Law School Discussion

Law Students => Current Law Students => Topic started by: Citylaw on August 03, 2015, 04:16:12 PM

Title: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Citylaw on August 03, 2015, 04:16:12 PM
http://calbarjournal.com/August2015/TopHeadlines/TH5.aspx

Cal-Bar is shortening the exam from three days to two. Maybe they will hand out participation ribbons next.

If I could pass a 3 day exam plenty of people can. I don't think the bar exam needs to be easier there are plenty of jokers out there capable of passing a three day exam. What will this bring on.

Probably just more pissed that I had to take a 3 day exam and others will not.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: loki13 on August 04, 2015, 07:09:57 AM
Here are my thoughts on this-

1. I took a three day bar, so everyone else should have to as well. (This is the "five miles both way, up hill, in the snow" argument.)

2. I like the prestige. Don't step on my prestige. (Having passed the bar in multiple jurisdictions, I still reference my CalBar, because, dude, three days. CalBar.)

3. Barrier to entry!

4. To the extent that California allows more alternative ways to enter the profession (which is true, although neither here nor there), it makes sense that they would have a difficult bar.

All that said, CityLaw, at least we both know that we can now hold our three day bars over all new Cal attorneys in perpetuity. "Oh. So you just had to pass the two day bar? How special for you."
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Groundhog on August 04, 2015, 07:36:51 AM
I definitely hold my Cal bar 3-day preftige over other attorneys licensed elsewhere on a daily basis.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Citylaw on August 04, 2015, 10:29:53 AM
I read the article so 5 five essays and one ninety minute Practical exam and that is the same difficultly? False it is not.

The practical portion is what messes most people up and there is one less and it is half the size. This is bogus and I will tell kids I walk uphill both ways in the terrible L.A Winters forty years from now when Donald Trump is Dictator of the U.S. and the exam consists of the following multiple choice question

What is an element of negligence?

A. Duty
B. This is not the answer
C. This is not the answer
D. If you select A you will pass.



Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on August 05, 2015, 05:04:00 PM
Seriously? MOST states are two day exams.
STFU.

This scream of boomer. "I did it.........and it was HARDER when I did it (even if it was actually super easier) SO PUNISH THOSE THAT COME AFTER ME!!!!!!!!"
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Citylaw on August 05, 2015, 05:13:00 PM
Yea that is basically exactly the case.

It was b.s. that is was three days and other states weren't. However, I had to do it. I get to female dog and moan about it that is my right. However, it will be two days and for those that enrolled in law school in 2014 they got a sweet bonus.

A piece of me wonders if Chemerinsky's prior attack on the bar is related to this sudden change. He has to keep his job at Irvine and boost his BarBri stats the man has to eat. If he was at all involved good for him for wielding that much power.

Maybe one day Chemy will get on male private part Cheney's level of being able to shoot someone in the face and have the person apologize for letting their face get in the way of the bullet.  That is Chuck Norris sh*t.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Groundhog on August 05, 2015, 06:00:20 PM
This scream of boomer. "I did it.........and it was HARDER when I did it (even if it was actually super easier) SO PUNISH THOSE THAT COME AFTER ME!!!!!!!!"

I'm 29. If I and everyone before me did it, they can too. I agree with citylaw: I've earned the right to female dog. That's less expense and time stuck in a hotel.

The problem is also that CA allows almost anyone with a pulse to take the bar.

And citylaw, I wouldn't worry about Chemerinsky. He did fine at my school and writing books long before he went down to Irvine.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on August 05, 2015, 06:44:43 PM
This scream of boomer. "I did it.........and it was HARDER when I did it (even if it was actually super easier) SO PUNISH THOSE THAT COME AFTER ME!!!!!!!!"

I'm 29. If I and everyone before me did it, they can too. I agree with citylaw: I've earned the right to female dog. That's less expense and time stuck in a hotel.

