Once you're a lawyer checks like malpractice insurance are great for everyone.
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.
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.