
Becoming a Lawyer Without Going to Law School (2015) - brudgers
https://priceonomics.com/how-to-be-a-lawyer-without-going-to-law-school/
======
caffeine5150
I come from a family with several California lawyers (I am a lawyer as well)
and see this transition from apprenticeship to law school in my family. My
great, great uncle was a lawyer and a judge in a small town in the Bay Area.
He never went to law school. His nephew, my grandfather, went to law school,
but only needed a 2 year college degree to attend law school. He became the
judge in the town after his uncle retired. Both were successful and well
regarded professionally.

Reading this article, it’s easy to conflate bar passage success with being an
effective lawyer. Law school is probably better training for passing the bar
than it is for practicing law. Thus, it wouldn’t surprise me that apprentices
have lower passage rates than law school grads. Apprentices are training to
practice – not to take tests. It is well understood among lawyers that law
school may give you some discipline, some research skills, and some
understanding about how to think about fundamental aspects of “the Law”, but
that it doesn’t by itself result in being able to practice law. That happens
over the course of about the first 5 years of practicing law. Becoming a
lawyer or a doctor both take about 8-9 years, but with law, you do most of it
out in practice. So in this sense, all lawyers are apprentices. Another thing
that illustrates this point is the fact that a lawyer’s effectiveness has much
less to do with the quality of their law school than is generally thought. I
know many excellent attorneys who attended local law schools here in San Diego
that do not rank well. What they did in their first 5 years (and other
factors) mattered more than law school.

I see the arc of the profession as one that used to be more tuned toward
apprenticeship in the context of a much slower overall pace of business and
life toward one where it is increasingly hard to access that critical one-the-
job training. Historically, clients would essentially subsidize the training
of new associate attorneys, but, particularly since the belt tightening
post-2008, clients increasingly refuse to do so and many law grads are left to
figure it out themselves. Some have rules that no attorneys with e.g. less
than 3 years’ experience are allowed to work on their matters. Another
challenge are the strict laws in California on unpaid internships. I would be
happy to provide training to a new lawyer in exchange for some unpaid help and
know many new attorneys who would jump at the chance, but that is not allowed
in California.

~~~
nkw
This is a very insightful comment. In my opinion one of the largest
shortcomings of our system of minting new lawyers is a lack of practical
training. While doctors generally must both go to medical school and complete
an internship and/or residency in order to treat patients, a freshly licensed
lawyer can represent someone without previously having ever entered a
courthouse, drafted a will, or taken a deposition. I think most recognize this
is a problem and there are some law schools that are doing an excellent job of
addressing the issue by requiring 3rd year practice court, externships, or
clinics that actually give lawyers some experience in the things they will be
doing after law school. Bar associations are trying to address the issue
through mentor programs and CLEs aimed at new lawyers. No longer can the
profession depend on mid to large law firms to bring lawyers up through the
ranks, both because their clients aren't really interested in subsidizing it
and the firms cannot or will not put in the resources to train all those
entering the profession.

~~~
caffeine5150
Thanks. Agreed that it's a problem. I was active in leadership in the local
bar association and often ran into attorneys straight out of the local law
schools (e.g. <6 mos.) who had opened their own practice due to a lack of
other options and need to repay their student loans. The old system of
training is broken.

------
hacknat
Lawyers currently have one of the most bi-modal salary distributions of any
profession. It seems to me that for folks who want to enter the profession
doing low pay work that this should be a more supported and common path as law
school is a ridiculous choice for someone who is going to make less than a
teacher for the rest of their life. I’ve known a handful of public defenders
in my time and almost all of them had some form of alternative support
(usually rich spouse or parents).