The problem is also that CA allows almost anyone with a pulse to take the bar.

And citylaw, I wouldn't worry about Chemerinsky. He did fine at my school and writing books long before he went down to Irvine.
Being 29 doesn't change that it still sounds like a boomer rant. Don't be a boomer. Apparently one can convert.
Don't do it bro.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Maintain FL 350 on August 10, 2015, 08:58:00 AM
Holy cow, I come back from vacation and get greeted by THIS!

Like just about everyone here, I'll admit that I'm flat out jealous. Anyone who spent three days of feverish, stressful writing in some stupid convention center is bound to be jealous. It sucks.

But putting our jealousy aside for a moment, what is the actual substantive difference?

We're talking about the loss of one essay, and way less time spent on PTs (1.5 hrs vs 6 hrs). As far as I know, grading and the percentages required to pass will remain the same.

I'm against the loss of even one essay. They test substantive knowledge of the law, issue spotting, and the ability to form a cogent argument.

The PTs, on the other hand, are pretty much a waste of time in my opinion. It's just complicated busy work. Someone who has never attended law school but is reasonably smart could probably pass the PTs. Most of my law school classmates considered the PTs a gift, and figured they would help make up for the more difficult essays and MBE. I think most of us probably spent way less time preparing for the PTs than the essays.

The main issue here is simply TIME. Is it a better test because it's longer than others? If it was three full days of substantive legal testing, then I'd say yes. But when six hours are devoted to PTs I think you can trim that back and still have a good bar exam.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: loki13 on August 11, 2015, 11:55:03 AM
"But putting our jealousy aside for a moment, what is the actual substantive difference?"

First, never discount jealousy.

Second, the loss of an essay is important.

Third, I think the PTs are kind of awesome. Having taken more than one Bar, I appreciated the PTs. I understand that others mileage may vary, but broken down, it allows for three separate tests-
- A general, multi-guess test of idealized legal knowledge that doesn't really exist anywhere.
- A specific essay exam that tests application of learned knowledge to specific jurisdiction rules.
- The PTs, which test a person's learned ability and innate ability to apply new rules to new facts.

You say the PTs are useless- I say the PTs measure the one thing lawyers do the most often.

Now, maybe I'm wrong (it does happen). But I liked them- I guess we'll find out when we start examining the scores of those, um, 2 day attorneys.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Citylaw on August 11, 2015, 12:52:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Maintain FL 350 on August 12, 2015, 09:55:25 AM
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.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Citylaw on August 12, 2015, 10:49:21 AM
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.

 

Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Maintain FL 350 on August 12, 2015, 02:02:49 PM
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. 
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Citylaw on August 12, 2015, 04:30:28 PM
Yea that's the test I don't know if a lot would pass.

Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Groundhog on August 12, 2015, 04:32:12 PM
How many lawyers actually orally argue cases in front of a judge, though?
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Citylaw on August 12, 2015, 06:05:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on August 12, 2015, 07:30:44 PM
Honestly, I think only non ABA grads should have to take it. Wisconsin has the right idea.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: loki13 on August 13, 2015, 07:27:23 AM
"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.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Maintain FL 350 on August 13, 2015, 08:43:59 AM
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.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Maintain FL 350 on August 13, 2015, 08:51:03 AM
Honestly, I think only non ABA grads should have to take it. Wisconsin has the right idea.

I completely disagree.

Not everyone who manages to scrape by and earn their JD is fit to practice law. The bar exam serves as a weeding out process for those few who really should not be entrusted with handling the public's legal needs.

California has a notoriously difficult bar, but what about states with a 80-90% pass rate? If you can't pass an exam that 80-90% of your classmates passed, should you really be allowed to give legal advice?
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: loki13 on August 13, 2015, 09:01:41 AM
" If you can't pass an exam that 80-90% of your classmates passed, should you really be allowed to give legal advice?"

