3 ms·

Perhaps moving too far in the direction of pushing all career training onto universities. Long ago, if you wanted to become an attorney, you could go through a

Perhaps moving too far in the direction of pushing all career training onto universities. Long ago, if you wanted to become an attorney, you could go through an apprenticeship with a practicing attorney. Not many states still allow that, and I'm sure there are good reasons for requiring all aspiring lawyers to go to law school instead. But the old system did have one thing going for it: It kept the supply of lawyers from becoming completely detached from demand. As a great many people who who are trying to pay off their JDs on Starbucks pay can attest, the same is not true under the current system.

rayiner 8y ago
> Not many states still allow that, and I'm sure there are good reasons for requiring all aspiring lawyers to go to law school instead. There isn't. Law is the same profession it was 150 years ago. (There are new tools, of course--electronic research, e-discovery, etc.--but you don't really learn to use them in law school anyway.) The JD requirement is just one instance of the larger capture of American society by academia. Your point about supply and demand is astute. The JD requirement didn't replace the apprenticeship requirement, it supplemented it. Today, lawyer supply is still limited by the opportunities for new lawyers to go to trial, handle deals, etc.--nobody would hire a lawyer who has only academic or theoretical experience in those areas. But the winnowing process happens after a whole bunch of people have taken six figures in non-dischargeable debt.
- dvtrn 8y ago
  Unless this has changed in the last two years and I've missed the news, Vermont, Virginia, California and Washington State allow anyone holding a BA to study under a licensed attorney for a specified period of time and sit for their respective state Bar exams following that period.
- torstenvl 8y ago
  > There isn't [a 'good reason[] for requiring all aspiring lawyers to go to law school instead.'] In my view, there are two good reasons. First, the legal job positions that only require a mechanistic understanding of the law have been automated. The days of needing a "country lawyer" whose practice consisted of basic family law like wills are gone, thanks to LegalZoom and similar services. The jobs that were best filled by these people have been automated away. In the jobs that remain, it's not enough just to know the law, but you must learn to think in a legal/analytical way. This is not a skill that comes easily just from reading statutes and some case law under supervision. Second, the size and complexity of the American legal regime, including the administrative state, has made it necessary for lawyers to (a) specialize; and (b) be able to issue-spot in areas well outside their expertise, to know when to look for help. Although a mergers and acquisitions attorney might be able to apprentice a young aspiring lawyer in that area, they're unlikely to be able to transfer all the latent knowledge they have of other areas of law. As an example, I have about a decade of experience in my practice areas, and would be wholly incapable of apprenticing an aspiring lawyer in the area of, say, commercial paper to the point of being able to pass the bar exam. The first requirement (depth in a specialty area) makes most practicing attorneys ill suited to train someone to standard in the second requirement (latent breadth).
- setr 8y ago
  >nobody would hire a lawyer who has only academic or theoretical experience in those areas Given the high cost of lawyers, and the general understanding that you avoid going to court as much as possible, as it can easily bankrupt you before achieving any good, its hard to imagine that's actually true. The current options are to pay a huge amount, or give up entirely; I'm sure there's a market for the middle ground (inexperienced but cheap lawyers), and a reason no one can access (eg regulation)
  - rayiner 8y ago
    > I'm sure there's a market for the middle ground (inexperienced but cheap lawyers), and a reason no one can access (eg regulation) There is no such regulation. A fresh graduate could theoretically argue a case in the Supreme Court--it just requires a pro forma application and payment of a $200 fee to be admitted to the Supreme Court bar. A JD you hire for $20/hour on Craigslist can, legally, represent you in almost any proceeding, as long as she is upfront with you about the fact of her inexperience (and is willing to shoulder the malpractice risk). There is no market for inexperienced but cheap lawyers, at least for business litigation. If you're a plaintiff, you can get experienced lawyers to work on contingency. If you're a defendant, you have huge potential exposure if you lose the case. If you really have no money, the plaintiff will realize it can't get blood from a stone and will settle cheaply. It would be incredibly risky to roll the dice and try to fight with a lawyer who lacks experience.
    - bunderbunder 8y ago
      > There is no market for inexperienced but cheap lawyers, at least for business litigation. Caveat there - there's room in the boiler room, at least on the bigger cases. Not exactly the kind of work kids dream of when they apply to law school, though.
nradov 8y ago
Specifically only 4 states allow taking the Bar Exam without attending law school: California, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. Only a tiny number of people successfully do that each year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_law#Modern_practice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_law#Modern_practice
lellotope 8y ago
This is such an unrecognized part of the problem: overcredentialing. It's rampant: it's explicit in areas like healthcare and law, and implicit in the HR practices of many corporations. We bitch about people going into debt, but turn around an are fine with companies being picky as hell about having a specific degree, as if that's everything about a person's ability or background. We also bitch about healthcare costs, but then act like the sky will fall if we start discussing the possibility of pharmacists, optometrists, or psychologists prescribing or offering more services. Your observation about law is equally astute. I'm going to beat a dead horse until it rises from the grave, but this is the situation with liberal arts degrees as well: they're from a time when it was assumed that you could major in, say, philosophy, and take comp sci classes, do work in that area, and build up a career in comp sci without anyone questioning it. Now your local HR department uses that comp sci degree to screen you, as if you are your degree. Everyone knows that these degrees are helpful but imperfect indicators, but we treat them as perfect indicators because it's easier to maintain the myth, and it benefits those who benefit from rent-seeking and overregulation.

