I'm not certain that's a ridiculous amount of memorization is a good test for lawyers. After all, as you said, the bar exam clearly does not prevent a fraction of lawyers being completely incompetent. Also, an important part of law is being able to look up and reference. I would compare it to the professional engineering exams, which are open everything. You can bring books, notes, or even exam guides. As an engineer, you will have those references when you do work, and so you should be able to have them during the test. When something isn't working, you should change it. We just need to figure out what to change it to
@@Benjamin1986980 Keep the BAR but dial it down a bit. IMO putting into place a residency program for Lawyers would also help. Medical professionals have to be overseen and taught firsthand - why don't lawyers?
@@Benjamin1986980 _"When something isn't working, you should change it."_ If you think an important, long-established solution is not working _well enough,_ you'd better have first clearly understood the rationale of those responsible for the current solution prior to making that judgement. Next, question if you have a solution which better meets the current criteria; then do a cost-benefit analysis, taking in to account the possibility and cost of failure; and finally, and only then do you question if it should be changed.
It's going to depend entirely on what the bar's review of the work system will wind up looking. But this might open the door up even further for nepotism, who is going to take random nobodies into their practice to not only act as a teacher and mentor but also having to also pay them while they learn? Only people given such a chance is going to be well connected rich kids. So how is the bar going to determine if they've learnt enough to practice law on their own?
@@Frag-ile -- Who is going to take them in? How about public-interest law firms? Also, look for prosecutor's offices and public defender's offices to open up some slots.
I've been on 3 juries in my day. In one, a civil suit the plaintiffs' lawyer was the only one to ask questions and did all the harm. In the jury room we talked more about that lawyer than we did the case. One vote in favor of the defendant. On another in a criminal case, we raised the question (in the jury room) of whether or not the search was legal. The judge said we couldn't consider that as it was not raised by the defendant. We found the guy guilty. Hundreds of pounds in drugs and thousands in cash was recovered. A few weeks later I'm reading in the paper how the guy had a new attorney and was released because the search was deemed illegal.
And the judge probably lied to you. They sure HATE IT, but jury nullification is one of the main reasons for the jury to exist. In Indiana, the jury decides the law and the facts (on paper anyway, I'm sure they lie about that too).
It is interesting that the judge would bring up that point himself, if not part of the case. That is partly of how the law works. An attorney can "accidentally" slip in statements to influence a jury, but the jury is supposed to ignore anything not properly submitted.
When I took the bar exam in 1980, less than half passed. I was lucky, I made it on my first time, but a lot of candidates were there for their third and fourth tries. One elderly gent had a heart attack and they took the poor soul out on a stretcher with EMS; it was the talk of the room for the next day. Like Steve I studied nonstop 3 months like it was a job, 9-5 every day. Could never do it again.
@@PatentDude When I took the Florida bar exam in the early 1980s, they accepted the multistate portion from your home state, so you only had to take the Florida-specific portion, which was heavy on Florida state constitutional law. Was an easy test, just memorisation.
Sir, you wasn't lucky to pass the bar. It meant you studied hard. Put in the work to prepare for it and you must be fairly intelligent in order to pass it on the first time
@ohsweetmystery hard disagree, would you want an unaccredited surgeon to do surgery on you. Accreditation is to make sure people have enough knowledge to be more specific. All trades should be merit based and accreditation is one way to do that
@@ohsweetmystery Accreditation is a way to identify who is qualified for a task. Some professions need to get it right, to the degree possible, on the first try. Lawyering is one such field. Medical is another, piloting, architecture, engineering, even electricians and plumbers. If they do their job correctly the public is well served. If not, the public is placed at undo risk and is potentially harmed. And they tend to work in areas that don't allow for do-overs.
All I can say is thank GOD somebody is finally addressing this critical problem. I for one am confident that our lives will be better off if only we had more lawyers.
LOL you’re kidding, right? I’ve been in front lawyers, and some judges, that have to think to breathe. You can’t possibly believe that writing documents, research, and proper citation requires months of prep to pass a two day test.