Given the quality of lawyering, I have serious doubts about the abilities of those who pass the bar. I certainly don't want to make it easier.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Citylaw on August 13, 2015, 10:38:21 AM
Agreed passing the bar is certainly doable and I passed it so it is far from impossible.

There are some head shaking moments dealing with plenty of licensed lawyers and I think the current difficulty is fine.

I think some things could be changed such as taking the bar after your 2L. I think it sucks that you have to wait months to be a licensed attorney after graduating, but the exam itself is a good "bar" to practice law.

Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on August 13, 2015, 07:12:42 PM

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

I have met these types while doing Doc Review Jobs. Lifers with a decade solid in and still working side by side with people who were waiting on bar results, and normally only make $2 an hour more than the unlicensed JD's to do it. They scared me straight.

Doc Review should be MANDATORY for people waiting for bar results. Get scared straight kids. See your future and shiver.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on August 13, 2015, 07:14:25 PM
" If you can't pass an exam that 80-90% of your classmates passed, should you really be allowed to give legal advice?"

Given the quality of lawyering, I have serious doubts about the abilities of those who pass the bar. I certainly don't want to make it easier.

I'd also point out that those numbers are hilariously off base.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: loki13 on August 14, 2015, 07:27:44 AM
"I'd also point out that those numbers are hilariously off base."

Not really. It depends on the jurisdiction and the school. My school's bar passage rate is approximately 90% every year. So, yeah, 90% of my classmates pass the bar.

If you look at jurisdictions, they average from 70-95% each year, with jurisdictions ranked from 18-48 in difficulty between 85-95%.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Groundhog on August 14, 2015, 07:51:06 AM
The top 4 schools or so in CA typically average that but afterwards there is a steep drop off.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: loki13 on August 14, 2015, 08:14:27 AM
"The top 4 schools or so in CA typically average that but afterwards there is a steep drop off."

Oh, I agree. But I thought we were talking about in general, not just for the CalBar.

"California has a notoriously difficult bar, but what about states with a 80-90% pass rate? If you can't pass an exam that 80-90% of your classmates passed, should you really be allowed to give legal advice?"
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Groundhog on August 14, 2015, 08:58:19 AM
Oh, I agree: trying to get at your larger point that student and school quality matters, even with a tough bar like CA.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Citylaw on August 14, 2015, 10:29:56 AM
It is not as hard anymore so F-them for making me take the harder one.

It will be very interesting to see what the pass rates are in 2017 if this change actually takes effect.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on August 14, 2015, 10:35:10 PM
"The top 4 schools or so in CA typically average that but afterwards there is a steep drop off."

Oh, I agree. But I thought we were talking about in general, not just for the CalBar.

"California has a notoriously difficult bar, but what about states with a 80-90% pass rate? If you can't pass an exam that 80-90% of your classmates passed, should you really be allowed to give legal advice?"
A lot of states were barely above the 50% mark recently. I want to say WV was in the 48% range (I know a few were below coin toss odds)
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: loki13 on August 15, 2015, 07:33:57 AM
A lot of states were barely above the 50% mark recently. I want to say WV was in the 48% range (I know a few were below coin toss odds)

While I am not sure what you are looking at, I would not recommend using what is likely to be a one-test sample size from one jurisdiction (and likely a February exam). See-

http://witnesseth.typepad.com/blog/2013/04/more-on-the-most-difficult-bar-exams.html

I will reiterate- there is no Bar exam so difficult that it is keeping competent attorneys from practicing. Now, if you were arguing about, say, Japan, you might have a better case.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on August 15, 2015, 08:41:02 AM
A lot of states were barely above the 50% mark recently. I want to say WV was in the 48% range (I know a few were below coin toss odds)

While I am not sure what you are looking at, I would not recommend using what is likely to be a one-test sample size from one jurisdiction (and likely a February exam). See-

http://witnesseth.typepad.com/blog/2013/04/more-on-the-most-difficult-bar-exams.html