rayiner 8y ago

> Not many states still allow that, and I'm sure there are good reasons for requiring all aspiring lawyers to go to law school instead. There isn't. Law is the same profession it was 150 years ago. (There are new tools, of course--electronic research, e-discovery, etc.--but you don't really learn to use them in law school anyway.) The JD requirement is just one instance of the larger capture of American society by academia. Your point about supply and demand is astute. The JD requirement didn't replace the apprenticeship requirement, it supplemented it. Today, lawyer supply is still limited by the opportunities for new lawyers to go to trial, handle deals, etc.--nobody would hire a lawyer who has only academic or theoretical experience in those areas. But the winnowing process happens after a whole bunch of people have taken six figures in non-dischargeable debt.

dvtrn 8y ago
Unless this has changed in the last two years and I've missed the news, Vermont, Virginia, California and Washington State allow anyone holding a BA to study under a licensed attorney for a specified period of time and sit for their respective state Bar exams following that period.
torstenvl 8y ago
> There isn't [a 'good reason[] for requiring all aspiring lawyers to go to law school instead.'] In my view, there are two good reasons. First, the legal job positions that only require a mechanistic understanding of the law have been automated. The days of needing a "country lawyer" whose practice consisted of basic family law like wills are gone, thanks to LegalZoom and similar services. The jobs that were best filled by these people have been automated away. In the jobs that remain, it's not enough just to know the law, but you must learn to think in a legal/analytical way. This is not a skill that comes easily just from reading statutes and some case law under supervision. Second, the size and complexity of the American legal regime, including the administrative state, has made it necessary for lawyers to (a) specialize; and (b) be able to issue-spot in areas well outside their expertise, to know when to look for help. Although a mergers and acquisitions attorney might be able to apprentice a young aspiring lawyer in that area, they're unlikely to be able to transfer all the latent knowledge they have of other areas of law. As an example, I have about a decade of experience in my practice areas, and would be wholly incapable of apprenticing an aspiring lawyer in the area of, say, commercial paper to the point of being able to pass the bar exam. The first requirement (depth in a specialty area) makes most practicing attorneys ill suited to train someone to standard in the second requirement (latent breadth).
setr 8y ago
>nobody would hire a lawyer who has only academic or theoretical experience in those areas Given the high cost of lawyers, and the general understanding that you avoid going to court as much as possible, as it can easily bankrupt you before achieving any good, its hard to imagine that's actually true. The current options are to pay a huge amount, or give up entirely; I'm sure there's a market for the middle ground (inexperienced but cheap lawyers), and a reason no one can access (eg regulation)
- rayiner 8y ago
  > I'm sure there's a market for the middle ground (inexperienced but cheap lawyers), and a reason no one can access (eg regulation) There is no such regulation. A fresh graduate could theoretically argue a case in the Supreme Court--it just requires a pro forma application and payment of a $200 fee to be admitted to the Supreme Court bar. A JD you hire for $20/hour on Craigslist can, legally, represent you in almost any proceeding, as long as she is upfront with you about the fact of her inexperience (and is willing to shoulder the malpractice risk). There is no market for inexperienced but cheap lawyers, at least for business litigation. If you're a plaintiff, you can get experienced lawyers to work on contingency. If you're a defendant, you have huge potential exposure if you lose the case. If you really have no money, the plaintiff will realize it can't get blood from a stone and will settle cheaply. It would be incredibly risky to roll the dice and try to fight with a lawyer who lacks experience.
  - bunderbunder 8y ago
    > There is no market for inexperienced but cheap lawyers, at least for business litigation. Caveat there - there's room in the boiler room, at least on the bigger cases. Not exactly the kind of work kids dream of when they apply to law school, though.

nradov 8y ago

Specifically only 4 states allow taking the Bar Exam without attending law school: California, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. Only a tiny number of people successfully do that each year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_law#Modern_practice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_law#Modern_practice

lellotope 8y ago

This is such an unrecognized part of the problem: overcredentialing. It's rampant: it's explicit in areas like healthcare and law, and implicit in the HR practices of many corporations. We bitch about people going into debt, but turn around an are fine with companies being picky as hell about having a specific degree, as if that's everything about a person's ability or background. We also bitch about healthcare costs, but then act like the sky will fall if we start discussing the possibility of pharmacists, optometrists, or psychologists prescribing or offering more services. Your observation about law is equally astute. I'm going to beat a dead horse until it rises from the grave, but this is the situation with liberal arts degrees as well: they're from a time when it was assumed that you could major in, say, philosophy, and take comp sci classes, do work in that area, and build up a career in comp sci without anyone questioning it. Now your local HR department uses that comp sci degree to screen you, as if you are your degree. Everyone knows that these degrees are helpful but imperfect indicators, but we treat them as perfect indicators because it's easier to maintain the myth, and it benefits those who benefit from rent-seeking and overregulation.