I've made my opinions on this known elsewhere. But, to quickly summarize, I think we should be more like some commonwealth countries and make law an undergraduate degree. Admission to the bar should follow a 1-2 year apprentice/clerkship rather than simply passing a written exam (or maybe both if you're that into testing). That said, in commonwealth countries that follow that system it isn't uncommon to find a law graduate working in finance or business or in a variety of other fields where bar admission isn't required. Let's think about it. You want a job that requires a bachelors in business. An LLB should do the trick nicely. Companies would benefit from having more members of their teams with solid legal training. Individuals would benefit because graduating from law school would cost no more than a bachelors degree. Schools would benefit because they can enroll more people. Major obstacles? Well, lawyers, for one. Lawyers in America used to earn the LLB. Many earned it post-bachelors though a fair number of schools admitted you without a bachelors at all. As of last checking the only law school I could find that admitted people without undergrad degrees was Albany and only on exceptional cases. Anyway, lawyers were pissy because 7 years of college got them two bachelors degrees while doctors, dentists, podiatrists etc got to be "doctors." The result has been the J.D. which is the abortion of academic credentials. The ABA says it's equivalent to a Ph.D. for teaching in a university. That would be fine, of course, if the next higher degree wasn't a masters and the one following that a doctorate. Surprisingly, I've only encountered one lawyer who insisted on the title "Doctor" as a result of possessing a J.D. In any case, the system is broken. A large and lofty system was constructed to create barriers to entry into the profession and preserve earnings. The result is that now it's hard to get into the profession AND you stand a good chance of not finding a job once you get your bar card. But that large and lofty system also massages a lot of egos and makes a lot of people feel holier than thou. Not everyone mind you. Not all lawyers are bad. But the bad ones get pretty vocal and litigious when you try to take away their feel-good system. I don't think closing law schools is the answer, personally. I think part of the problem is the ABA's lock on legal education. A few states have pathways for non-ABA grads to be admitted to the bar. And I think schools like the Massachusetts School of Law are a good example of what a non-ABA school can be. Opening more schools, closing the ones that are there, these things aren't going to change anything. First and foremost, break the ABA's monopoly. Then start thinking of ways to train lawyers that makes sense and doesn't result in crippling debt, 7 wasted years and no job.
I don't know much about this but that never stopped me from having (and expressing) an opinion. We know that law school applications are down as is the market for lawyers. Despite this I have the impression that there are no empty seats in law school classrooms. Perhaps there's been some relaxation of admission standards at some schools but I'm not clear that this has become common. At least not yet. There are a few metrics that might be interesting to track. The admissions acceptance rates, retention/graduation rates, bar exam passing rates and employment rates will all be signs that things are getting better or worse. If acceptance rates go up then we might guess that bar pass rates will go down. We might also expect that the percentage of law grads in jobs that don't require law degrees will go up as will the general level of unemployment of law grads. When the percentage of unemployed grads from mid-tier law schools crosses the 50% mark you will see a large enough drop off in applications that schools are unable to fill their classrooms. The law schools can admit increasingly less qualified applicants but eventually this will be reflected in the bar pass rates. Then, the prospect of a law degree will be excessively unattractive, especially with such a pricetag, and the seats will go unfilled and THEN you'll see some schools go under (or "evolve"). If I was thinknig about going to law school at this point I'd be planning on two things, 1) developing a specialization (tax law, international law, etc.), 2) getting another grad degree (LLM, MBA, etc.).
The following occurred last month: About eight applicants applied to work as a secretary making 28k annually (the secretary is the office manager for a judge). Two of the applicants are in their twenties and they are both recent law school graduates. The secretary works for a judge, so maybe that's as close to working in law that they could get? Or maybe the the economy is really bad? Or maybe there are simply too many lawyers and not enough jobs in law to employ all of them?
Less job opening, but more graduates...that is the problem. Unlike other school, law school requires 3 years in hell full-time plus $100,000.00 - $400,000.00 student loan. Most of new graduates do not have experience, and could not land a decent job in the legal profession. I think the better way to resolve the problem is requiring to have a Bachelor in Law to start practice, then gain more experience through workforce and continuing education. Just likes the UK...
