# Increasing the Difficulty of the Bar Exam



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

I know there are quite a few lawyers who post here who might have an opinion on this. I also think that the opinions of non-lawyers might be even more valuable.

There has been considerable discussion in recent years regarding increasing the difficulty of the bar exam. This past year NY raised the required score for passing, but it seemed to have little effect on the overall pass rate. They intend to analyse the date and again raise the required score next year. The goal (as I understand it) is to lower the overall pass rate without injuring any particular demographic.

This plan has raised a rather heated discussion in many circles. Issues range from race and gender issues to issues regarding wealth. Some people argue that we should do away with the bar exam entirely, while other argue that it should be far more rigorous.

Let's get the discussion started here.


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by pleasehelp_
> 
> I know there are quite a few lawyers who post here who might have an opinion on this. I also think that the opinions of non-lawyers might be even more valuable.
> 
> ...


I plan to take the exam in CT, but I'm only a first year. It's an interesting concept...but maybe it will prevent the inept from becoming lawyers. I suppose that depends on whether good bar score=good lawyer. Based on my experience so far good LSAT does not = smart or good law student in several cases, so I have doubts about the bar.

From the articles I read it was not clear why the rate was proposed to be raised, however...what was it that prompted

One thing that really gets me about whenever someone suggests raising a bar: Last thing I want to do is start up the affirmative action debate, but from what I read the concern is that fewer minorities will pass if the pass rate is increased. While I understand why people would like to see equal representation in the workplace, it would seem that if merely raising standards affects minority pass rates, then that is minorities', not the bar examiners', problem, and one, if they continue to be perceived as some groupthink concept instead of as individuals who happen to score lower and deserve no special consideration in spite of low scores, that they will have to address themselves. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to question raising standards--i.e. is the bar exam much of a litmus test at all-- without knee-jerk playing of the race card.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

The probable reason for raising the bar is to limit the number of lawyers with licenses. Hopefully they can keep fees higher by restricting supply. Of course, they will come up with all sorts of reasons that sound good, like protecting the public, etc. I really think it is probably simply an entry barrier.

I'm a CPA. There are people who pass the exam that don't have a clue what it all really means or how to apply it in real business situations. There are some people who never took the exam that are brilliant accountants. 

While the CPA license is a confirmation that at least some education exists and that you should know your theoretical basics, it is not a fool-proof guarantee that someone is a good accountant.

I'm not an attorney and I can't say for sure, but I would bet that not all the best and most successful attorneys are the ones who have passed the bar with the highest scores.

That's why I think it is simply more of an entry barrier.


----------



## Sir Henry Billingsgate (Dec 14, 2005)

> quote:
> This plan has raised a rather heated discussion in many circles. Issues range from race and gender issues to issues regarding wealth


Hopefully one day the legal profession will be able to get beyond political correctness; but I'm not holding my breath. There are too many vested interests interested in milking "race and gender issues" for all they are worth; and these vested interests are particularly well entrenched within the legal profession.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by forsbergacct2000_
> 
> The probable reason for raising the bar is to limit the number of lawyers with licenses. Hopefully they can keep fees higher by restricting supply. Of course, they will come up with all sorts of reasons that sound good, like protecting the public, etc. I really think it is probably simply an entry barrier.


That's as good an explanation as any. California allegedly made its bar exam more difficult several years ago, around the time that every clever lad and lassie in the state was entering law school, lured by sky-high salaries that firms like MoFo, Latham, Wilson Sosini, Brobeck (R.I.P.) and others were offering first-year associates. Even though the dot.com implosion has put paid to much of this frenzy, the legal profession is still attractive to more students than it was formerly, because, let's face it, there aren't many growing professions out there. Races to the bottom are fine for the hoi polloi, but when it starts affecting the privileged castes . . . well, something has to be done about it.

Of course, a heightened entry barrier will adversely affect many minorities. This is just another example of the structural racism that permeates American society. Any number of ostensibly color-blind or race-neutral policies can achieve the same results as much more blatantly racist policies. That's what the "states rights" movement is all about.

