I'll probably come back & post more on this later, but one thing to note is that it is not the law schools denying admission to the bar, its the bar denying admission to people who have not gone to law school. Also, it's not illegal to practice law without the education - it's illegal to practice without the bar. The ace card isn't really the law schools so much as it's the bar associations. Meanwhile the bar associations are filled with attorneys who have JD's and want to keep the value of that degree up, so they have a vested interest in requiring JD's for admittance into their profession. It's kinda a circular & self reinforcing system, but like Mark Twain said, every profession is a conspiracy against the world.

I think the focus on legal education should not be getting online right now, but to change the JD to a 2 year degree, or start offering LLM's or something equivalent without the need for a JD and allow people to practice with those degrees. I've heard many law professors talk about how the final year of law school is pointless. Unfortunately, making a JD take 3 years is like Alka-seltzer coming up with the ad where they put in 2 tablets instead of one -- they're making money off it because people think it's needed.

Law schools are over priced, but they're also producing more than enough lawyers, so I don't really see accessbility as a bottleneck that needs to be solved, which is what most of the MOOCs are solving. Price is an issue that needs to be solved, but given the self perpetuating old boys network that is the legal profession any changes need to come through slow reforms, not major disruption.

Finally, firms & government agencies aren't going to hire people with online degrees even if they are admitted. School's name recognition carries more weight than it should (in my opinion) in this profession. It will be extremely hard for grads to gain the skills and prove themselves when they're not able to plug into existing networks after taking an online degree.