4 ms·
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 pract
by 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 agoLawyers 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 agoNot 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.
- dllthomas 12y agoWell said.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]