"Don't tell me not to live, just sit and putter/Life's candy and the sun's a ball of butter" Barbara Streisand


----------



## clothingconnoisseur (Oct 9, 2005)

The problem isn't too many people passing the bar exam but rather too many people taking it. I am a non-practicing attorney (I work for an M&A firm) that passed the NYS bar exam.

The following statements are not meant to offend anyone but, simply put, there are far too many law schools out there that should not exist. Last time I checked, there were about 175 accredited law schools in the U.S. If you go to a "top 10" school (I did not) you can pretty much get a job anywhere you want. If you go to a second tier school (top 50) you should have little trouble getting a job in the school's surrounding areas. If you are between 50 and 100 you better have done very well (law review = top 10%) or have some connections through friends and family. Below the top 100 you are essentially "Sh*t Out of Luck" in finding a job unless you are willing to take something very low paying or have serious connections (i.e. your father owns his own firm).

I am not trying to disparrage these lower ranked schools or their students. I am just saying that if you can't get a job when you graduate, what is the point? Unless you are very wealthy and can afford to sacrifice three years of earning and spend $100,000+ for the intellectual stimulation then you should probably not go to law school if you can't get admitted to a school that isn't in the top 50% or so of all the schools out there. I am lucky enough to have graduated from a well regarded "second-tier" law school and to have had the connections to get the job I wanted. I have met too many people who graduated from low ranked schools that can't get decent jobs, give up and find something in another field or do "temp work" at $20 hour - not so great with student loan payments.

I didn't mean to ramble, but this is sort of a sore spot for me. Many schools manipulate thier employment statistics. For example, you could graduate and be flipping burgers but you are listed as "employed" for purposes of thier statistics - this is actually true as revealed from my schools career planning office! 

Basically, if a law school cannot provide you with the reasonable explanation of finding a decent job, they should close. If these schools did that, there would be far fewer lawyers and no need to raise bar pass scores. I would guess that most of the student who fail the bar are from the lower ranked schools anyhow and probably should never have gone to law school to begin with. I don't mean that they are not intelligent - they may make a brilliant doctor, teacher, engineer etc., but they are not cut out to be lawyers just as I am not cut out to be a doctor.

Just my very long-winded opinion.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

It took that long to explain what you were saying. I thought it was well-written, not "windy!" 

This explains why there are so many law graduates out there. I do know there are a lot of people who cannot find law jobs. Now I know why.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

Some states, such as my own North Carolina, have an undersupply of lawyers, especially in the small towns and rural areas. Raising the bar would further dry up supply. 

California is 'special' because you don't even have to go to an accredited school to sit for the bar. In fact, you don't have to go to school at all (you can read law in California and then take the bar). 

clothingconnoisseur and others: Is it really that hard to get a job from a 50-100 or 100-150 ranked law school? When I needed an attorney in the past, I never questioned them about what school they went to before we did business. Same for my father. Just like I never ask a doctor or dentist what school they went to before letting them work on me. 

One reason I ask is that I was just accepted to a third tier school (West Virginia U) and may have to choose between a third tier law school or my job in Corporate America. I still have a dozen schools to hear back from though...

---------------------


Beware of showroom sales-fever reasoning: i.e., "for $20 . . ." Once you're home, how little you paid is forgotten; how good you look in it is all that matters.


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

> quote:Of course, a heightened entry barrier will adversely affect many minorities. This is just another example of the structural racism that permeates American society. Any number of ostensibly color-blind or race-neutral policies can achieve the same results as much more blatantly racist policies. That's what the "states rights" movement is all about.


No, it's about the 10th Amendment*.

CT

* The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are confusing the means with the end.

