There's not a shortage of lawyers and Texas is not pushing for freedom. They're taking over accreditation so they can start bullying law schools the same way they have with undergraduate institutions like A&M.
This is likely the correct answer. The ABA really leads (somewhat indirectly) to three things:
1) A common moral and professional code
2) Credential portability through standards
3) A "minimum threshold" of competence
I suspect that it is the first thing that Texas objects to. There's probably a specific flavor of *-ism they want to allow their lawyers to practice. That said, you can already get into law via apprenticeship or reading in CA, VA, VT, WA. It's not the end of the world.
> I suspect that it is the first thing that Texas objects to.
Perhaps, but the piece they are actually acting directly against is the 2nd (perhaps the 3rd, but that is itself really part of the 2nd, rather than an independent thing.)
And the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and Model Code of Judicial Conduct—which presumably are largely what you are referring to by the first—are just what the names say: models; each jurisdiction adopts its own actual rules for these things.
> That said, you can already get into law via apprenticeship or reading in CA, VA, VT, WA.
And in at least some states, also through non-ABA law schools, though there may be additional state requirements in that case (which may also apply to the apprenticeship/reading—two different names for the same thing, not two different options—option where that is available in the same jurisdiction; e.g., in California the First Year Law Students exam is required for both those reading for the law and those attending non-ABA law schools.)
I spoke with a VP of a state bar association who described chronic, widespread lawyer shortages, constant attrition in the pool of eligible judicial appointees, a growing backlog of cases (compounded by the effects of COVID) with trial dates many years in the future, declining law school graduations, and declining projected law school enrollment. These conditions may not hold across every county and metro, but in a lot of places the system is buckling (citizens already waiting 5-6 years for a ruling on open-shut civil matters) because there’s so much more work than workers.
> There's not a shortage of lawyers and Texas is not pushing for freedom.
Exactly. Law isn't medicine, and there are so many law graduates that many of them can't even find work in the legal industry, and the earnings of many graduates are surprisingly low (the distribution is bimodal: https://www.nalp.org/salarydistrib).
Unfortunately too many here will reflexively believe some libertarian narrative of "professional organization limiting supply to drive salaries up," even when it doesn't apply.
Arizona is the only state that artificially limits the number of lawyers it has. Every year they decide how many new ones they need, and that is exactly how many will pass the bar exam.
I don’t think that this has has had the effect of driving up salaries, however.
mapontosevenths|1 month ago
1) A common moral and professional code
2) Credential portability through standards
3) A "minimum threshold" of competence
I suspect that it is the first thing that Texas objects to. There's probably a specific flavor of *-ism they want to allow their lawyers to practice. That said, you can already get into law via apprenticeship or reading in CA, VA, VT, WA. It's not the end of the world.
dragonwriter|1 month ago
Perhaps, but the piece they are actually acting directly against is the 2nd (perhaps the 3rd, but that is itself really part of the 2nd, rather than an independent thing.)
And the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and Model Code of Judicial Conduct—which presumably are largely what you are referring to by the first—are just what the names say: models; each jurisdiction adopts its own actual rules for these things.
> That said, you can already get into law via apprenticeship or reading in CA, VA, VT, WA.
And in at least some states, also through non-ABA law schools, though there may be additional state requirements in that case (which may also apply to the apprenticeship/reading—two different names for the same thing, not two different options—option where that is available in the same jurisdiction; e.g., in California the First Year Law Students exam is required for both those reading for the law and those attending non-ABA law schools.)
elevation|1 month ago
I spoke with a VP of a state bar association who described chronic, widespread lawyer shortages, constant attrition in the pool of eligible judicial appointees, a growing backlog of cases (compounded by the effects of COVID) with trial dates many years in the future, declining law school graduations, and declining projected law school enrollment. These conditions may not hold across every county and metro, but in a lot of places the system is buckling (citizens already waiting 5-6 years for a ruling on open-shut civil matters) because there’s so much more work than workers.
palmotea|1 month ago
Exactly. Law isn't medicine, and there are so many law graduates that many of them can't even find work in the legal industry, and the earnings of many graduates are surprisingly low (the distribution is bimodal: https://www.nalp.org/salarydistrib).
Unfortunately too many here will reflexively believe some libertarian narrative of "professional organization limiting supply to drive salaries up," even when it doesn't apply.
stockresearcher|1 month ago
I don’t think that this has has had the effect of driving up salaries, however.