Additionally, the UK has a hybrid system that seems to work well, and they
also have two types of lawyers: barristers and solicitors. From what I
understand it’s easier to become a solicitor, but your mostly doing small
cases and family law and can only argue before certain courts. Barristers have
a more arduous path, take more serious cases, and can argue cases in the
higher courts. Seems like we could adopt a similar system (though it’s
probably too late at this point).

~~~
pmyteh
The barrister/solicitor split is theoretically that between litigation
(solicitor) and advocacy (barrister). If you're a commercial solicitor working
in the city it's _very much_ not a second-best option and is very lucrative.
Solicitors do advocacy in the lower courts, but it's theoretically not the
main focus of their job.

You're right that it's generally harder to fully qualify as a barrister,
though [edit: in England and Wales]: there's a compulsory year-long practical
training in a law firm element, which is murderous to try to get a spot in.

The distinction's actually eroding in the UK. Solicitors can train in advocacy
and get rights of audience in the higher courts, and barristers can now be
instructed directly by the public (which used to be illegal: their client was
always a solicitor).

~~~
sjy
Litigation is not the right word for solicitors' work in general – they do a
lot of non-contentious business, especially in the City (eg. corporate finance
and M&A). Although many solicitors do litigation (which includes advocacy in
the courts), most barristers do it exclusively. Also, it is solicitors who are
required to undertake a year of practical training in a law firm [1].
Barristers do a pupillage [2] under the supervision of a mentor.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Training_contract](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Training_contract)

[2]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pupillage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pupillage)

------
coupdejarnac
My cousin, who is a former K St lawyer, told me about how in the 80s(?), Texas
passed a law that allowed people who fit very narrow requirements to take the
bar exam without attending law school. One high profile businessman passed the
bar exam this way.

So.. If you want to skip law school, have one of your legislator cronies slip
in a law school loophole in a bill.

Non-lawyers are allowed to take the patent bar exam. It's the same exam IP
attorneys take, except if you pass you cannot call yourself a patent attorney
without a law degree. You get the designation of patent agent. That's what I
plan to do- become one of the few licensed engineers that has also passed the
patent bar.

~~~
brightball
You still have to have an accredited BS in engineering or science to take it.
I assumed a degree from an accredited school would fit the bill but found out
that was not the case when I wanted to take the patent bar years ago. You have
to check the website to see if your degree qualifies.

I have a BS in Computer Information Systems which is almost identical to the
CS degree that I could have gotten. The difference was that it switched out
some general classes and the foreign language requirement for business
classes...which seemed like a good idea to me.

Only the BS in CS was accredited. I also have an MS but the patent bar
strictly cares about your BS.

~~~
haikuginger
You can also choose to pass the FE exam to qualify for the patent bar; most
states require a BS in engineering to take the FE exam, but not all, and an FE
pass in a state that doesn't still qualifies.

~~~
geebee
There are also various combinations of coursework that qualify (x semester
hours of physics, y semester hours of engineering or chemistry, etc...). It's
in the patent exam application docs.

One interesting and controversial one is that mathematics courses are excluded
from patent prep (i.e., mathematics is specifically excluded from the list of
courses that qualify you for the patent bar[1]).

[https://www.math.utah.edu/~palais/grb.pdf](https://www.math.utah.edu/~palais/grb.pdf)

[https://www.math.utah.edu/~palais/usptovsmath.html](https://www.math.utah.edu/~palais/usptovsmath.html)

[1] perhaps this is why mathematics dressed up as something else often gets
patented, because the patent bar specifically and deliberately excludes people
with strong math backgrounds from the profession.

------
anfilt
While the American Bar Association certainly dose not use violence the whole
system stinks like a protection racket. The fact they pushed states to enact a
form regulatory capture is pretty messed up.

Then add the fact apprenticeships are not the norm so these lawyers are not
making as much. Overall, it's quite silly and sad.

~~~
meddlepal
Yes it's terrible the ABA has created a system that rigorously weeds out
unqualified individuals, polices it's professional members ethics and uses
education and testing to ensure all lawyers have a solid baseline education.
Terrible!

I wish software engineerers had an actual equivalent to the ABA, and no the
ACM doesn't count.

~~~
anfilt
I was not implying letting unqualified individuals practice law. They still
have to pass the bar apprentice. Are we seriously going to claim school is the
only way people can learn?

I would also like to see some certification for actual software engineers.
Also wish that businesses would not be allowed cheap out and rush software
development. Partly, why I prefer hardware. The timelines why still may be
fast are more reasonable.

~~~
meddlepal
There is a fair bit more nuance to the law than just memorizing some stuff and
passing a test. I have a couple close family members that are lawyers and
their general thought is law school is:

1.) shaping a person's mind to be critical of presented facts and evidence.

