seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days

[Citylaw]

I agree I actually think the PT's are what most people struggle with on the exam and the PT is what happens in real life.

You are given a huge stack of paper and a lot of it contains unimportant information.  You need to sift through the b.s. to find the important info then learn some law and apply it to a fact scenario and it is not uncommon to do this under time pressure.

In my years of practice I have never been asked to answer a Multiple Choice Question nor has info every been presented to me in a one page piece of paper with all the relevant facts to come up with a question.

The test is simply easier and what impact that will have if any on the legal profession for years to come is yet to be seen. Hopefully, the guy who was taken the bar 41 times and yet to pass will finally get with the new rules that will be something good that comes from these changes.

[Maintain FL 350]

I guess people's perceptions and assessments vary according to their strengths or weaknesses. I found the PTs to be fairly straight forward, just time consuming. Conversely, I had to practice like crazy for the essays.

As far as being a realistic representation of what lawyers actually do, I'm not sure that it's any more or less realistic than the essays. I understand that drafting motions and client letters is a huge part practicing law, but I've never had a boss say to me "Here's a case you never heard of and a mountain of docs. Draft a Motion for Summary Judgement. You have precisely three hours." Just I've never had one hour to spot all the issues in a particular case, as the essays require.

I agree that losing one essay sucks, it's a mistake. Maybe keeping a three day exam schedule but with more essays or short answer questions along with one 3-hour PT would make more sense. But I won't bemoan the loss of two 3-hour PTs, it was overkill.

[Citylaw]

I think everyone has their strengths and weaknesses on the exam and each was balanced out fairly well.  I was never strong on Multiple choice question, but nailed those crazy fact pattern essays. M, but the PT's were a little harder for me. It is like the LSAT as well some people love logic games and hate reading comp. I think that was the point of the Cal Bar it tested all those various skills equally.

If anything to make it more realistic there should be some kind of oral requirement on the bar I can't tell you how many times I have been in court and seen licensed attorneys unable to articulate a sentence in front of a judge.  Or ramble on so incoherently that all hope for the case is lost. That would be a realistic and helpful addition and maybe get rid of the MBE all together. That is the one thing that makes little sense to me in the real world there are no multiple choice questions.

 

[Maintain FL 350]

If anything to make it more realistic there should be some kind of oral requirement on the bar I can't tell you how many times I have been in court and seen licensed attorneys unable to articulate a sentence in front of a judge.  Or ramble on so incoherently that all hope for the case is lost.

They could include a section titled "How Not to Piss off the Judge: a Primer". Here's a hint for newbies, when you see the judge go from merely rolling their eyes at you to turning red with veins popping on their forehead, stop talking. 

[Citylaw]

Yea that's the test I don't know if a lot would pass.

[Groundhog]

How many lawyers actually orally argue cases in front of a judge, though?

[Citylaw]

A lot.

Go into any courtroom on any given day. State Court at least in California Federal is more organized, but state at any given time there are 10-15 hearings. SF Court it is like a cattle call I have been in a room with 30 different cases 60 lawyers to get done in three hours and just praying you get called before the others.

Full trials a lot less, but lawyers go to hearings routinely at least in California. I am working on a personal case in Indiana and the system runs like clockwork there so maybe that is unique to California, but even more reason it should be on the Cali bar.

[🍟💵🌲🍥]

Honestly, I think only non ABA grads should have to take it. Wisconsin has the right idea.

[loki13]

"Honestly, I think only non ABA grads should have to take it. Wisconsin has the right idea."

I disagree. While a person can reasonably argue about the states (through the Boards) partially delegating their accreditation process through the ABA, I also think it's perfectly reasonable to note that the ABA's standards aren't all that. In other words- there are bad ABA schools (with a few good students), and there are bad students at "good" ABA schools. Just getting into a "good" ABA school that won't fail you and coasting through shouldn't be sufficient to practice. Certain professions (doctors, attorneys, etc.) have licensing exams- nothing wrong with it.

"How many lawyers actually orally argue cases in front of a judge, though?"
This is a good point. I think that the answer is that if you do it, it happens way more often than you think; if you don't, it never happens. For example, in house counsel? Transactional attorney? And so on.
Even civil practice rarely gets that many *trials*, and, when it comes right down to it, federal civil practice (excepting criminal) rarely sees a judge because the motions, including summary judgment, are done on paper. But if you're doing a lot of state court litigation, even civil, you'll be in court.

All that said, I know many attorneys who have never stepped foot in court, and never plan to.

[Maintain FL 350]

How many lawyers actually orally argue cases in front of a judge, though?

It just depends on what you're practicing.

As Loki pointed out, civil transaction attorneys may never see the inside of a courtroom. But PDs, DAs, juvenile dependency lawyers, family lawyers, etc., are in court all the time. I worked at a fairly large city attorney's office during law school, and on any given day it seemed like half the office was in court for some or another hearing. As Citylaw stated, this may be a California thing.