"Don't tell me not to live, just sit and putter/Life's candy and the sun's a ball of butter" Barbara Streisand


----------



## Srynerson (Aug 26, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by crazyquik_
> 
> clothingconnoisseur and others: Is it really that hard to get a job from a 50-100 or 100-150 ranked law school? When I needed an attorney in the past, I never questioned them about what school they went to before we did business. Same for my father. Just like I never ask a doctor or dentist what school they went to before letting them work on me.


It's not so much the issue of getting clients, as it is getting hired by a firm. You'll often see advertisements that specifically state that the firm only wants applicants from the top tier of law schools. If you come from a lower end school (as I did), you will need good networking skills, high grades, and measures of distinction (law review, appellate advocacy competitions, etc.) to boost your chances of getting hired. I was third in my class (with a 3.76 GPA), served on the boards of two law journals, had multiple publication credits, and had a letter of introduction from a highly regarded local attorney, and it still took six months after the bar exam for me to find a job.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

Is starting your own firm not an option? It seems pretty straight foward but maybe I am missing something?

In fact, one of the (small, third tier) law schools in NC also offers classes in legal-business management and how to physically run your own small-town law firm.


----------



## clothingconnoisseur (Oct 9, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by crazyquik_
> 
> Some states, such as my own North Carolina, have an undersupply of lawyers, especially in the small towns and rural areas. Raising the bar would further dry up supply.
> 
> ...


Yes, it is very difficult getting a job from a third tier school, especially if you have corporate aspirations. As I said, if you have sufficient connections from family and friends then it may be worth it. However, you still have quite a few schools to hear from. If you are intent on going regardless of where, my advice would be to go to the highest ranked school that you are admitted to regardless of other considerations (i.e. geography, fincial aid package, etc.) I know those are not always easy things to ignore but where you go is that important. Also, work as hard as you can first year and try to make law review. After this, you may be able to transfer to higher higher ranked school - this is far from guaranteed but it does happen.

Feel free to email me if you want any advice on your decision and how to handle first year - I wish I knew then what I knew at the end of first year.

Good Luck!


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

Am I not understanding how many schools are in the top tier, or do people not agree on what that is? Is the top tier the ten most highly ranked schools and the second tier #11 thru #50, as clothingconnoisseur seems to be saying? Or is the top tier #1 thru #50, and the second tier #51 thru #100?


----------



## Sir Henry Billingsgate (Dec 14, 2005)

In response to the debate over whether federalism should prevail over state's rights, we should recognize that, in an age of increasing globalization, the nation state is going to decline in significance whether is is good social policy or not.

As applied to corporate job oportunities for lawyers, I suspect that lawyers based in Bangalore can shepardize cases and draft trust instruments as effectively as associates on Wall Street.

It is only a matter of time, therefore, before the American Bar confronts considerably more diversity than, perhaps, it would prefer. (Unless this is already happening - I haven't paid much attention to the American Bar for more than 10 years, now.)


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

I doubt it., if only because every state and nation has laws which differ significantly. It would be difficult to keep enough of a client base in any one state to practice law from far outside that state. Well, I imagine anyway.

This is an interesting thread, though.



> quote:You are confusing the means with the end. - Yckmwia


Huh? Perhaps the Consitiution is difficult for you to understand, what with it living and breathing and changing all the time. Federalism has nothing to do with race.

CT


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> Am I not understanding how many schools are in the top tier, or do people not agree on what that is? Is the top tier the ten most highly ranked schools and the second tier #11 thru #50, as clothingconnoisseur seems to be saying? Or is the top tier #1 thru #50, and the second tier #51 thru #100?


Clothingconnoiseur is incorrect as far as I know. Top Tier is 1-50. Second Tier is 51-100. Third tier is beyond 100. Check U.S. News and World Report. UConn Law (#49) where I attend refers to itself as a top tier law school, as does William & Mary where I was waitlisted.


----------



## Srynerson (Aug 26, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> Am I not understanding how many schools are in the top tier, or do people not agree on what that is? Is the top tier the ten most highly ranked schools and the second tier #11 thru #50, as clothingconnoisseur seems to be saying? Or is the top tier #1 thru #50, and the second tier #51 thru #100?