2.) develop good skills in the art of arguing.

3.) develop good skills for legal research and dealing with changing laws.

Personally, I am skeptical someone who has not gone to law school is going to
be good at those things and that's why I think law school sets a high baseline
and is a good thing even if it is expensive.

------
ClintEhrlich
While becoming a lawyer without going to law school, I exonerated an innocent
man who was serving life in prison for murder.

That man was put behind bars by an incompetent prosecutor... who had become a
lawyer without going to law school.

(Seriously.)

~~~
cperciva
_That man was put behind bars by an incompetent prosecutor_

Unless there was prosecutorial malpractice involved, I'd say that the man whom
you exonerated was put behind bars by a judge and a jury.

~~~
Larrikin
So you're implying a lawyer plays no role?

~~~
ckastner
The power to put people behind bars solely rests with the judge and jury.

The prosecutor, by definition, played a role in the process, but it's not the
deciding role.

~~~
geebee
depending on the circumstances, I do think a prosecutor can play a pivotal
role. There are examples of misconduct where a prosecutor fails to turn over
exculpatory evidence that is so convincing as to make prosecution essentially
impossible. It's true that the jury and judge make the decision, but there are
cases where they would almost certainly have reached a different decision had
the prosecution behaved ethically.

------
aseba
Are you telling me that everything that happened in SUITS could have been
avoided if Michael Ross passed the bar in some other state?

~~~
gnicholas
No, he still would have had to apprentice for years...

------
pseingatl
First, this article only addresses the USA. If you don't want to practice in
the US, there are lots of options. See Korshak, Landing a Legal Job Overseas.
Law school is an American anomaly. In Canada/UK/Ireland, you can major in law
as an undergraduate. You can't do so in the US. With a LLB degree, you can do
legal work in lots of countries--and even qualify to take the bar in the U.S.
The author leaves out little details like the "diploma privilege" in
Mississippi and other Southern states--but never Florida--if you graduated
from a state law school there was no need to take the bar exam. And during
WWII time in law school was reduced or relaxed.

~~~
jlos
Not true in Canada. Law degree's first require an Undergraduate degree prior
to entrance into the law faculty:
[https://www.law.utoronto.ca/admissions/youth-outreach/so-
you...](https://www.law.utoronto.ca/admissions/youth-outreach/so-you-want-
become-lawyer)

~~~
pseudolus
That's not entirely correct. In Quebec, medicine and law are first degrees.
The bulk of law and medicine graduates from French language universities do
not have an undergraduate degree but rather enter with what is roughly
equivalent to the first year of an undergraduate degree. Also, many English
language universities accept applications from students who have completed the
second or third year of their undergraduate degree.

------
sk2104
It's always interesting to hear discussions of the apprenticeship system in
this day and age. Law school is an extremely valuable experience, but the
problem is not all law degrees are created equal. A T14 (the top tier of
schools) can employ the majority of their students into legal jobs, while a
equally pricey, but less well known school could fail to employ even a small
subset of their student population to JD-advantaged jobs (a job that makes use
of one's law degree).

Prospective law students today should aim to maximize their application
strength, and take advantage of the plethora of scholarships given out at just
about every reputable law school (excluding HYS). Furthermore, attending a
reputable school gives students access to public interest programs within the
schools that support their high debt-relatively low -income students.

------
technovader
This is fascinating to me because of the parallels to my own experience.
Getting a high paying career in IT without even a college diploma.

I've always felt IT was one of the only industries where this can fly (merit
based rewards vs paper based reward system). Almost every job I've got in this
industry (support, cloud, TAM, solutions architect) had steep requirements on
paper that I did not meet, yet I got the job.

~~~
pavel_lishin
It's not just merit-based rewards; it's the lack of a professional standards
body. Anyone can call themselves an IT professional, but not everyone call
themselves, e.g., a doctor or a civil engineer.

