3 ms·

I've been an attorney for over 40 years. While I don't have answers to the political and moral issues involved, I can say with very high confidence that attendi

I've been an attorney for over 40 years. While I don't have answers to the political and moral issues involved, I can say with very high confidence that attending law school and passing the bar has zero to do with whether that person is capable of practicing law. Law school does one important thing: teach how to divine legal principles from reading a written judicial opinion. And, correspondingly, that is the only skill the bar exam measures. While certainly important, knowing how to read case law is a far cry from knowing how to practice law. There is only one way to learn how to practice law: and that is practicing law. That is especially true of trial work, which I've done for over 40 years. In my opinion, it takes a minimum of 20 jury trials before an attorney even begins getting a faint idea of the art involved in winning trials; and then spending the balance of their career crafting the art. The idea that law school or bar exams are essential in any way - either to the eventual lawyer or to protect the public - is way off target. Indeed the myth generated by every judicial branch in the USA that being given a bar card means the holder is ready to offer services to the public, is the most outrageous legal concept I have ever heard. IMO it should be illegal for any lawyer to offer legal services to the public the day after he/she was handed a bar card. That's how little law school prepares - and how poorly the bar exam measures - an attorney's readiness to engage in the actual practice of law.

gnicholas 3y ago
It's also possible that law school and/or the bar exam have changed in the last 40 years. I went to law school in the early aughts and found it to be quite helpful for teaching me how to be an effective lawyer. It's also certainly not true that the only skill the bar exam measures is knowing how to divine legal principles from reading a written judicial opinion. There is a huge memorization component, which ensures that lawyers know a fair amount of substantive law (at least at one point in time), and that they are capable of memorization (which can be a useful skill for people who work with complex fact patterns). It was also well known that the bar examiners gave lots of credit based on your application of the law. Even if you misremembered a legal test, you could get lots of points just for logically applying the law as you stated it to the fact pattern.
- keernan 3y ago
  >ensures that lawyers know a fair amount of substantive law (at least at one point in time), and that they are capable of memorization Thinking you know substantive law can be a dangerous thing for any lawyer who believes they don't need to bother researching. Obviously we all absorb the law in our areas of expertise but to suggest that practicing lawyers actually use law they learned in law school is a stretch imo. You are right, of course, that both law school and the bar test memorization. I have always thought that to be a big flaw. As a trial attorney I have, of course, had to deal at times with very large and complex fact patterns. I never had to memorize anything. Dealing with the same fact pattern for 24-48 months reading documents, and deposing witnesses doesn't require memorization - it just requires memory. As for the bar exam, I'm quite sure it has changed. Back when I took it, it required two full days. Eight hours writing essays one day. Then the multi-state multiple choice the second day. Not sure if states still require a separate day writing several blue books worth of essays. Either way, none of that has the slightest to do with being prepared to engage in the practice of law - which was the primary point I intended to convey.
  - ghodith 3y ago
    > Thinking you know substantive law can be a dangerous thing for any lawyer who believes they don't need to bother researching. This is always true, independent of whether one has gone to law school or not.
jaybrendansmith 3y ago
I'm not sure that's what the intent of the bar exam is. It was put in place for one reason alone ... to stop charlatans. As a culture we have the Saul Goodman archetype, and he isn't going away. Bar exam is at least an impediment. We remove it at our peril.

gnicholas 3y ago

It's also possible that law school and/or the bar exam have changed in the last 40 years. I went to law school in the early aughts and found it to be quite helpful for teaching me how to be an effective lawyer. It's also certainly not true that the only skill the bar exam measures is knowing how to divine legal principles from reading a written judicial opinion. There is a huge memorization component, which ensures that lawyers know a fair amount of substantive law (at least at one point in time), and that they are capable of memorization (which can be a useful skill for people who work with complex fact patterns). It was also well known that the bar examiners gave lots of credit based on your application of the law. Even if you misremembered a legal test, you could get lots of points just for logically applying the law as you stated it to the fact pattern.

keernan 3y ago
>ensures that lawyers know a fair amount of substantive law (at least at one point in time), and that they are capable of memorization Thinking you know substantive law can be a dangerous thing for any lawyer who believes they don't need to bother researching. Obviously we all absorb the law in our areas of expertise but to suggest that practicing lawyers actually use law they learned in law school is a stretch imo. You are right, of course, that both law school and the bar test memorization. I have always thought that to be a big flaw. As a trial attorney I have, of course, had to deal at times with very large and complex fact patterns. I never had to memorize anything. Dealing with the same fact pattern for 24-48 months reading documents, and deposing witnesses doesn't require memorization - it just requires memory. As for the bar exam, I'm quite sure it has changed. Back when I took it, it required two full days. Eight hours writing essays one day. Then the multi-state multiple choice the second day. Not sure if states still require a separate day writing several blue books worth of essays. Either way, none of that has the slightest to do with being prepared to engage in the practice of law - which was the primary point I intended to convey.
- ghodith 3y ago
  > Thinking you know substantive law can be a dangerous thing for any lawyer who believes they don't need to bother researching. This is always true, independent of whether one has gone to law school or not.

jaybrendansmith 3y ago

I'm not sure that's what the intent of the bar exam is. It was put in place for one reason alone ... to stop charlatans. As a culture we have the Saul Goodman archetype, and he isn't going away. Bar exam is at least an impediment. We remove it at our peril.