If I am not mistaken, in NC you need only to be vetted by the bar to take the exam, no law degree necessary. I knew a lawyer once, who was known in certain circles to be the best in the area, who was well known to take high profile criminal cases, told me when I was a young child about the time he dropped out of law school. The son of a farmer, found out in his first year of law school, that you didn't need a law degree to practice law, so he saved his money, and spent all his time in the law library, watching courtrooms, and talking to other lawyers. His lesson to me, was that knowledge is real power, not a wall decoration. Some say he was a very smart man. He could fix a tractor too. lol
I tell people to learn everything they can about any business they work for. They may not get promoted but the knowledge gained may get them a better job in the future.
In 1992, I took my electrical contractor licensing test. I had 8,000 hours primarily in residential, with the full intention of concentrating on residential. I had to be tested on commercial, industrial, hospital redundant electrical systems etc. In other words, things I will never use. So I totally get where you're coming from.
@@sleepyearthDepends, is he unknowledgeable about parts of the law that literally have nothing to do with the case at hand but knows all the related law? Copyright law isn't helpful in traffic court after all.
California has been a 3 day exam since mid 80s. First two days same as everywhere else. 3rd day was the Practical portion, you are given a case file and asked to complete a project. One year was write a will, another was draft a contract, not sure what others were. This may be where some have problems.
The next gen bar exam (ube) is rumored to move to this and away from multiple choice. I thought that was the dumbest part of the exam. Functionally it is a formatting, speed writing, and typing speed test.
Alternate paths to licensure has been a thing for Architects and Engineers for a long time, but at the end you still had to take some kind of examination to turn that experience into an actual license. I could see having a truncated exam based on experience as long as you meet certain criteria, but there really should be a way to prove your knowledge and experience. 🍻
I would think that a combo is also the way to go there. My main worry about this type of thing is that you might also have some places taking advantage of this kind of setup because, well, what better way to solve issues with not having enough public defenders
I (as an architect) would say that architecture licensing exams are as useful as a 1 legged man in an a$$ kicking contest. For 2 reasons: 1. I know architects who pass and couldn't do half of what other architects can do who didn't pass some of the sections the first time around. #2, the exams are timed and multiple choice. There is no real world application where you are in an office and someone says, "sorry you are out of time, throw the whole project away." As for the multiple choice, you NEVER guess at something. If you don't know it, you research and review and if you are still in doubt, you make phone calls. And any attorney who complains about taking the exams are crying to the wrong people. Architects (when I took my exam) were 7 exams (granted they didn't need to be done all at once), 5 years of architecture school (no undergrad partying major here), 3 years of apprenticeship, and THEN you could sit for your exams. At least architects are paid better than attorneys....oh wait, we arn't even paid remotely the same level. P.S. I am fun at parties before you ask. :)
@@uawldct I don't disagree with you one bit there. I have worked in Architecture for over 20 years, I do more "architecture" than some of the licensed Architects I know, so I get it. Nothing will ever beat practical experience, nor should it. That's why I think a more hybrid system that takes into account real world experience but tests it in a setting that is fitting of the profession would be ideal. The test may be a waste, but the ARB Interview does serve the purpose of weeding out those who should not be licensed. 🍻
In the age of AI, many jobs like non trial lawyers, pharmacists, many doctors, engineers, etc.. will be obsolete in a few years..💯💯 Many healthcare companies already started using computer aided treatments years ago and the old doctors just hated it because they saw the writing on the wall.. 😊😊
It was decades ago now (I am pushing 80), but I remember the case (in California) of a legal secretary who impressed the attorney she was working for, who encouraged her to become an attorney. It was impractical for her to attend law school, so she pursued a very old method of qualifying for the bar exam that was still on the books, although rare by then: she "read the law" with her boss, and passed the bar exam on the first try. This "portfolio" approach sounds something like reading the law.
I'm sure her knowledge wasn't achieved in 4 months in that case. This is obviously nothing more than lowering the standards to ensure DEI obligations are met.
Iowa also had a process for people to "read the law" under the direction of a practicing attorney and then take the exam without law school. I remember in the 90s the last practicing attorney in Iowa to enter the bar that way retired.
Former California Governor Pete Wilson failed the bar 3 times, passing the bar the 4th time. Former LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa failed the bar 4 times...then stopped trying. Here's hoping that they don't make these same justifications for reducing the qualifications required for doctors.
It's a favorite go to phrase of the cops after being quoted the law verbatim "Are you a lawyer?"......No, but neither are they and they like to forget about parts that inconvenience them all to often. Lawyers are just people that have devoted their careers to learning the law and working in it everyday. Average people can read the laws as well ( sometimes many times ) and open multiple tabs to the exclusions, addendums etc. to get a good understanding of it. I have yet to meet a LEO ( and I have 3 in my family ) that bothers with actually reading the statutes after what they get in the academies to pass other than the memos handed to them at their stations. End Qualified Immunity.
