IMHO, what determines if you're a lawyer or not should be completely test-based and not have anything to do with where you learned. There is a lot of gatekeeping going on with ABA to keep people from even taking the test.
Not trying to support the ABA or not support the ABA, but I have experience with this type of issue in other areas and reducing qualifications purely to tests or other outcomes has its own set of issues.
I'm not so sure. People often trivialize the kinetic energy involved with driving. Yes, a bad lawyer can potentially cause an innocent to be punished if enough other checks and balances fail.
But being behind the wheel of a car is something else. Even a small passenger car is over a ton of metal moving at oftentimes high speeds. Most people don't seem to appreciate the sheer destructive capability driving gives someone.
It is akin to ABET (previously Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology) in engineering. having an ABET accredited engineering degree has long been a component (alongside testing and mentored practice) for being a licensed engineer who can stamp drawings (e.g., structural plans for buildings). There are two tests (FE and PE) but they are not created by ABET they are created by an organization called NCEES - The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying.
ABET and NCEES are different organizations, part of the confusion here is that ABA is both the accreditor and the tester in many states. The difference in path between accreditor -> testing -> licensure is:
ABA accredited degree -> ABA (MBE) or other (non-ABA) Bar exam -> Lawyer
ABET accredited degree -> FE exam (made by NCEES) -> mentored work experience -> PE exam (made by NCEES) -> Professional Engineer
I also think we should be licensing law-enforcement and requiring them to have their own liability insurance.