I will reiterate- there is no Bar exam so difficult that it is keeping competent attorneys from practicing. Now, if you were arguing about, say, Japan, you might have a better case.
you gave an outdated link. I am talking 2015
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on August 15, 2015, 08:45:06 AM
http://www.barexamstats.com/california-bar-releases-school-pass-rates-for-2015-february-bar-exam/

This isn't an example of state wide averages, (which are no doubt lower thanks to places like Taft) but Pepperdine had a 45% pass rate recently (and they are considered a good school by most)
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: loki13 on August 15, 2015, 10:02:15 AM
I ate Pie-

Again, if you have a better link to national bar averages, that would be great. The original comments, as we discussed, was about jurisdictions other than California.

Next, February traditionally has the lowest bar passage rates. So it doesn't make sense to:
1) Use February bar passage rates; and
2) Use California stats; and
3) Misconstrue the ones you use (First-time Pepperdine takers in Feburary had a 70% rate on that exam- you were looking at the "repeaters" table- IOW, the students who already had failed the exam).

Having taken, and passed, more than one Bar exam (including California), I will reiterate that the problem is not the difficulty of the exam. They are rather trivial to pass, and amount to nothing more than a minor barrier to entry.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on August 15, 2015, 07:36:12 PM
That of course brings up the flipside. If "almost everyone" DOES pass then its redundant and stupid as well.
I agree that non ABA should have to sit it, but other than that. Meh.

Require probono if anything. That has more value than the exam anyways.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Maintain FL 350 on August 18, 2015, 04:58:48 PM
Even if the exam has a high pass rate, it's useful if it keeps out the 10-20% who probably shouldn't have been admitted to law school in the first place. Law schools themselves are willing to admit just about anybody at this point, and will graduate them with minimally passing grades. Thus, the bar exam is serving an important gatekeeper function. Not everyone who manages to graduate from law school can automatically be entrusted to handle the public's legal needs.

Do you think a pilot should be able to fly commercially without taking the FAA checkrides as long as they graduate from flight school?

I do believe that there are plenty of modifications that could be made to both the bar exam and law school curricula which would result in better legal training. I'm all for that.

I agree that non ABA should have to sit it, but other than that. Meh.

Interestingly, I think the primary result of such a rule would be that the average non-ABA student would be more knowledgeable on bar topics than the average ABA grad. I don't know about you, but if I didn't have to take the bar, I wouldn't have bothered with learning 90% of that stuff. But I'm glad I did.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Citylaw on August 18, 2015, 05:54:05 PM
Could not agree more.

The FAA argument is right on point, same with doctors, or any other licensed professional.

The bar exam is hard and it should not be made easier, because a few more people are having trouble passing. If literally nobody was capable of passing the bar exam then I see a change, but nearly 4,000 out of 7,000 people passed the July 2015 exam. http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/4/documents/gbx/JULY2014STATS121814_R.pdf . It is a difficult exam, but as my Contracts Professor said to a student who complained about the material in class, "it is law school and it is supposed to be hard."

I don't want a surgeon or doctor having easier requirements, or a pilot or any other professional. The bar is passable I did it after all and it sucked without question, but the exam is hard.

A little disappointed in the bar that they gave in to the complaining of students.

The timing etc should certainly be changed, but making it easier, because a few people cannot pass the exam with the standard of "minimal competence to practice law" is a bad idea.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Maintain FL 350 on August 18, 2015, 07:43:12 PM
Instead of making the exam easier maybe they should have just offered it three times a year instead of two, and with a quicker turnaround on grading.

I know people who had to take it more than once, and they eventually passed. What really hurt them was taking the bar in July and having to wait until November to see if they passed, then scrambling to sign up and prepare for the Feb bar of they didn't. It was financially very difficult for some people.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on August 18, 2015, 10:13:59 PM
The FAA? Lets not pretend we are anywhere near that important. We're not. We're lawyers. We trumped it up to a JD, but if the bar is what matters then let people with an Associates Degree sit it. That's all that law school was intended to be in the start anyways.