I'm a CPA and accountants experience much of what you're talking about with lawyers. We learn about all kinds of accounting topics to pass the exam that we will NEVER use in our career.
My heartburn with the bar exam is that it's still "localized." For example, I was one of those nontraditional law students that attended law school when I was 40 while holding down a fulltime job and having a family. I graduated from a law school in Missouri, which offers the Uniform Bar Exam, but I ended up moving to Texas shortly after graduation. The Texas bar exam is "localized" and contains a fair bit on oil & gas, a topic no law student in Missouri would study. Needless to say, despite spending about eight weeks doing the Texas BARBRI prep course, I missed passing by that >< much. Also, pro tip: Don't go through a divorce while studying for or taking the bar exam. It's been 13 years since that two-day nightmare. I figure if I ever want to practice law as a retirement gig, I'll need to retire to Oklahoma (which also has and oil & gas topic in their bar exam) and take the Missouri bar, since Oklahoma offers reciprocity to those licensed in Missouri.
Wahoo! With ChatGPT and no bar exam, and a quick printer or degree from Bob's State University ... I'm off to California to practice and earn some quick and dirty cash!
This is similar to becoming a registered nurse, after graduation, I received a temp license that allowed me to work as an RN as long as there was a licensed nurse working in the same unit, until I took and passed the text, we only got one shot at it, when taking the NCLEX nursing exam. We were not allowed anything with us, they had lockers where you put phones, watches, purses. We had to show a valid ID them they had a fingerprint scanner to access the glasses in booth where you sat to take the test on a computer. You just kept answering questions until the computers program decided if you passed or failed, it might be as short as 80 questions or up to 400 questions. When it suddenly shut down it was terrifying.
At that point if I couldn't pass the NCLEX I would just continue on with going for a DO degree in medicine to go higher then nursing and just take a phlebotomy certification. Oh wait that is what happened to me and before I knew it I got accepted to med school, and I was offered I take the NCLEX again by then I didn't bother taking the NCLEX I got into med school then the chink rice rabbis happened and I dropped out of med school and got into the diesel trades and said f**k it
Sounds like the strict parameters I had for the CPA exam, except we had to take the whole test in timed segments. This was before the computer sophistication evidenced in your system. The description of just answering questions until the machine decided you passed or failed and then just shut down sounds terrifying to me too.
It’s a woke thing. Statistically “people of color” have a hard time with testing. Can’t wait till they lower the standards for cardiologists to promote DEI!
So you do realize that doing an intensive internship like Steve described is way more valuable than someone who could memorize a few fact out of a book right. Also, maybe read a little bit about Justice Robert Jackson. Justice Jackson never passed the bar nor did he even finish law school. Instead he became a lawyers apprentice & rose to become a Supreme Court justice and in 1945 took a temporary leave from the Supreme Court to become the lead prosecutor in one of the most important court cases in world history, a trial that is still used this very day in similar trials which was the Nuremberg Trials. The simple fact is bar exams being required is a fairly brand new thing & they haven't improved the quality of attorney's & I would argue they have gotten worse.
I know a lot of law students who went through the bar exam - they described it as 3 years of law school compressed in 2 days. From what I've heard, CA has been considered the hardest bar exam to pass. I like the idea of an apprenticeship, as they can get paid and would have some work experience. Your thought about criminal vs. civil law sounds good - that would make the bar exam more flexible for those who want to go in one area.
NY and NJ always had the reputation on the East Coast of being the hardest. I think one of the Kennedys took something like 10 times to pass the NY bar exam.
@@Erik_The_Viking I was lucky, passed both first time out, ditto for Florida. But I did nothing but study straight for 3 months like it was a regular job.
@@tomjones2056 What was it back in 1980, that’s when I took it? I know less than half passed that sat for the summer 1980 test. Have no idea what the numbers are today 43 years later.
It's funny and had to smile at one point in this one because of a personal experience. I took legal studies in high school and was on the team that won the state mock trial competition (I'm not a lawyer though.) One of the things I was dinged on in a previous competition was doing what you described. I was not admitting my exhibits. So was so happy I remembered to do that at state. I loved doing mock trials. I learned so much that I still use today.