I'm not exactly sure myself. However, US News & World Report and Barron's are the two main arbiters of that sort of thing.

EDIT: I need more coffee. That's twice today I've been beaten to a post by less than a minute.


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by crazyquik_
> 
> clothingconnoisseur and others: Is it really that hard to get a job from a 50-100 or 100-150 ranked law school? When I needed an attorney in the past, I never questioned them about what school they went to before we did business. Same for my father. Just like I never ask a doctor or dentist what school they went to before letting them work on me.


If you think you are likely to have to choose between 3rd tier and Corporate America, I would do what several of my older friends at UConn Law (#49 and first tier) have done. They graduated college, but either were not ready for law school or didn't think they could make it to a top one. So they got a real job for 2-3 years.

Law school admissions committees like people who've had real jobs because their real world experience often allows them to better connect legal theory to real life--at least in comparison to history/government (me) or philosophy (Vladimir Berkov on this board) majors who are right out of undergrad. Indeed, many admissions committees stipulate (roughly) that 50% of the entering class must previously have held a "real" job.

You may find, particularly if you had low LSATs or if your UGPA was crummy, that having a job with good reccs. from bosses and coworkers will boost you far higher in the law school admission process.

Coolidge


----------



## clothingconnoisseur (Oct 9, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> Am I not understanding how many schools are in the top tier, or do people not agree on what that is? Is the top tier the ten most highly ranked schools and the second tier #11 thru #50, as clothingconnoisseur seems to be saying? Or is the top tier #1 thru #50, and the second tier #51 thru #100?


The "accepted rankings" are those that are published annually by US News and World Report. They list the top 25 and then break the remaining schools into four quartiles. Within the top 25 only the top 10 are really marketable degrees on a national basis meaning that you could graduate at the bottom of the class and still get a great job. The remaining 15 schools you can get a top job in a different area if you are at least in the top half of the class.

As far as the first quartile goes (approximatels #26-74) you will be able to get a great job in the same area as your school if you made law review (top 10% of the class). If you are in the top half you will get a good job. This is where I was but I was lucky enough to have a friend who employed me until I was able to network my way in to a very good firm. Below that, it is a struggle.

Graduates of second quartile schools with law review can usually get a good job with some effort and a good economy but the lower in the quartile you go the worse it is. That is why I used the 100th ranked school as an otherwise arbitrary cut-off.

That said, I know some brilliant attorneys who went to low ranked schools and some clueless attorney that went to top 10 schools. I just mean that it is a big gamble to go to a lower ranked school when you consider the lost time, wages and tuition expense. From the point of view of expected rate of return on investment, it doesn't make any sense to spend upwards of $100,000 on tuition to get a job paying $30,000 a year. I have seen people take jobs as attorneys for $18,500 a year. Try paying $1,000 a month in student loans on that salary!


----------



## Srynerson (Aug 26, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Sir Henry Billingsgate_
> 
> 1As applied to corporate job oportunities for lawyers, I suspect that lawyers based in Bangalore can shepardize cases and draft trust instruments as effectively as associates on Wall Street.
> 
> It is only a matter of time, therefore, before the American Bar confronts considerably more diversity than, perhaps, it would prefer. (Unless this is already happening - I haven't paid much attention to the American Bar for more than 10 years, now.)


I am a big believer in globalization and I favor liberalization of the practice of law, but I am very skeptical that any significant portion of legal work can be "offshored". There are many cases that native English-speakers who have attended American law schools and who have been immersed in American legal culture for their entire lives find difficult to parse out. I'd be extremely leery of signing my name to a pleading that was drafted by somebody who speaks English as a second language and who has the equivalent of a paralegal's training in American law to supplement their native law degree. And there's "illegal practice of law" issues involved in using people even from outside of your own state, let alone country.

