> Vermont, California, and Virginia do not require law school.
California requires >2,000 hours apprenticeship under a practicing lawyer which is even harder (and more exclusive) than law school. It is theoretically cheaper but in reality not very practical as an alternative.
Very few people in California pass the bar without law school via the apprenticeship track. Most years, zero people pass that way.
> Very few people in California pass the bar without law school via the apprenticeship track. Most years, zero people pass that way.
I would bet that the readiness/ability of the people who attempt the apprenticeship track is much lower than those who attend CA law schools. This may be the reason that so few people succeed via this route — not because it's harder.
I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that it is quite a bit harder. Laws schools teach their students to pass the bar exam, but an apprenticeship will focus on whatever the lawyer is working on out of economic necessity. A few thousand hours of tedious corporate or estate law paperwork is a far cry from the general education you'd get at a law school from dozens of lawyers and legal scholars. So to pass the bar exam, you have to self study everything that law schools teach plus practice several thousand hours under a real lawyer. Even not having academic LexisNexis et al subscriptions is a huge disadvantage.
Most people who take the apprenticeship track are pretty exceptional because they have to convince a practicing lawyer to essentially hire them with zero experience. The lawyer-apprentice relationship is very hands on, not like an intern or even a paralegal.
Most of law school (especially at top schools) is not the "black letter law" that is tested on the bar exam. Law students typically take a bar prep course from Barbri or one of its competitors.
Regional law schools tend to be more focused on black letter law, partly because their students tend to be less capable of cramming all the black letter law in the 2 months before the bar exam.
But it would not be difficult at all for someone who had apprenticed for a lawyer for multiple years to take a Barbri class and pass the bar.
You would only take this route if you lacked the means to pay law school tuition, or maybe if your parents were reputable attorneys who are willing to apprentice you.
I wish this were more popular. It could work for lawyers in a particular niche (entertainment law, insurance law) where the value of working for a couple years clearly outweighs the benefit of taking regular law school classes.
The main issue is the prestige factor. People will assume that you couldn't get into a decent law school if you went that route. Perhaps some students with sterling undergraduate credentials could try to break through and get jobs based on their undergrad connections.
(Like, I’m making a cute response here, but there’s not exactly an objective standard for objectivity, when you come down to it. Turtles all the way down and all that.)
Just because you learned some random fact in your bar prep class doesn't mean "The bar is bullshit" as you claimed. It means your bar prep class included information that wasn't strictly necessary.
The bar is still bullshit that example is one of many. For instance I never want to touch divorce, why should I need to know community property? Same goes with personal injury.
An open book test or one that’s all MPT (the essay part) I could get behind, memorizing what’s basically 200 pages of dense information is (upside down smiley face)
Probably the most objective standard for becoming a lawyer that there is. More objective than the hiring process and law school and college admissions, especially when many of these are de-emphasizing standardized testing.
Correct. Law school is a far bigger barrier to “marginalized groups … becoming practicing attorneys” than the bar exam. But law schools are extremely influential in the bar and have hundreds of thousands of reasons to point the figures at the bar exam instead.
You are being sarcastic, but we could definitely streamline the way doctors are educated in the US! The UK does medical degrees through a 5-6 year undergrad program, compared with 4 year undergrad + 4 year medical school in the US.
I don’t disagree with you. I’m all for perennial reevaluations of how we train professionals to make sure we’re producing the best and brightest. But there is definitely a libertarian strain (especially among these commenters) that shits on formal education, which is dangerous and intellectually lazy.
In VT though its really difficult to become a lawyer this way, as an existing judge or lawyer has to be willing to apprentice you and prepare you for the exam. You also still need a 4 year degree to enter the program.
> Lastly, law clerks can become lawyers without enrolling in law school by completing standardized educational materials and benchmarks under the guidance of a mentoring attorney, along with the 500 hours of work as a licensed legal intern.
The 500 hours is somewhat meaningless because that could all end up being doc review on a single case. That is to say, it's possible to complete hundreds of hours of work without actually learning anything about the law. (IAAL)
Disagree, IAAL and they should both eliminate the bar exam and the law school requirements. We need more lawyers subject to background checks and swearing an oath to act ethically. There’s an ethics test called the MPRE that should stay.
We need more lawyers bc imo the biggest need with AI is trust and safety, and that’s something humans must decide for ourselves in perpetuity, we need as many diverse voices as possible to ensure equity for everyone.
Free market seems disastrous here. Most people hire an attorney… once? twice? in their entire lives, and the consequences of that person being incompetent could be life-altering.
There’s not a quick enough feedback loop here, I think. The vast, vast majority of people would not be “informed buyers,” so to speak.
Close relative just curled one finger of that monkey's paw in a trust dispute: can confirm, they were not especially happy with either the outcome nor the months of optimism from the lawyer before the final calamity. Even after having heard about it regularly and in-depth and having read the written communications, I have no idea where that lawyer would land on a scale of 1-10. I suppose in this case, nearer the bottom but given it's the most I've ever observed a lawyer, I have zero context or basis for expectations.
imo if there were substantially more lawyers or startups in this forum can dole out legal advice, there would be substantially more legal interactions.