1986: My firm paid for the Bar/BRI course which started 90 days before the exam, and the firm gave me 30 days off before the exam to study. Seems near impossible without that help.
Engineers in Canada require 4 years of experience working under a licensed professional engineer and then are required to take an ethics exam. (With a qualifying engineering degree of course) it's not a terrible system.
That's no uncommon in order to obtain a PE. IMO companies want engineers with PE"s as it pushes liability onto the engineer and not the company. There never was enough of an incentive for me to get my PE.
U.S. engineers have to get a four year engineering degree, pass an FE exam, apprentice for 4 years, then take a PE exam to become a professional engineer. The FE is a fundamental of engineering exam, the PE is more focused on your branch on engineering (electrical, civil, etc...).
The CT lawyer that mishandled my 102 year old mom's estate, pissed off the judge and the result was that I was personally, financially punished to the tune of $2,000 and I am NOT part of that estate? In addition, the judge wouldn't admit mom's will which held me to be the executor but then the judge decreed me to pay him $1,200 in fees and to pay the lawyer (who originally agreed to charge only $200) an additional $600 fee for her mistakes. Worse the judges decree which was sent to me demanding that I do impossible things, has not been settled after 3 full years because some of the stipulations that the lawyer made about money from mom's social security were impossible, to get, to begin with? The social security people laughed at me when I showed them the judges decree! Basically, I'm screwed due to an incompetent (but wealthier at my expense) lawyer. WTF can I do to get out of this impossible decree? I'm certainly no lawyer and the lawyer refuses to respond when I ask her what I must do?
You are so right on this one. I am a carpenter and been doing it for over 25 years. Young guys do have skills but for them to take a client on and do their own project. There going to make lots of mistakes that should never happen because it on hurts their client. Money from mistakes can absolutely ruin them
In 1994, while I was in College, we had a guest speaker, that was called a "Mustang". He never went to University, never went to Law School. He started in an Attorney's office, and worked his way up, and was still an Attorney-in-Good-Standing with the State Bar. When he spoke to us, he was in his 90's. He said he would ride his horse to the office every morning.
If I’m doing my math right, the guy you’re talking about studied law during the 1920s/30s. Back then, hardly any lawyers went to law school, so his case isn’t unusual at all. Totally different landscape nowadays compared to 100 years ago.
It wasn't that long ago that all these professions didn't require a college degree and government exam. To become a doctor you studied under a current doctor until he said you were ready. Same with lawyers. Almost all professions used apprenticeships.
This truly sounds like a handful of lawmakers, that are not lawyers, but want to be. Changing the laws so they can call themselves lawyers later on down the road.
You do realize that the overwhelming majority & when I say overwhelming majority I'm talking roughly 80% of lawmakers went to law school right. Also, you do realize that doing a form of internship is actually WAY more valuable than trying to learn stuff out of a book right.
@@kenyattaclay7666if you can’t pass the bar you can’t be a lawyer I don’t care how black or trans you are or what you paid some Indian on fiver to put in your “portfolio”
@@kenyattaclay7666 The fact that so many of our "lawmakers" are lawyers explain a lot of the problems we have and our laws that make no sense to regular people.
@@ZboeC5 I’d actually say it’s the other way around that so many “regular” people don’t understand the laws. Sorry but it’s when you get a bunch of idiots who are high school dropouts. took three tries to pass the GED test & have zero basic understanding of the constitution like that bobblehead in Colorado that we have problems. Sorry but “regular” people shouldn’t have a damn thing to do with making laws & we should have higher standards for our elected officials.
Similar to Air Traffic Control, one should expect their lawyer to have been tested and qualified in the area they operate. Actual lives and livelihood can easily be at stake, it's important stuff. Also up for consideration, whether having more lawyers has really helped society.
Im glad we are challenging the rather newish system of examination. There should be more than 1 path accessible to become a licensed attourney. Especially in a field as the law, specialized training, apprenticeships many times better demonstrate ability and knowledge needed to be an effective and competent officer of the court.