There's also, of course, the fact that you never really saw firms relocating or "outsourcing" their work inside the United States. The movement of manufacturing and customer service jobs overseas has been part of a continuous process of chasing lower wages. I'm not aware of any equivalent in the legal community. Certainly Arnold & Porter, Perkins Coie, etc., haven't put branch offices in rural Arkansas even though they could hire lawyers there at 1/3 or less of the cost of their NYC/DC/LA/Boston/Chicago offices.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

This is not as specialized as law, but I have heard of one investment firm outsourcing some of its analytical work to India. 3 or 4 MBAs getting maybe $30K/year-- shoot them a request for a valuation model on, say, Johnson & Johnson, and you get an e-mail in the morning with the attachment.


----------



## Srynerson (Aug 26, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by crazyquik_
> 
> Is starting your own firm not an option? It seems pretty straight foward but maybe I am missing something?
> 
> In fact, one of the (small, third tier) law schools in NC also offers classes in legal-business management and how to physically run your own small-town law firm.


It's easy to _start_ your own firm. _Running_ your own firm is a much more difficult thing. Anybody who has passed the bar can hang up a sign saying, "Law Offices of X", but finding (solvent) clients and meeting overhead, especially legal research and malpractice insurance, is a grave challenge for someone straight out of law school. After all, there are a lot of people who need lawyers, however, very few of them can pay enough to cover your fixed costs.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Coolidge24_
> If you think you are likely to have to choose between 3rd tier and Corporate America, I would do what several of my older friends at UConn Law (#49 and first tier) have done. They graduated college, but either were not ready for law school or didn't think they could make it to a top one. So they got a real job for 2-3 years.


That's my plan.

See what schools I get into; and if I only get into lowly ranked ones then stay in Corporate America and reapply. Continue until I get into a law school I want or fall in love with the rat race.


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

Malpractice insurance? Is it very high for lawyers? And what does it cover against? (Malpractice, yeah, I know.) I mean, what usually constitutes legal malpractice of a type insurance would cover it?

CT


----------



## Srynerson (Aug 26, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> Malpractice insurance? Is it very high for lawyers? And what does it cover against? (Malpractice, yeah, I know.) I mean, what usually constitutes legal malpractice of a type insurance would cover it?


The on-line sources I'm seeing suggest that a sole practitioner will typically have to pay $2500 to $4000 a year for $1 million of coverage. You can get by with less depending on the sort of work you do, but you're obviously taking a gamble (also some states apparently require minimum policies in the $100,000 plus range). The most classic examples of legal malpractice that don't implicate uninsurable conduct are blowing deadlines and drafting errors in contracts/wills/trusts/etc. You have to recall that in most states an attorney who drafts a document that turns out to be unenforceable can often be sued for the value lost to the client, not just the fees paid.


----------



## clothingconnoisseur (Oct 9, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Coolidge24_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I do not mean any disrespect by this, but UConn Law is not a tier 1 school. I am a proud graduate of Fordham University School of Law (#27) but I (nor would anyone else) put them in the same category as the tier 1 schools (i.e. Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, etc.). Check out the US News and World Report website for a complete list. You will see that after the first 10-15 schools, the national appeal seems to fade. For example University of Texas-Austin (#15), Vanderbilt (#17) and USC (#18) are all excellent schools. However, anyone who puts them in the same prestige category as Yale, Harvard, University of Chicago, etc. are deluding themselves. The top 10 essentially remain the same from year to year and there is a reason for it.

There are many law schools that will provide you with a great education and the credentials necessary to get a good job. This is not exclusive to the tier 1 schools. However, anyone applying to law school should understand the dynamics of the job market when they graduate. If you aspire to work in a top law firm, go to the best school you can get into and if you can't get into anything ranked above a certain minimum level, don't go if you are only doing it to get a high paying job. Even the top public interest organizations (i.e the ACLU) seek out the graduates of the top schools. If however, you have a passion for being a lawyer and the economics are not a factor for you, then go wherever you get in and have a fulfilling career doing something you love.


