4 ms·

I looked into doing this a few years back. Apprenticeship, or "reading the law," used to be a very common method of becoming an attorney.[0] However, state bar

by s_q_b 12y ago

I looked into doing this a few years back. Apprenticeship, or "reading the law," used to be a very common method of becoming an attorney.[0] However, state bar regulations standardization have removed this option in all but a few states. Which, quite frankly, is a shame. There are paralegals, clerks, etc. that could easily pass the bar. The states' that did away with such programs should reconsider, and the states that allow reading the law should loosen their "in-office" training requirements, primarily by allowing remote work. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_law EDIT: @Zany: Right, so test them using the bar.

watwut 12y ago
I checked this out and in-office trained would be layers tend to fail a lot: "61 percent of the 39,313 examinees from California- and ABA-approved law schools passed the bar. In contrast, just 26 percent of the 39 law readers who took the bar exam made the grade. (Of the 10 who passed, only 2 were first-time takers.)" It does not seem to be easy method at all. [1] https://www.callawyer.com/Clstory.cfm?eid=916106 https://www.callawyer.com/Clstory.cfm?eid=916106
- jessaustin 12y ago
  I'm sure those who spent three years and $100k are encouraged that law school makes one twice as likely to pass the exam. The 39% who apparently can't pass the exam after all that are probably even more discouraged.
asdfologist 12y ago
It's quite ironic considering Abraham Lincoln was one such autodidact.
- afarrell 12y ago
  More importantly, John Marshall was too.
ZanyProgrammer 12y ago
Though paralegals might only be experts in the area of law that the attorneys they work for specialize in. Very deep knowledge is possible by paralegals, but not for all parts of the law.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  I'm not sure that's less true of attorneys. There's likely a statistical difference in typical depth and breadth, but you said "possible".
  - ZanyProgrammer 12y ago
    Well, theoretically aren't attorneys supposed to get that wide ranging exposure to different parts of the law in law school? Regardless of what they later practice, a newly minted JD will probably on average have a greater knowledge of more sectors of the law than any paralegal.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      Lawyers should have it, many paralegals will fail to, but you've not at all established that it's not possible for an autodidact paralegal to acquire similar depth and breadth.
    - s_q_b 12y ago
      Not any. You're forgetting that people are "geeks" about everything, including the law. Some of them haven't gone to law school for various reasons, usually either another compelling interest or cost. Complex litigation paralegals might know everything from criminal to tax to probate, and can effectively self-study the rest. Remember, reading the law is not new, and Supreme Court justices have both used this path, as did a huge portion of the professors who taught justices in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, in brief where most of our modern legal framework was laid. Lawyers look down on paralegals generally. But at every firm, there's a few paralegals that the attorneys treat with respect because they get shit done. Those are the ones that I think could become excellent lawyers with self-study. Why not let them take the test? If they fail, they fail.
ZanyProgrammer 12y ago
I don't disagree with you, but a paralegal working in criminal law for the past 20 years may not be up to snuff on probate or tax law. I think the solution is to drastically scale back the number of newly minted JDs (there's a vast oversupply of lawyers) as well at the same time reduce law school to 2 years.
- andrewfong 12y ago
  > I don't disagree with you, but a paralegal working in criminal law for the past 20 years may not be up to snuff on probate or tax law. Neither are newly minted JDs for the most part. That's why there are bar study courses. Those courses are expensive but still vastly cheaper than three years of law school.
- rahimnathwani 12y ago
  How do you scale back the number of newly minted JDs? Do you prevent some capable people who want to be lawyers, from becoming lawyers? Do you support the taxi medallion system, on the basis that it prevents there from being too many taxis?

by s_q_b 12y ago

watwut 12y ago

I checked this out and in-office trained would be layers tend to fail a lot: "61 percent of the 39,313 examinees from California- and ABA-approved law schools passed the bar. In contrast, just 26 percent of the 39 law readers who took the bar exam made the grade. (Of the 10 who passed, only 2 were first-time takers.)" It does not seem to be easy method at all. [1] https://www.callawyer.com/Clstory.cfm?eid=916106 https://www.callawyer.com/Clstory.cfm?eid=916106

jessaustin 12y ago
I'm sure those who spent three years and $100k are encouraged that law school makes one twice as likely to pass the exam. The 39% who apparently can't pass the exam after all that are probably even more discouraged.

asdfologist 12y ago

It's quite ironic considering Abraham Lincoln was one such autodidact.

afarrell 12y ago
More importantly, John Marshall was too.

ZanyProgrammer 12y ago

Though paralegals might only be experts in the area of law that the attorneys they work for specialize in. Very deep knowledge is possible by paralegals, but not for all parts of the law.

dllthomas 12y ago
I'm not sure that's less true of attorneys. There's likely a statistical difference in typical depth and breadth, but you said "possible".
- ZanyProgrammer 12y ago
  Well, theoretically aren't attorneys supposed to get that wide ranging exposure to different parts of the law in law school? Regardless of what they later practice, a newly minted JD will probably on average have a greater knowledge of more sectors of the law than any paralegal.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    Lawyers should have it, many paralegals will fail to, but you've not at all established that it's not possible for an autodidact paralegal to acquire similar depth and breadth.
  - s_q_b 12y ago
    Not any. You're forgetting that people are "geeks" about everything, including the law. Some of them haven't gone to law school for various reasons, usually either another compelling interest or cost. Complex litigation paralegals might know everything from criminal to tax to probate, and can effectively self-study the rest. Remember, reading the law is not new, and Supreme Court justices have both used this path, as did a huge portion of the professors who taught justices in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, in brief where most of our modern legal framework was laid. Lawyers look down on paralegals generally. But at every firm, there's a few paralegals that the attorneys treat with respect because they get shit done. Those are the ones that I think could become excellent lawyers with self-study. Why not let them take the test? If they fail, they fail.

ZanyProgrammer 12y ago

I don't disagree with you, but a paralegal working in criminal law for the past 20 years may not be up to snuff on probate or tax law. I think the solution is to drastically scale back the number of newly minted JDs (there's a vast oversupply of lawyers) as well at the same time reduce law school to 2 years.

andrewfong 12y ago
> I don't disagree with you, but a paralegal working in criminal law for the past 20 years may not be up to snuff on probate or tax law. Neither are newly minted JDs for the most part. That's why there are bar study courses. Those courses are expensive but still vastly cheaper than three years of law school.
rahimnathwani 12y ago
How do you scale back the number of newly minted JDs? Do you prevent some capable people who want to be lawyers, from becoming lawyers? Do you support the taxi medallion system, on the basis that it prevents there from being too many taxis?