The recognition of a particular lawyer's or firm's work is so real. I worked in a field which was very common. There were a lot of consumers and a lot of service providers, but the number of law practices that served both was a relatively small pool (perhaps 50 statewide) I am not an attorney. But I could read an RFP, a proposed change in an agreement from a client or just simple docs from a competitor and instantly and accurately know the law firm that they use. In one case, a client stated that they had proposed a change based on their retention of new council. I replied to her with the name of the firm and the particular attorney that was likely the source. She laughed as she confirmed that I was correct in my assumption.
Trial Practice, where you learn that if you want a jury trial, you make damn sure you tick the checkbox for jury trial before you schedule the trial. XD
Does anyone remember the gateway exam? Two of my six kids had to take a gateway exam to get a highschool diploma. It didn't matter if you made straight A's and didn't miss a day. You had to take this test at the end of senior year that took a couple days. If you couldn't pass it you didn't get a diploma regardless of your grades. People raised hell because some kids couldn't pass it even though they had good grades on their report cards. Now kids are getting diplomas that can't read an analog clock or read cursive. So a highschool diploma doesn't mean anything anymore.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but they also pass people without having to learn how to use Morse code for the telegraph 😔 Truly, the kids these days live in the world of today and not the good world that you grew up in.
I know at least two lawyers that passed the bar exam in Pennsylvania that shouldn’t be lawyers. Well in one case he’s not a lawyer any longer. In the other case a law firm that I have used for 30 years told me that the Pennsylvania state police trooper who gave me a citation which ended up being malicious prosecution, was a good guy. He said Nick is a good guy. Obviously they’ve lost our confidence in our relationship both as business and personally for my entire family. Now I go around telling people don’t use that law firm and here is why. I’ve recommended many people over the decades and they’ve made lots of money from my recommendations. I sent them an individual who had an injury and they got him $25,000 and they got 35% of that, I could’ve sent him to other attorneys. All it takes is one stupid statement. By the way, at a hearing that I requested I beat the cop pro se in less than six minutes. I think some law firms are looking for a plea deal. That’s how they roll.
The bar exam literally almost killed me. I contracted bacterial pleural empyema shortly after taking the test. It is a good test for commitment. I don't want anyone as a fellow attorney without the level of commitment required to take and past the bar exam.
As a professor for several years, I always thought that most difficult tests test memorization and study skills more than whether they learned what I was trying to teach. I evolved take-home tests where the student did practical work that the course was supposed to facilitate. The most important aspect is that it was followed by an in-class portion where the student had to defend or apply their take-home work in a way that would be impossible if they had not done the work.
My point is that if a portfolio is a substitute for the exam, the applicant should be required to defend the work on their portfolio in some controlled way.
I think practical experience should be used for hiring and promotion rather than just having a degree, excluding someone with practical experience because there’s no degree is protectionism of an industry or job just like having to join a union to work. It’s also used by by licensing boards to not over populate their industry to keep wages higher, that being said there probably should still be a test of some sort to demonstrate your practical knowledge.
When I studied for the bar, I studied 2 1/2 months in my (soon to be) husband's deck. Passed on the first try and got the best tan of my life. I also was sick to my stomach and beyond, if you get my meaning.. Well, for the Big Days my internist (whom I consulted three times during Bar Prep) prescribed a suspension of belladonna. So I could sit for three hours without soiling myself. My hand to God. Belladonna. Tuesday New York. Wednesday Multistate. Jet to Boston Wednesday night. Thursday Massachusetts. I passed both. I practiced law. Clients stiffed me. I WANT A DO-OVER!!!!!!!
people should just represent themselves at that point. I mean, why waste so much money hiring a fool to represent you when you can be that fool in court.
I have long heard the story that in my mother's family there was a long line of lawers and it was either her father or grandfather who was the last person in Massachusetts to bas the bar after reading law. This was an apprenticeship with his father who was a lawyer instead of going to law school.
I remember cramming all day for an exam in grad school, memorizing everything in a list, bold text, italics; going in and taking the exam in like 15 minutes, getting perfect scores on almost everything, walking out the door and immediately forgetting almost-everythimg.
