[in3d]

They should do the opposite: not require law school but make the bar exam harder. Vermont, California, and Virginia do not require law school.

[throwup238]

> 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.

[gnicholas]

> 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.

[tivert]

> Very few people in California pass the bar without law school via the apprenticeship track. Most years, zero people pass that way.

Is that a vestige of some kind of frontier-days policy, from before they really had law schools in California, or something?

[nonethewiser]

Agree strongly. Removing the bar just makes it more political. The objective, merit based standards are the solution.

[afavour]

Is the bar objective?

[adrianba]

Law school was already not required to sit the bar exam in Washington State. See https://www.wsba.org/for-legal-professionals/join-the-legal-....

[rayiner]

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.

[phmqk76]

Let’s get rid of med schools, too. Right? I volunteer you as the first patient for those “doctors” who didn’t go to med school…

[AaronM]

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.

https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/sites/default/files/documen...

[bobthepanda]

From TFA:

> 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.

[gnicholas]

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)

[shicholas]

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.

[ketzo]

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.

[jahewson]

Yes a bunch of incompatible opinions is the solution.

[nonethewiser]

How would you rank the merits of candidates?

[phmqk76]

Spoken like someone with zero legal experience.

[thaumasiotes]

Requiring an exam is a much better policy than requiring law school. But it would be better to do neither.

[AmVess]

Only a foolish person would hire or retain the services of a "lawyer" that has neither a law degree nor a bar card.

[nickburns]

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?