters would probably suffice), followed by some sort of two-year hands-on apprenticeship system, followed by some reasonable certification test designed to accurately measure what lawyers actually do, then that would probably clear up about 80% of the mess.

Won't happen, though: It's too reasonable and cuts into too many very profitable rackets.

[kevrob]

I never suggested certification should be eliminated, just privatized, and made voluntary. If you only trust auto mechanics who have the seal of approval from NADA or ASE, that is your choice, and probably a wise one, if you can afford it. The same should be the case for legal advice. One may be an idiot to hire someone who can't prove to you that he has sufficient legal training, but it wouldn't be hard to find out if he did have such.

The trap with private certification is when an industry lobbies to make the standards mandatory, thereby tending to cartelize the market. Licensing takes the racket one step farther.

Kevin

[Tort-oise]

It is privatized right now. The ABA isn't a branch of the government.

Why on earth should certification be made voluntary? Nothing wrong with mandatory certification per se. It's the content, rigor, and usefulness of the certification that matters. Does the current certification actually mean anything? As things stand now, I'd say it's better than nothing at all but still pretty piss poor.

[Gary Gunnels]

Mona,

Never took trial practice, eh?

[Lisa Simpson]

An aside to Amy: my parents (dad is a family law atty, mom his senior paralegal) don't bill their clients his rate for her work. He might bill her services out at $75 per hour and pay her $30 (I'm guessing), but at least it's a double or treble, and not ten-fold, profit.

[kevrob]

The ABA isn't a branch of the government.

No, it isn't. Joining it isn't "being admitted to the bar", either. Where I live...

In February 1988 a federal district court decision ruled unconstitutional the Wisconsin Supreme Court's requirement that all lawyers join the State Bar as a condition of practicing law in this state. Following that decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the mandatory membership rule. The district court ruling has been overturned, and it is permissible for the Wisconsin Supreme Court to require Wisconsin lawyers to join the State Bar of Wisconsin as a condition of practicing law in Wisconsin. On March 10, 1992, following a public hearing on the State Bar Board of Governors' petition to reinstate the integrated bar, the supreme court ordered the mandatory membership requirement reinstated, effective July 1, 1992. Nearly 87 percent of the lawyers in Wisconsin chose to become voluntary members of the State Bar.

http://www.wisbar.org/bar/about.html

So, our Bar is a "voluntary" organization that you have to join. It reminds me of mandatory "contributions" for government old age benefits. Oxymoron city.

I expect that this rule is followed in some states, but not in others. There is no need for the "State Bar" to be anything but a registry of qualified lawyers, while the "State Bar Association" is a separate trade group. If I was concerned that a potential advocate wasn't up to standards, I'd ask if his malpractice insurance was valid, and check his references, if I really had a reason to use him, and not someone who had a conventional legal education.

Kevin

[Nike outlet store inNethland]

het is zinvol