Steve: In addition to the Trial Practice curriculum you mentioned, another very valuable course offered at my law school was the Business of Law. Essentially, how does one start at square one and coordinate all the moving parts of a profitable and sustainable law practce. An example of one topic was how to charge for your services and what variables go into setting an hourly rate. All basic stuff but unless one has previously built a start up from scratch, the nuts and bolts of profit and loss can be a difficult lesson. And yes, studying for the Bar was a full time job for 3 months! Regards, Jeff'
I can attest to passing things like written tests not inherently proving anything, especially multiple choice only test. I had a lab partner in a technical class who could pass every test at 100% with enough brute force studying, but they couldn't do the hands on part beyond step 3, which is something you do EVERY lab, well into 75% of a year long course. I on the other hand can do the hands on stuff very well, to the point I was fixing errors other students didn't notice passed down from the equipment vendor and test makers, but I have trouble passing written tests over 90% even with notes when permitted. It's an issue that needs to be solved, but just not doing it isn't very good either.
Some people are just good at tests. I am such a person. If you give me a multiple choice test, and i have a passing familiarity with the subject mater, i will likely pass. It's a skill. Usually in a multiple choice tests, at least two answers can be discarded without even much knowledge of the subject matter. In a 4 choice test, that drops you down to 50%. You can pass that just be guessing smartly.
It's similar to job interviews. I'm autistic and really struggle in interviews but if I'm applying for a job then in general I'll be the best person on earth at that job. If I'm not I'LL BECOME THE BEST PERSON. It's totally crazy that they place such importance on tasks unrelated to the job
@@jeromethiel4323i am too. They act like getting rid of the bar would make it easier but that's likely not the case. A lot of people sneak in because they're good at tests but bad at being lawyers. I'm SO GOOD at tests but I would be horrible at most types of work as a lawyer Also my dad was special forces. He knew a guy who SLEPT during instruction but got perfect results on every exam because he noticed a linguistic pattern in the answers. Like the correct answers were drawn from the textbooks but the other answers were made up by the person who wrote the test
@@no_peace Indeed. The process of getting a job is very different from the process of doing the job. I am also terrible at interviews, i just don't have the charisma for it. But generally, i was good to excellent at every job i ever had. At least those that required me to fix things, which is my strong point. People, OTOH, they suck. But given time, you can learn the navigate the social landscape. I've been there, brother, you can get there too. It's just harder for you than most.
@@no_peace Yep. This is my experience too. A good instructor doesn't write multiple guess or true/false tests. A good instructor will craft a test that doesn't directly involve any of the examples, but instead requires you to prove you understand the underlying concepts. This is much harder to do, so most instructors don't bother. And the military is all about standardization, so they write a test and then keep using the same basic test with minor changes to keep the cheating down. But it doesn't take much to figure out the correct answer even if you have little to no knowledge of the subject material, because you can, as you say, pick up the pattern. Ask me how i know! ^-^
I have always wondered what would happen if a witness were to protest being limited on their answers, since one swears to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". If either of the lawyers or the judge restricts the answers, that would be forcing the witness to purger themselves by not telling the whole truth.
Some years ago I graduated with a law degree (UK based), in order to practice law as a solicitor (attorney for the USA readers) I would have work with an established firm, training in the different heads of practice. To be a Barrister one needs to attend the college, and only when approved is called to the Bar. The thought of a newly qualified law graduate, without practical experience, as either prosecutor or defender is rather terrifying.
I think they should do away with the requirement for a college degree. A lot of law students get pre-law just so they can go to law school afterward. Why not just have people go directly to law school without the need to go to an expensive college. And if I am not mistaken, I believe lincoln never went to college either. He just went to law school and he was one of the most famous lawyers of all time.
Can't you go to law school regardless of the undergraduate degree? Seems like some of this could be avoided with a wider range of entering law school without requiring the undergraduate, assuming you know your stuff.
The problem with not requiring an undergrad and the ensuing law school application process is that you will end up with a lot of people that do not have the capability to succeed in a stringent academic setting. It would waste a lot of time, money, and people in seats that will not be successful taking up the slots from people that would have been successful.
At one time, high school grads went straight into law, medical, or whatever professional school. Back then, some professions were apprenticeships. A HS grad needed to work three years for a qualified pharmacist before eligible to take a test showing he mastered enough to be an independent one himself. Undergrad colleges used to be finishing schools for the offspring of the wealthy. Others took missing prerequisite courses there needed for the professional route. Since the beginning, these institutions were not designed to prepare attendees for actual jobs. A huge problem we have today is our schools have been passing students through grades even when they have not learned the required material. Blacks and Hispanics have been disproportionally impacted. That's why they're always pushing to set lower or special standards for them. If someone cannot handle HS courses, they won't be able to handle graduate level courses. So, undergrad college has become a necessary remedial pitstop for most students.