Not to even get into the fact that even with the 3rd day it still has almost no real world application. The MBE tests on stuff that is NOT the law in your home state, I can't imagine a more retarded testing method than that IMHO. Plus actual practice is nothing like any of the 3 sections.

You want to compare it to FAA? Fine. Then make it tested on real life stuff. Make it a real life series of court hearings after real life pretrial draftings for both civil and criminal cases in both district and circuit court. You think the FAA tests on the ground for the license? That's the permit to take the real training that the real test is later done..........IN THE AIR.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: loki13 on August 19, 2015, 06:34:00 AM
I ate Pie-

"The FAA? Lets not pretend we are anywhere near that important."

So? I hate to break it to you, but attorneys have the power to put people in (and keep people out of) prison. They are officers of the court, and have the power (in many jurisdictions) to compel attendance and testimony without any further court order. Are they as important as pilots? Who knows. But can have power, just like many other professions that require licensing.

"The MBE tests on stuff that is NOT the law in your home state"
While a person might disagree with aspects of the MBE, it tries to distill generally applicable principles of law. No, they do not apply specifically anywhere, but they are usually slightly helpful everywhere.

"Then make it tested on real life stuff. Make it a real life series of court hearings after real life pretrial draftings for both civil and criminal cases in both district and circuit court."
I'm not sure how many times we've been over this, but many attorneys are not litigators. My friend couldn't draft a motion for extension of time to save his own life; on the other hand, when it comes to real estate closings on complex commercial developments, he's the man.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on August 19, 2015, 09:09:58 AM
I hate to break it to you.............but we don't have the power to do jack. We make arguments. Cops have 100x the power and they have no where near the license requirements (they have one, but no where near what we do)

Your argument for the MBE seems to be that has remedial value and is better than nothing. Um......ok? Lets make a better something to replace it with though is my point.

As to your last point about not all attorneys doing all things, even more my point about how useless the bar exam is then. Most attorneys won't cover the majority of its content in their careers. So if that is a factor according to you, factor it in a bit deeper too.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: loki13 on August 19, 2015, 09:30:28 AM
"I hate to break it to you..."

Everything you wrote it is incorrect. I gave you specific examples. I am quite aware of my power, both under the rules (without requiring any court intervention) and, in general, as an officer of the court. If you are not aware of this, I don't know what to tell you.

Next, you seem to fundamentally misunderstand how to analyze this as a barrier to entry. So let's look-
First, does it work to prevent too many attorneys from practicing? Empirically, the answer is no. If anything, the bar (heh) is set too low.
Next, let's look at your argument re: ABA schools getting a free pass. Initially, this argument can be dismissed for the same reason you dismiss the bar exam, but at an even deeper level. Many ABA schools teach you nothing substantive about the practice of law in a particular jurisdiction. They are filled with electives, and don't have a set curriculum after the first year. Even if your school offers jurisdiction-specific classes, that will not account for people that want to practice, initially, in a different jurisdiction. Finally, and worst of all, there are two types of schools- those that work hard to keep their students in (in other words, you really have to affirmatively screw up to fail out), and those that fail out large numbers *because they admit to many that cannot pass the bar and they need to keep their ABA accreditation.*  IOW, for both types of schools, the bar exam operates as a necessary filter.
In short, your analysis is just that the bar exam isn't perfect. No, of course it isn't. Neither is the LSAT. Neither are the exams given to LEOs for admission (!!), training, certification, and promotion. But I'm glad we have them. Given the state of the profession, I think the least of the concerns is that barrier to entry is too high.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Citylaw on August 19, 2015, 09:45:46 AM
Cops at least in California have a very extensive background check and I actually went through the hiring process to be a police officer, but it took so long that I ended up taking the LSAT and  enrolling in law school while my background was ongoing.  Obtaining employment as a Police Officer at least in California is very rigorous as it should be.  As Loki accurately points out lawyers have the power to take away someone's freedom, which is pretty important and being able to pass a test of "minimal competence" seems fair. 