People should see a lawyer frequently for preventative care (e.g. having someone do a prenup or look over their employment contract) the same way people should see a doctor and do preventative care for their bodies.
IMO anyone who passes the MPRE and a background check is fit to serve - free market and who customers choose to rank the merits of their lawyers is their own prerogative. I'm against the gatekeeping to the profession.
Once you're a lawyer checks like malpractice insurance are great for everyone.
Passing an ethics test and background check may indicate you're fit to be an attorney, but it certainly doesn't give you the skills or knowledge to be one. I do believe that there are a variety of ways someone might come by those skills and knowledge, and that law school need not have a monopoly on that.
But just as I wouldn't trust a plumber or electrician to work on my house without being licensed to perform those tasks (despite acknowledging that this licensing process is not perfect), I wouldn't trust a lawyer to represent me whose only independently-assessed qualification was that someone thought they were an ethical person.
> free market and who customers choose to rank the merits of their lawyers is their own prerogative.
We can't even get reliable, non-gamed restaurant recommendations, for crying out loud. What makes you think consumers will be able to make an informed decision about lawyers in the absence of any sort of licensing body?
> Passing an ethics test and background check may indicate you're fit to be an attorney, but it certainly doesn't give you the skills or knowledge to be one.
Why should someone be prohibited from hiring such an person as their attorney though? The implication of what you say is that people shouldnt want them as an attorney but the question is if they should be disallowed.
Being presumed to be unskilled just doesnt seem like a good reason especially since you grant they are fit.
agree, but law school certainly didn't give me any skills nor knowledge to be an attorney too. I'd be in favor of some sort of apprenticeship like what Washington or Oregon have.
Consumers already make gamed personal injury recommendations on who has the most audacious commercials, I don't think anything here re: gatekeeping will change that.
> law school certainly didn't give me any skills nor knowledge to be an attorney too.
Can I ask where you went to law school? Do you think your experience is common? I gained a lot of valuable skills and knowledge when I was in law school that I used in practice and still use as a founder. I could have learned this stuff elsewhere, but there's no doubt that learning it in law school is one (increasingly expensive) way to do it.
I went to a mid-ranked state school. My experience is the classes were too esoteric and I was embarrassed when I had no idea how to file a motion once barred. Admittedly my school has improved with more clinic experiences (something I should have done).
Imo you could learn everything in law school better with apprenticeship, especially the most important part - having tough conversations.
What about your experience made you feel that law school was valuable?
I learned tons about the law! Some was directly related to my daily work as a tax lawyer (business associations, tax law x3, IP law x2), and some was important from time to time (conlaw).
This knowledge could have been gained another way, via a mix of apprenticeship and online learning. But I would have needed to do a bit of online learning before I was able to add much value or absorb the learnings from an apprenticeship position. There might be other areas of law with an easier learning curve, but corporate international tax isn't one of them.
I readily concede that at current tuition levels, going to law school now is a risky proposition. When I went 15 years ago, it was a pretty good deal with in-state tuition and some scholarship. I'm all in favor of students having alternative pathways that allow them to demonstrate the necessary competencies, especially if this lowers the cost to getting a law license.
Missing my point, ethics regulations like Model Rules of Professional Conduct that lawyers must adhere to are important like the health code. We should make it easier for anyone to be a lawyer, just like you or I can open a restaurant.
If you serve cockroaches in your food or give fraudulent advice, you should be blasted on the local news (and sued).
You or I can open a restaurant, but if we don't understand health codes and food safety, we're going to get shut down by a governmental body before we serve our first customer. Assuming we can pass a food safety evaluation and can open our doors for business, the worst that's likely to happen is that people won't like our food and won't want to come back. No one's lost anything there except for the cost of a meal and an hour or so of their time.
I'm sure I could pass an ethics test, no problem. But my first client as a self-described "lawyer" would almost certainly lose their case, and that could cause them significant harm. I'm sure there are ways forward from there, but I don't think I'd characterize this as no big deal, simply because I'd then get bad LawYelp reviews and no one would want to engage my services anymore.
i do believe there is a certain responsibility a lawyer swears to ethically uphold and maintain toward lay society which justifiably warrants some reasonable evaluation of the degree to which the candidate is able to comprehend and/or adhere to that oath. an academic degree, an exam, and a professional license application are certainly valid ways to do that.
are you suggesting only the fitness and character assessment should be necessary? or do you disagree with that requirement as well?
Actually, I'd suggest that licensing of lawyers violates the constitutional guarantee of a right to an attorney. It is viewed by the modern system as a positive right, an obligation on the part of existing attorneys to work for you for free. But that is obviously not what was intended; it is meant as the right of anyone to be represented by a designee, as opposed to being required to represent themselves, and this has been criminalized today.
> i do believe there is a certain responsibility a lawyer swears to ethically uphold and maintain toward lay society which justifiably warrants some reasonable evaluation of the degree to which the candidate is able to comprehend and/or adhere to that oath.
This is just an argument that licensure has benefits. That's true, but they don't exceed the costs.
imo fitness & character is absolutely necessary, rote memorization tests aren't. (ofc you want your lawyer to go off the top of their head instead of looking things up when you explain your problems /s)