The engineering exams used to be a depth and breadth exam. The morning “breadth” had twelve long form, show all your work questions, of which you picked four to answer in the four-hour session. The afternoon “breadth” was twenty sets of twenty multiple choice questions, of which you chose ten and answered them. This allowed you flexibility in demonstrating your knowledge of engineering. After passing the eight hour exam, you were sent a small book of the statutes related to engineering, and Board disciplinary decisions. Basically, you wrote out by hand everything the Board could discipline you for, and signed it. No way to defend yourself by pleading ignorance.
One of my friends / coworker who is at least twice the engineer I am, but tests poorly. He studied for, took, failed, and repeated to process for the pe exam several times. At least 4 times, it might have been 7. I was moved on before he passed so I don't recall the exact number. He doesn't advocate removing the requirement.
I purchased two professional study books with examples and practice tests. I did them all. I wanted to pass the first time. In my company people would study the minimum and pray for a 70. It would take them 3 to 4 times. Not for me. I did get a 92.@@RoseNZieg
I spent 7 hours a day, 5 days a week for 30 years in Calif courtrooms. I saw plenty of idiots that did pass the bar exam!. California continues to lead the nation with novel ideas that are deteriorating our society
As a resident of Wisconsin our State's Diploma Privilege is used more as a marketing tactic than anything else to get people to come to Wisconsin Colleges. UW Madison Law School boasts about it on their website. From what I have seen Wisconsin has too many lawyers and certainly too many bad lawyers. I see the worst from generational lawyers where grandpa was a lawyer, then dad, then son. Many of them are given an extra easy ride thru the programs vs someone who is aiming to be the first lawyer in their family. Worst part is there is no easy way to know for sure which one has or hasn't passed the bar exam as they are not required to tell you.
If they do this they should require a list of things you have to do under the tutelage of an experienced supervisor. Other licenses require that... like student teaching. And you can't just student teach under any teacher. They have to be able to check off experience boxes too.
Regarding borrowing the work of others and modifying it: I've seen lots of attorneys do this. It is a great time saver to not have to reinvent the wheel on a similar case. Also, I'm not an attorney, but I've assisted several organizations in filing to be incorporated as a non-profit corporation and to become recognized as 501c3 by the IRS. I've had attorneys compliment my work and how it looks like it was drafted by an attorney. The thing is that the IRS has a publication that lays out what they want to see in the articles of incorporation. I copied that verbatim, added the name of the organization and modified the purposes listed to suit that organization. It is not rocket science and doesn't take 7 years of school to do. I've seen attorneys charge $5k to $10k for the same work.
Everyone should have access to the argue cases in our court system, in whatever type of case they choose, per the Constitution, regardless of state licensing. There are several state bar rules that unconstitutionally prohibit citizenry from even applying for the bar exam.
In order to practice engineering, I had to get a degree, take an 8 hour test, apply for an E.I. registration, work under a licensed engineer for at least 4 years, get about five licensed engineers to sign off on me, apply for permission to take another 8 hour exam, pass that exam, then apply for my license.
Heck, even taking a trial practice course doesn't really prepare you fully for real court - it's a start but there's a lot more to it. Observing actual real-life trials and better yet helping a lawyer prepare for and perform a trial is invaluable experience.
Hi Steve, I used to work in a university in Scotland and you got all sorts people like that. An nursing student that doesn't like blood, a teaching student that cannot speak in front of people. I do agree with you about how people should be made to learn and do certain things that are key to their future career.
I came from at country and time where numerous professions had a system where people served "articles" for a period time with an exam. Quite often these people were known as Article Clerks, in other words, a person served an apprenticeship.
The number of attorneys that never had a jury trial is astounding. I know several criminal attorneys that never had one. Attorneys with 10 years or more experience.
When I clicked on this video I thought it was a dumb idea to get rid of the bar exam. My daughter passed it on her first attempt (in CA). After your presentation, I now think an alternative *could* be better but the potential cheating aspects need some real (strict?) scrutiny. My daughter loves lawyer jokes! I think alternatives to written questions would be good. My wife is a retired teacher so I know about "multiple intelligences" (which don't have to do with intellect, but with how different people learn). As a non-lawyer, the only thing I know is that court is not like Perry Mason, and that when examining a witness one never asks a question to which one does not already know the answer!