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by clothingconnoisseur_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The disrespect is irrelevant, since you are wrong about both of our schools.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

The U.S. News web site gives a list of the Top 100 law schools, a list of the Tier 3 schools, and a list of the Tier 4 schools.

Obviously somewhere within the Top 100 list is a line dividing Tier 1 from Tier 2, but I can't find where U.S. News makes that distinction. 

There seems to be some disagreement in this thread about whether Tier 1 includes just the top 10 or 15 schools, the top 20 or 25 schools, or if it extends all the way to the top 50 schools. That's why I asked.

My understanding was the same as Coolidge24's, that Tier 1 includes the top 50 schools, although everyone knows that the most elite schools in the country are the dozen or so at the very top of Tier 1. I don't think anyone has suggested that the schools toward the bottom of Tier 1 (like U. Conn.) have the same prestige as the schools at the top of Tier 1 (Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, NYU).


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> The U.S. News web site gives a list of the Top 100 law schools, a list of the Tier 3 schools, and a list of the Tier 4 schools.
> 
> ...


Even if you were to rank it where the top 10 is first tier and top 50 is second tier, the "national appeal" is not particularly meaningful. The vast majority of what some would argue is the (11-50) second tier is located on the East Coast. This is where the vast majority of the high paying jobs are as well. You can say "I went to Yale Law School" in Chicago and have a better chance of getting a job than a UConn or Fordham or Washington graduate, that's true enough. However,if you are in the frequently targeted Boston, New York, or Washington market, going to any school that c.c. refers to as "2nd tier (11-50)" above will still get you a good job. After all, there are only 200 something Yale students a year, and a good half of them end up being clerks or professors, not running things.

EDIT: Even members of what I consider the second tier (51-100) have this ability. If for example, you go to Brooklyn Law, the average starting salary is something like $92,000. Everyone works in NY, true enough. But the Yalies that make the most money probably work there too. So I would disagree with anyone that says you should give up on any top 100-unless-its-top-10 if you're in it for the money.

UConn: Median starting salary $85,000....75th percentile $96,000, 25th percentile $60,000.

65% work in CT. 10% each to NY and BOS, remainder to DC and elsewhere.


----------



## tom22 (Feb 19, 2004)

The good news for Coolidge is that UConn is the top school if you are looking for a career in Connecticut. In NYC it is possible to get a job but not easy. The Ivy League schools, Mich, Northwestern and a couple of the California schools are nationally marketable. Most resumes, however, will only get you the interview. And landing a job with a major firm in NYC is absolutley no guarantee you will have one a few years later. At some point, it is actually up to you. And there are few rewards greater than working for yourself (the hours are tough but the boss is usually indulgent).


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

Yes to tom22's comments about U Conn, and by the same token the Univ of Washington is one of the top schools if you are looking for a career in Seattle. Though UW is ranked #27 nationally, a degree from UW will do you better in the Seattle job market than a degree from higher ranked U of Iowa, Boston U, or UC Berkeley.


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by tom22_
> 
> The good news for Coolidge is that UConn is the top school if you are looking for a career in Connecticut.


There are other states and places to work? []


----------



## Film_Noir_Buff (Mar 3, 2005)

I dont think there are too many lawyers, there are, however, too many lousy ones.

There are so many different practices and laws now, Id imagine lawyers are in greater demand than ever...if theyre smart and hard working.

However,

I meet many lawyers whove just passed the bar in NY who shamelessly make law up I know to be wrong. Hey, who am i to challenge em? Appears that character, intelligence, creativity, a desire to be fair are all unimportant and plenty of idiots with extreme adrenaline/ambition levels attend law schools. Of course, a good quality lawyer who is also a decent person is worth his weight in Edward Greens.

Isnt Abramoff a lawyer?

For extra credit, what law school did the subject of this historical quip attend?


"Youre doin a Heck of a job Brownie!"

