They should do the opposite: not require law school but make the bar exam harder. Vermont, California, and Virginia do not require law school.
California requires >2,000 hours apprenticeship under a practicing lawyer which is even harder (and more exclusive) than law school. It is theoretically cheaper but in reality not very practical as an alternative.
Very few people in California pass the bar without law school via the apprenticeship track. Most years, zero people pass that way.
I would bet that the readiness/ability of the people who attempt the apprenticeship track is much lower than those who attend CA law schools. This may be the reason that so few people succeed via this route — not because it's harder.
The main issue is the prestige factor. People will assume that you couldn't get into a decent law school if you went that route. Perhaps some students with sterling undergraduate credentials could try to break through and get jobs based on their undergrad connections.
Most people who take the apprenticeship track are pretty exceptional because they have to convince a practicing lawyer to essentially hire them with zero experience. The lawyer-apprentice relationship is very hands on, not like an intern or even a paralegal.
Regional law schools tend to be more focused on black letter law, partly because their students tend to be less capable of cramming all the black letter law in the 2 months before the bar exam.
But it would not be difficult at all for someone who had apprenticed for a lawyer for multiple years to take a Barbri class and pass the bar.
Is that a vestige of some kind of frontier-days policy, from before they really had law schools in California, or something?
(Like, I’m making a cute response here, but there’s not exactly an objective standard for objectivity, when you come down to it. Turtles all the way down and all that.)
Anyone can come off the street and take a bar exam. Not everyone can afford the time and financial burden of attending law school.
https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/sites/default/files/documen...
> Lastly, law clerks can become lawyers without enrolling in law school by completing standardized educational materials and benchmarks under the guidance of a mentoring attorney, along with the 500 hours of work as a licensed legal intern.
We need more lawyers bc imo the biggest need with AI is trust and safety, and that’s something humans must decide for ourselves in perpetuity, we need as many diverse voices as possible to ensure equity for everyone.
Once you're a lawyer checks like malpractice insurance are great for everyone.
If you serve cockroaches in your food or give fraudulent advice, you should be blasted on the local news (and sued).
I'm sure I could pass an ethics test, no problem. But my first client as a self-described "lawyer" would almost certainly lose their case, and that could cause them significant harm. I'm sure there are ways forward from there, but I don't think I'd characterize this as no big deal, simply because I'd then get bad LawYelp reviews and no one would want to engage my services anymore.
Also if you give me salmonella and I can trace it to you, I’m definitely considering a lawsuit.
But just as I wouldn't trust a plumber or electrician to work on my house without being licensed to perform those tasks (despite acknowledging that this licensing process is not perfect), I wouldn't trust a lawyer to represent me whose only independently-assessed qualification was that someone thought they were an ethical person.
> free market and who customers choose to rank the merits of their lawyers is their own prerogative.
We can't even get reliable, non-gamed restaurant recommendations, for crying out loud. What makes you think consumers will be able to make an informed decision about lawyers in the absence of any sort of licensing body?
Consumers already make gamed personal injury recommendations on who has the most audacious commercials, I don't think anything here re: gatekeeping will change that.
Can I ask where you went to law school? Do you think your experience is common? I gained a lot of valuable skills and knowledge when I was in law school that I used in practice and still use as a founder. I could have learned this stuff elsewhere, but there's no doubt that learning it in law school is one (increasingly expensive) way to do it.
Imo you could learn everything in law school better with apprenticeship, especially the most important part - having tough conversations.
What about your experience made you feel that law school was valuable?
This knowledge could have been gained another way, via a mix of apprenticeship and online learning. But I would have needed to do a bit of online learning before I was able to add much value or absorb the learnings from an apprenticeship position. There might be other areas of law with an easier learning curve, but corporate international tax isn't one of them.
I readily concede that at current tuition levels, going to law school now is a risky proposition. When I went 15 years ago, it was a pretty good deal with in-state tuition and some scholarship. I'm all in favor of students having alternative pathways that allow them to demonstrate the necessary competencies, especially if this lowers the cost to getting a law license.
Why should someone be prohibited from hiring such an person as their attorney though? The implication of what you say is that people shouldnt want them as an attorney but the question is if they should be disallowed.
Being presumed to be unskilled just doesnt seem like a good reason especially since you grant they are fit.
There’s not a quick enough feedback loop here, I think. The vast, vast majority of people would not be “informed buyers,” so to speak.
People should see a lawyer frequently for preventative care (e.g. having someone do a prenup or look over their employment contract) the same way people should see a doctor and do preventative care for their bodies.
are you suggesting only the fitness and character assessment should be necessary? or do you disagree with that requirement as well?
> i do believe there is a certain responsibility a lawyer swears to ethically uphold and maintain toward lay society which justifiably warrants some reasonable evaluation of the degree to which the candidate is able to comprehend and/or adhere to that oath.
This is just an argument that licensure has benefits. That's true, but they don't exceed the costs.