I've taken a number of certification exams that not only had an extremely high failure rate but took hours to complete. I appreciate both aspects of that as it weeded out the people that weren't capable of the job. Those exams really only covered the basics and tested for minimum needed understanding to do the job mostly competently.
Ok. I'm autistic. I can hardly talk. I am a genius. I took an exam for work that took everyone else several hours, but it took me 45 minutes. The person running the exam said "this test is supposed to take several hours. Are you SURE YOU'RE DONE?" so I sat back down and stared at my test for 10 minutes. Because at the time I was not able to advocate for myself. Am I qualified to do the job? 🙄
Step in the right direction. I think every state should do away with the bar exam so that the public courts won't be controlled by the strictly-for-profit legal industry anymore.
One of the things that having to pass a bar exam is that people will now value their license because it was hard to get. Using the disadvantaged to lower standards is usually a cover for some other reason less optically sound
Awesome video, Steve. I wouldn't be surprised if California does away with the bar exam. Greta Van Susteren says, the bar exam is a scam! I like your farewell, "I'm not perfect but I'm a limited edition. California if ever, could be the 4th state to eliminate the bar exam. 🍸Bottoms up bar friends! Who's watching 👀 Attorney Lehto with me in 2024?
I'm surprised at this point in California I can't identify as a lawyer and get a free Bar card. I know people irl who have identified as handicapped to get a free placard (yes it's worked), at this point nothing will surprises me from Cali.
Your assessment of value of the test itself and its scope reminds me of studying physics. So much material that I know I will never use because of my specialization. Often I wish I could just study the areas I'm interested in and become highly knowledgable in it. But the old ways die hard.
When I was in training to be an insurance agent, we had to pass the state test to actually work. Three weeks of training were dedicated to learning the rules for passing the test. There were 30 folks in my class. I studied nights and weekends also. Half the class passed on the first attempt. The younger generation, didn’t take the test seriously, and all of them failed three times and were fired. Months later, apparently someone challenged the studying after hours without pay, so I had to guess how many hours I spent studying, and was paid overtime for those hours.
a less generous telling is younger people who have more obligations in life because of low pay and inflation could not afford the additional time clearly required to pass this test that their employer wanted them to pass and were fired in retaliation for them not giving the employer free work. And you were a scab who benefited from their fight. But I do see why you tell it the way you do.
You always address very interesting topics that are exceptionally pertinent! I have learned so much from your videos that help my understanding of the legal profession. (I am retired but still professionally prepare income tax returns - which is a whole other ball game.).
When I graduated with a BS in EE all the faculty were telling me I really needed to take the Engineer In Training exam. This is a comprehensive, many subject test where they quiz you on Math, Statics (Civil Engineering stuff), Dynamics and ThermoDynamics (Mechanical Engineering stuff), Circuits (EE stuff--yay), etc, etc. Lots of subjects. And when I ask "why would I want to take this" the answer is "it's a prerequisite for becoming a Professional Engineer". ok... "Why would I want to be a PE?" "Oh, well *sputter* *sputter* ok, so many jobs in Civil Engineering or Mechanical require a PE". "I'm not a CE or ME, why does an EE need to be a PE?" "Ummmm... I've gotten a couple contracts just because I could put PE after my name." Hard Pass. 40 years later, I'm happy not to have wasted the time on it. Never once did anybody in my working life ask "are you a PE?"
Not only using the work of other lawyers, but AI could also be used to create portfolio of work. All I know is I had to take grueling tests in the medical field, to assure competence. My stepson had to take grueling tests to become a CPA. IMO, testing for competency is necessary to protect the public!
Because the bar exam, at least in Colorado, doesn't test how to advocate for a client in a courtroom, or draft a will, or how to write a legal motion or brief, etc. It is mostly multiple choice questions which test basic areas of law.
I can't believe trial practice isn't REQUIRED of every lawyer in law school. Wtf. I never went to law school, but was on the mock trial team in high school and we made it to the state finals. Terrifying to think I knew more about court procedure than some actual attorneys. Yikes
Why? As far as I'm concerned there are too many lawyers already. It's why there are too many laws, and too many politicians. Make it more difficult to be a lawyer.
That makes sense! Narrow the bar exam to what they are actually going to practice! Isn't this concept similar to college courses? For example, you CAN have general studies but, you can also have classes designed specifically for the subject you're going to school for.