____________________
Nobody expects the sartorial inquisition


----------



## Srynerson (Aug 26, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Film_Noir_Buff_
> 
> However,
> 
> I meet many lawyers whove just passed the bar in NY who shamelessly make law up I know to be wrong. Hey, who am i to challenge em? Appears that character, intelligence, creativity, a desire to be fair are all unimportant and plenty of idiots with extreme adrenaline/ambition levels attend law schools.


A big part of the problem is that judges are too stingy with sanctions and fee-shifting provisions.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


CT:

What has been the primary hallmark of "state's rights" activists in the past? I'll answer it for you: active opposition to any legislation which offered civil rights, especially for African-Americans. Strom Thurmond knew exactly who his audience was in 1948 when he ran for President as the candidate from the "State's Rights Party". That was the year when the Democrats nominated Harry Truman and included civil rights planks in the party platform. You can go ahead and believe that "state's rights" is all about the Tenth Amendment, but the actual practice of state's rights advocates is something altogether different.

As to the rest of the discussion, it seems to me that if bar scores can't predict who will actually become a good attorney (however that is measured) then raising them is simply a profession seeking to circle the wagons. All of my uncles are attorneys, as is my father, and his father and grandfather. And each one of them said exactly the same thing to me when I was growing up: there are too many lawyers.

My father was fortunate that his father had founded a firm and built it into the largest in the state where I grew up. My father probably wouldn't have gotten into law school if his father hadn't known the dean, and my dad freely admits he wouldn't be able to pass the bar today. This didn't stop him from becoming a very good attorney within his areas of expertise. After my grandfather's death my father was able to start his own small shop (three attorneys) and do very well in balancing work with family.


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Film_Noir_Buff_
> 
> I dont think there are too many lawyers, there are, however, too many lousy ones.
> 
> ...


I was under the impression he had only attended Harvard Business, not a law school. His rival in 2004 went to B.C. Law, no?


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

President Bush holds a BA in History from Yale and an MBA from Harvard. He does not have a law degree. Film_Noir_Buff is asking a trick question.


----------



## tom22 (Feb 19, 2004)

I think FNB is talking about the subject of the quote, not the author.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

Michael Brown's school is said to have been Oklahoma City University School of Law, which is currently listed as a Tier 4 school. 

I spoke to him on the phone more than 10 years ago and thought he did a heck of a job.


----------



## tom22 (Feb 19, 2004)

PS I had to look up the answer. Fortunatley. it isn't UCONN.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> Michael Brown's school is said to have been Oklahoma City University School of Law, which is currently listed as a Tier 4 school.
> 
> I spoke to him on the phone more than 10 years ago and thought he did a heck of a job.


Was he working at a call center and managed to transfer your call to his supervisor without dropping you?


----------



## Sir Henry Billingsgate (Dec 14, 2005)

I'm sorry to dissapoint the folks who doubt that lawyers can be outsourced, but according to the following, this is happening right now.



> quote:The latest trend of outsourcing white-collar jobs involves sending routine legal work offshore. Many U.S. Fortune 500 companies are outsourcing work performed by attorneys abroad to countries such as India, South Korea, and Australia to lower costs.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

This thread certainly took an unexpected turn...

Regarding schools ranking and the ability to get a job. "Elite" firms, public interest groups and governmental agencies generally seek graduates from the "elite" law schools. These law schools are normally ranked in the top 14 by USNews. While one can argue the wisdom of this hiring policy, this is the reality. Even if you are in the Top 14, the highest ranked firms look for graduates with top grades from those schools. Most firms will also look at graduates of other law schools, but they require much higher grades.

Whether or not it is worth it depends on your goals. Not everyone wants to work at a highly ranked law firm or to clerk for the Supreme Court. However, it is important to learn about the realities of law before pursuing a degree (most lawyers make far less money, have less job security and have a lower quality of life than people realize).


Regarding my thread starter... do people think that raising the bar (excuse the pun) for lawyers will help the public or will it hurt the public? Would you all prefer to eliminate the bar exam?