One of the lawyers (the secretarial applicant) had already hung a shingle out, but apparently his business isn't doing too good since he is applying for a 28k secretarial job. During the interview, he basically said he "would take any employment at this point." He is desperate to make ends meet to support his family. Can a family be supported on a full-time 28k secretarial salary, in conjunction with paying-off a law school debt? Almost all attorneys will agree that one year of law school can be completely eliminated because it's useless (that's their description). Generally, attorneys are extremely intelligent. Many of them appear to have photographic memories -- or close to it. The BAR exam eliminates those who can't memorize a lot.
Gee, no one wants to hire a lawyer who never actually practiced law before? For real? When your doctor graduated medical school s/he was required to go into a residency program. This is a requirement to obtain a medical license (though Missouri found a clever way around that). So before your doctor can even THINK of hanging a shingle, they need to get anywhere from 2-5 years of experience under their belt after hanging their M.D. on their wall. Lawyer? Graduate, pass the bar and represent a client in a murder case all in the same week. Does that really sound wise? Not so in countries where a clerkship is required to be admitted to the bar. Then the profession follows a set of professional standards similar to physicians. Right now, any 25 year old who can pass a written test can hang out a shingle without ever having set foot inside a courtroom. What does it mean to be "extremely intelligent?" Are you saying lawyers are smarter than physicians? Are they smarter than research scientists? Does it matter where they attend law school? If, as a general rule, attorneys are all "extremely intelligent" then that should mean that even their bottom 10% are significantly smarter than the average non-attorney. And if your perception is that many lawyers have eidetic memories then you either don't know what eidetic memory is or you have met less than five lawyers total. Listen, many lawyers have some great memories. I know a woman who seems to be able to recall faces in a way that makes me envious. Still, she doesn't have an eidetic memory. I thought, for a long time, that all lawyers were just walking encyclopedias of law. Some may very well be. Most are not. Law school doesn't teach you how to cram volumes of case law into your head. That's not the point. And that's not what the bar exam tests. I've asked lawyers (at least the ones in my company with whom I work regularly) specifically about the memory thing. One lawyer knows employment law fairly well because he spends a lot of time on it. Another knows product liability law very well for the same reason. Both of them heartily agree that good lawyers aren't great memorizers. They are, instead, very good at being prepared. Yeah, on Law and Order the lawyers always rattle off obscure case law right off the cuff. In reality, I've watched lawyers fumble in court. It happens. A lot. A lot of preparation goes into preparing a legal argument. Lawyers don't just roll out of bed and into a courtroom and draw upon their mental index of known cases. Don't believe me? Talk to the paralegal who does all of that research in advance. Go to a law firm that has its own library and ask the librarian just how much research goes on there. If they all had eidetic memories the law library could probably be a road show. This week, the traveling law library is bringing contract law by the office. Swoop in and memorize everything so they can move on to the next firm. As for weeding out people who "can't memorize a lot" then what are you saying about countries who don't use a written bar exam? They all just have crappy, absent minded lawyers? I'm not trying to downplay what lawyers do or how smart they tend to be. But they are not superhuman beings. And the majority of lawyers have, if you were to find an adequate measure, average intelligence. Don't believe me? Go on down to the Workers Compensation Board and watch those proceedings. Then try to tell me that some of those guys and gals are at the top of their game. Some are amazing. But many are there because you get paid whether you win or lose.
Clearly I don't know this situation but I do know that sometimes people who are self-employed will take a lower level job ib order to get the health insurance that comes as a part of the benefits package. I'm just saying.
No competent judge would ever allow that; Judge Chamberlain Haller proved it in My Cousin Vinny. Seriously, criminal defense lawyers almost always cut their teeth as ADA's or public defenders (which has strict rules as to who can represent those charged with murder) before they ever dream of striking out on their own. Most new law school graduates who pass the bar and hang a shingle do petty public defense cases (first time drunk driving, simple assault, etc.), wills, trusts, and real estate transactions.