Loki further points out there is no practical way to test everything you will ever do. I am a litigation attorney and know civil procedure etc, but if it came to doing a real estate transaction, patent, or tax law I would not know where to start.  There are countless areas of the law and the point of the bar exam is to prove you are capable of learning the law.

No matter what area of law you get into you need to be able to learn.

The whole point is that the Bar exam is hard. This is not made a secret to anyone enrolling in law school and, because you are forced to learn it you do.

Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on August 19, 2015, 09:49:54 AM
Cops at least in California have a very extensive background check and I actually went through the hiring process to be a police officer, but it took so long that I ended up taking the LSAT and  enrolling in law school while my background was ongoing.  Obtaining employment as a Police Officer at least in California is very rigorous as it should be.  As Loki accurately points out lawyers have the power to take away someone's freedom, which is pretty important and being able to pass a test of "minimal competence" seems fair. 

Loki further points out there is no practical way to test everything you will ever do. I am a litigation attorney and know civil procedure etc, but if it came to doing a real estate transaction, patent, or tax law I would not know where to start.  There are countless areas of the law and the point of the bar exam is to prove you are capable of learning the law.

No matter what area of law you get into you need to be able to learn.

The whole point is that the Bar exam is hard. This is not made a secret to anyone enrolling in law school and, because you are forced to learn it you do.
I've done the police screening too, its no worse than character and fitness. And the training is the equate of military boot camp at best (done both first hand)
and if you want to use another example fine. My point is we don't have any real power despite what loki was saying. We do stuff that people can do for themselves and often can do for eachother under the right circumstances. We're just allowed to do it as a business is the only significant difference.
You can't legally give someone your "power of surgeon" to cut you up can you? (and yes, I know power of attorney is a limited example, lets cut that one off at the pass shall we)

The bar exam exists for the same reason they trumped up the degree to a "doctorate". To pretend we have the importance that loki was saying that we have (but don't) The whole degree should be an associates degree if you want a licensing exam after it.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on August 19, 2015, 09:53:25 AM
  As Loki accurately points out lawyers have the power to take away someone's freedom

but.................that's NOT true though.............

the ONLY people who (kind of) does is a prosecutor or a judge. Make it another exam to be a prosecutor and an even harder exam to a judge then.
And yet even then the prosecutor is just making arguments and the trier of fact has the power too. The average lawyers has jack power over this.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on August 19, 2015, 09:55:07 AM


Loki further points out there is no practical way to test everything you will ever do. I am a litigation attorney and know civil procedure etc, but if it came to doing a real estate transaction, patent, or tax law I would not know where to start.  There are countless areas of the law

so why test arbitrary parts of it that don't even apply to you, let alone real life at all? (MBE comes to mind as law that isn't actually law and actually contradicts local laws in many situations being COUNTER productive if anything)

Its a sham. Just like the MPRE.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: loki13 on August 19, 2015, 09:57:44 AM
" My point is we don't have any real power despite what loki was saying."

Really? I think you haven't practiced very long, or (perhaps) you're in an odd jurisdiction. Sure, a person can represent themselves (pro se). But this isn't just about the little "niceties" like, you know, being able to testify in court without swearing in (officer of the court) or registering for efiling. Or about "optional stuff" (quick- name a pro se prosecutor).

Can random person issue subpoenas without a case? Liens against property? Have you recently looked at the statutory allowances in your jurisdiction for what an attorney is allowed to do in your jurisdiction?