----------



## Sir Henry Billingsgate (Dec 14, 2005)

More info on legal outsourcing:



> quote:https://money.cnn.com/2004/10/14/news/economy/lawyer_outsourcing/


The article cites as an obstacle to change the current guild-like restrictions on foreigners practising law. Given the strong economic incentives for corporations to cut costs by outsouring and the clear power their lobbyists now weild in Washington, these laws could change.

Watching this debate will be a fun spectator sport.


----------



## Sir Henry Billingsgate (Dec 14, 2005)

> quote:Regarding my thread starter... do people think that raising the bar (excuse the pun) for lawyers will help the public or will it hurt the public? Would you all prefer to eliminate the bar exam?


My great-grandfather, who was regarded as the greatest lawyer in the state of Ohio, never went to law school. He read law with a lawyer and then took the bar exam. That was the general procedure back then.

Of course, lawyers back then were more like Clarence Darrow.


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Sir Henry Billingsgate_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Last I heard, one can still do this if one wishes to practice in Vermont!

I've always thought the old, Pre-Langdell-Case-Method law school might have been an interesting experience as well. Though I have to admit enjoying the Case Method, in spite of classmates telling me I'm crazy for doing so.


----------



## Srynerson (Aug 26, 2005)

Except, Sir Henry, the article points out that the outsourced work is principally document review and research. Document review is something that generally shouldn't be done by lawyers anyway (legal secretaries, paralegals, interns, and law students are the more typical reviewers) and is usually a "busy work" assignment to keep lawyers occupied in between other tasks. Outsourcing research is more questionable, as that gets into linguistic issues. (I would be interested to read the memoranda or briefs produced by the Indian law office for GE.) Also, the article's main example is GE outsourcing in-house counsel work, which is a very different sort of thing, as that doesn't implicate malpractice or loss of clients. If an in-house lawyer screws up and blows a case, he just gets fired and replaced. A law firm risks being sued for malpractice and having its ability to obtain new work diminished.


----------



## Sir Henry Billingsgate (Dec 14, 2005)

> quote:Except, Sir Henry, the article points out that the outsourced work is principally document review and research. Document review is something that generally shouldn't be done by lawyers anyway (legal secretaries, paralegals, interns, and law students are the more typical reviewers) and is usually a "busy work" assignment to keep lawyers occupied in between other tasks. Outsourcing research is more questionable, as that gets into linguistic issues. (I would be interested to read the memoranda or briefs produced by the Indian law office for GE.) Also, the article's main example is GE outsourcing in-house counsel work, which is a very different sort of thing, as that doesn't implicate malpractice or loss of clients. If an in-house lawyer screws up and blows a case, he just gets fired and replaced. A law firm risks being sued for malpractice and having its ability to obtain new work diminished.


As I said, the debate will be an interesting spectator sport.

Other than that, I simply note that both Jamestown and Plymouth were modest ventures at first.


----------



## Sir Henry Billingsgate (Dec 14, 2005)

> quote:Last I heard, one can still do this if one wishes to practice in Vermont!


This suggests a very interesting business venture. The idea would be to assist foreigers in passing the Vermont bar exam, which they could then use to justify practising in the United States. (I anticipate plenty of flack for this one. )

Jurisdictions like Singapore and the Phillipines, both of which are Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions, I believe, would be ripe markets for such a venture.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

California, Vermont, Washington and I think Virginia? allow people to read law. 

You can't just show up and take the bar though, you have to work so long as an apprentice/intern under a bar certified lawyer and there are a few other little things. 

Very few people do it, however in one state law readers pass at a higher rate than law school grads (granted there are so few law readers taking the bar that stats can be misleading). 

There was an article about this on CNN a few months ago but I think they took it down.


----------



## Earthmover (Jan 3, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by crazyquik_
> 
> California, Vermont, Washington and I think Virginia? allow people to read law.
> 
> ...


New York also has an "apprenticeship" exemption for sitting for the bar. I thought that California didn't even require the apprenticeship part, but I may be wrong on that. They definitely let students from unaccredited or internet law schools sit for the bar, however.


----------