Some lawyers have suggested doing away with one-year of law school and replacing it with some sort of residency program. It's a good idea in theory. However, are there enough law firms to handle all the law school students? The comment was based on multiple spheres of experience, to include working with thousands of attorneys during a long career, to include exposure to civil attorneys, prosecutors and public defenders. Attending professional seminars with over 500 attorneys attending was also impressive. Having friends and colleagues who are attorneys was also influential. Your mileage may vary. Some people have met successful people who never went to college, but that's not a case for staying away from college. Some people have met college graduates who are idiots, but that's not an indictment on the entire educational system as being worthless. Similarly, one or two legal clowns is not a legitimate indictment against the intelligence of those in the legal profession. Attorneys tend to be extremely intelligent. Again, your mileage may vary.
Incorrect. You have the right to hire any lawyer you want. If that lawyer is a member of the bar they can theoretically represent you in any court proceeding. And, in the case I linked above, a judge found that it was the defendant's constitutional right to hire any lawyer of his choosing, even one who was only one year out of law school (the defendant wanted someone "fresh"). In another situation, a judge declared a mistrial when the defendant's attorney (who had been admitted to the bar for less than a year and had never worked for a firm not his own) was just so inexcusably bad that the whole proceeding had to be scrapped. Once admitted to the bar, you can practice law. I would challenge you to find a situation where a licensed attorney, hired by a party to a court action, was not allowed to appear on their client's behalf due to lack of experience.
See my earlier response about people with legal training working in non-lawyer jobs not being a bad thing provided they don't waste 7 years and have an insurmountable debt to overcome. The comment was based on multiple spheres of experience, to include working with thousands of attorneys during a long career, to include exposure to civil attorneys, prosecutors and public defenders. Attending professional seminars with over 500 attorneys attending was also impressive. Having friends and colleagues who are attorneys was also influential. Your mileage may vary. I'm pretty sure I made it clear that I wasn't saying lawyers were stupid. So for you to reference "one or two legal clowns" is as inaccurate as stating that I was attempting to issue an "indictment" against the legal profession. I was simply trying to bring your absolutely ludicrous elevation of the legal profession back to earth. In your account, lawyers are all genius chessmasters with eidetic memories. You also touted the bar as a means of weeding out lawyers who suck at memorization. The problem with that in doing so YOU issued an indictment against the legal profession by essentially trying to reduce it to a memory game. It is not. Forming strong logical arguments based upon thorough research is not a case of "I can memorize better than you." And yes, there are many smart lawyers. However, to say that most attorneys are "exceptionally intelligent" is, firstly, incredibly subjective. Beyond that I would argue that "most" lawyers are almost certainly of average to slightly above average intelligence. That isn't an "indictment." That isn't me saying that lawyers are stupid. Part of it is the fact that I have met numerous lawyers who, while competent in their work, are hardly of "exceptional intelligence." And if you think that the "clowns" wallowing in places like the WCB are exceptions to your rule then I suggest you look at how many people graduate from Tier 3 (and below) law schools compared to Tier 1 law schools and how many WC lawyers there are compared to attorneys specializing in say, securities. You're talking about a pretty large and incredibly diverse group of people with education of varying qualities. You have people who attended the finest private schools and have 7 years of Ivy League education at one end and people who may have never sat in a physical classroom as an undergrad and went to a poorly ranked law school at the other end. So to be able to say that "all" or "most" attorneys are anything in particular is a weird leap to try to make. You went to some seminars with lawyers? Good for you. But I can go to an art curators conference and say "Well, gee, most art history majors are gainfully employed as curators. I never met a single art history major who was unemployed." Right, because I went to a conference where that was the demographic. It's one of the reasons why anecdotal evidence can be fun to play with but it is limited in its application. You erroneously assume that your experience with attorneys at a select number of seminars and in your specific area of work is representative of all (or at least "most") attorneys.
Of course. Time travel is theoretically possible. Practical? No. That's a slam-dunk on appeal for inadequate counsel. It very rarely happens, because people are generally smart enough to want experienced counsel. Even when someone is stupid enough to represent themselves in a capital case (Colin Ferguson for example), an experienced lawyer is assigned to assist with the defense. Judges in capital cases hate to be reversed on appeal, since many of them aspire to higher positions, and allowing a new law school graduate who just passed the bar to represent a murder defendant is just asking for a reversal at an appellate court.