If your friend gets arrested, and says that you are his attorney, what happens when you show up at the precinct? How is that different than, say, if you don't have that meaningless license? Shall I keep going on, or will confess error?
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Citylaw on August 19, 2015, 10:12:07 AM
An attorney has the power to charge someone with a crime this does not necessarily mean the other person will go to jail, but as far as realities goes in our society charging someone with a crime is enough to destroy numerous people. See Duke Lacrosse Case and the numerous mistakes the prosectuor, which drastically impacted people's lives, reputations, and so forth. The prosecutor in this matter lost his license, but it shows the power that D.A. - licensed lawyer can have.

Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on August 19, 2015, 10:13:07 AM
" My point is we don't have any real power despite what loki was saying."

Really? I think you haven't practiced very long, or (perhaps) you're in an odd jurisdiction. Sure, a person can represent themselves (pro se). But this isn't just about the little "niceties" like, you know, being able to testify in court without swearing in (officer of the court) or registering for efiling. Or about "optional stuff" (quick- name a pro se prosecutor).

Can random person issue subpoenas without a case? Liens against property? Have you recently looked at the statutory allowances in your jurisdiction for what an attorney is allowed to do in your jurisdiction?

If your friend gets arrested, and says that you are his attorney, what happens when you show up at the precinct? How is that different than, say, if you don't have that meaningless license? Shall I keep going on, or will confess error?
Helping your friend out is an example of something someone can do for themselves
and its not the power to take any ones freedom, at best its the opposite of that, in reality its making arguments still.
I stand by my points. I'd rather risk being jaded than self righteous. We wear a tie and use pomp a lot, but lets not confuse that with anything more than it is.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on August 19, 2015, 10:14:29 AM
An attorney has the power to charge someone with a crime this does not necessarily mean the other person will go to jail, but as far as realities goes in our society charging someone with a crime is enough to destroy numerous people. See Duke Lacrosse Case and the numerous mistakes the prosectuor, which drastically impacted people's lives, reputations, and so forth. The prosecutor in this matter lost his license, but it shows the power that D.A. - licensed lawyer can have.
I mentioned this already, read my posts
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: loki13 on August 19, 2015, 10:22:53 AM
"Helping your friend out is an example of something someone can do for themselves
and its not the power to take any ones freedom, at best its the opposite of that, in reality its making arguments still.
I stand by my points. I'd rather risk being jaded than self righteous. We wear a tie and use pomp a lot, but lets not confuse that with anything more than it is."

Wow.... "Helping your friend out is an example of something someone can do for themselves"

Are you sure you passed the bar? On your *first* try? This is one of those "general questions" that is actually applicable in all jurisdictions. So let's try this again.

Your friend was just arrested for a crime. You are a licensed attorney. Your friend says that you are his attorney, and he wants to speak to you. Now, what is the difference between you being his attorney, and you being his friend. Any power there?

"I stand by my points."

Why? You haven't answered any of the specific things I brought up. Did you look at the rules for your jurisdiction? What powers and abilities does a licensed attorney have that are not available to the general public? Did you look into your subpoena rules? How about various rules for recording? Anything?

I am somewhat amazed that you manage to stand by points that are demonstrably incorrect. That's not a good way to go through life.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on August 19, 2015, 10:35:43 AM
"Helping your friend out is an example of something someone can do for themselves
and its not the power to take any ones freedom, at best its the opposite of that, in reality its making arguments still.
I stand by my points. I'd rather risk being jaded than self righteous. We wear a tie and use pomp a lot, but lets not confuse that with anything more than it is."

Wow.... "Helping your friend out is an example of something someone can do for themselves"

Are you sure you passed the bar? On your *first* try? This is one of those "general questions" that is actually applicable in all jurisdictions. So let's try this again.

Your friend was just arrested for a crime. You are a licensed attorney. Your friend says that you are his attorney, and he wants to speak to you. Now, what is the difference between you being his attorney, and you being his friend. Any power there?

"I stand by my points."