------
ShabbosGoy
Apprenticeships seem to have been very common up until very recently. They
offered an alternative path to college, which for many leads to insurmountable
debt and poor job prospects. Who is the largest holder of student debt in the
United States? The answer to that question explains why apprenticeships and
trade schools are not promoted.

~~~
Bromskloss
> Who is the largest holder of student debt in the United States? The answer
> to that question explains why apprenticeships and trade schools are not
> promoted.

Could you spell this out for us? Who hold the largest debt? And promoted by
whom?

~~~
jsharf
Most student debt is owned by the US Federal Government.

"In 2010, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated 55% of loans fell
into this category. Between 2011 and 2016, the share of privately originated
student loans fell by nearly 90%."

"In February 2016, the U.S. Treasury Department revealed in its annual report
that student loans account for 31% of all U.S. government assets."

that 31% figure is pretty concerning...

[https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-
finance/08121...](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-
finance/081216/who-actually-owns-student-loan-debt.asp)

------
pc2g4d
Makes me think of "The Captured Economy"
[https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-captured-
economy...](https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-captured-
economy-9780190627768?cc=us&lang=en&)

------
maddy1512
somebody share this link with Mike Ross

------
Bromskloss
> “I have some clients who look up on my wall and say, ‘Where did you go to
> law school?’ and aren’t too happy with the answer.”

Hehe, having your degree on display on the wall!

------
coldtea
Didn't work so well for Mike Ross.

~~~
lucb1e
Who is Mike Ross? When searching such a common name (at least it sounds common
to me, a non-native speaker), I see a politician, someone who got capital
punishment, and a bunch of other people. Adding lawyer to the query doesn't
seem to help.

~~~
coldtea
> _Adding lawyer to the query doesn 't seem to help._

Maybe it's your search engine that's to blame?

In Google the whole first page if full of relevant results when searching for
either Mike Ross and Mike Ross lawyer.

~~~
lucb1e
Maybe I wasn't looking for a TV show but for a Wikipedia article on a lawyer.
Thanks to another comment I know now.

------
icantdrive55
I've always felt if you can pass a notoriously hard Bar Examination, like the
CA Bar; you should be allowed to practice law.

(Maybe require a few ethics's classes, after a passing grade?)

~~~
kenpomeroy
Not saying I disagree, because I think the bar association is a cartel and
everyone should be "allowed" to practice law. However, the reason the CA bar
is "notoriously hard" is precisely _because_ they allow anyone to sit for it.
If lots of unqualified people take an exam and fail, it causes the passage
rate to drop and makes the exam appear "harder."

~~~
gnicholas
Another reason the CA pass rate is lower than other states’ is that in CA you
can take the bar exam as many times as you want. NY cuts you off st 3, as a
comparison.

~~~
balbaugh
The NY bar exam can be taken until you pass[1].

[1]see NCBE Bar Admission Guide [http://www.ncbex.org/publications/bar-
admissions-guide/](http://www.ncbex.org/publications/bar-admissions-guide/)

------
rsbartram
That is something I've dream of but in California that is not possible from
the research I've done. I live in Los Angeles county. If someone knows
something otherwise please let me know. Thanks Rich

~~~
icelancer
What? It literally says that it's possible in California in the article.

"In California, this option is called the “Law Office Study Program” (rule
4.29 under the state bar’s legal code). All lawyers seeking to forego law
school must meet the following stipulations..."

------
senatorobama
Who has switched from Software Engineering to Law?

I'm considering it because of the lack of women in software engineering, and
the multitudes in Law.

~~~
AskewEgret
Unmentioned in the linked article is the fact that sitting for the Patent Bar
exam with the USPTO does not require a law degree but instead it requires an
engineering or hard science degree.

If you like the idea of working with patents, trademarks and copyrights, you
may wish to take that route. A lot of Computer Science programs at
universities don't meet the requirements and you'd need to supplement your
existing degree with laboratory chemistry, physics or biology classes at your
local decently accredited college.

~~~
richardfontana
Patent agents - the term for a non-lawyer who passes the patent bar exam and
gets a USPTO registration - are qualified to directly file for patents, and
tend to be used by law firms for other analytical tasks requiring technical
expertise. However, they tend not to be involved in trademark work, nor
copyright work, for a variety of reasons.

------
sreejithr
why

~~~
dang
Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments?