Why? You haven't answered any of the specific things I brought up. Did you look at the rules for your jurisdiction? What powers and abilities does a licensed attorney have that are not available to the general public? Did you look into your subpoena rules? How about various rules for recording? Anything?

I am somewhat amazed that you manage to stand by points that are demonstrably incorrect. That's not a good way to go through life.
couldn't read past first line, only saw the "did you pass bar" yeah, yeah I did. And I can prove it by point out how that question isn't even test on it (proof of how stupid the exam is actually) although it may have been on the MPRE (can't recall, that ritual with near 100% pass rate was that boring to me) but if you had reading comp you'd see I meant that the person could represent themselves.

Are you sure you passed the bar?

Update: ok, I went back and read the rest. WOW, you are WRONG about that being on the bar exam. 100% wrong.  WOW.
As to being wrong, on what? I stand by my points.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: loki13 on August 19, 2015, 10:42:39 AM
I'm guessing it took more than one time for you.

But since you aren't clear on the fact pattern, this is basic Criminal Procedure. Specifically, the 5th (not 6th!) Amendment invocation of right to counsel to end custodial proceedings. Fair amount of case law on that. Also? Shows up on bar exams.

"As to being wrong, on what? I stand by my points."

I think your level of competence, at this point, speaks for itself.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on August 19, 2015, 10:54:41 AM
I'm guessing it took more than one time for you.

But since you aren't clear on the fact pattern, this is basic Criminal Procedure. Specifically, the 5th (not 6th!) Amendment invocation of right to counsel to end custodial proceedings. Fair amount of case law on that. Also? Shows up on bar exams.

"As to being wrong, on what? I stand by my points."

I think your level of competence, at this point, speaks for itself.
All the ad hominem in the world doesn't change the fact that is NOT a tested crimpro question
and heck, if someone had taken it multiple times they'd know MORE about it not less.........you don't think before you leap do you?
And whats up with you arguing against your self on amendments? Who prior to that exact moment even mentioned them in any way?
I know you THINK there is a connection there, but its casual at best. You honestly just come up with a conclusion and work backwards from there don't you?

I call troll. Im done with you.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Citylaw on August 19, 2015, 10:58:41 AM
A little harsh, but the point of a licensing exam any licensing exam is to protect the public. To a lawyer anyone can be a lawyer it is not hard, because after all we choose to be lawyer. I have a lot of friends who are doctors and they think it is easy being a doctor, but are amazed that I passed the bar, etc I conversely am amazed that they became doctors.

I also have friends that are pilots they think anyone could be pilot again not something I could learn.

The point is that the bar should be and is hard. Medical school should be and is hard. Being a Police Officer should require an extensive background check and it does. Becoming a pilot should be hard and it is. So on and so on.

I think shortening the bar, because people were complaining about its difficulty is a bad decision, but obviously the people in charge of making the decisions think otherwise. There are reasons to make the change, but reasons not to.

Perhaps with this shortened exam it could be the difference between Osteopathic medicine and an actual M.D. 

I get that there are plenty of times when someone needs a lawyer to provide basic info, such as in Loki's point about the friend being charged with a crime. Any lawyer would know to tell your client/friend/etc that is being held to not stay anything other than clearly say "I want a lawyer" to invoke your right to counsel and not incriminate themselves. Not rocket science, but Jay-Z in 99 Problems, but a bi**ch ain't one ain't passed the bar, but he knows a little bit can attest to.

Apparently, this will go to the California Supreme Court for a final decision and we will see what happens. I think a three day-exam sucks, but it is a good way to keep people out. Honestly, if I could pass the bar anyone with enough competence to practice law can.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: loki13 on August 19, 2015, 11:09:09 AM
This is, quite literally, too much fun!
"All the ad hominem in the world doesn't change the fact that is NOT a tested crimpro question"

From the MBE, here are the list of topics tested that you might find relevant-
V. Constitutional protection of accused persons
A. Arrest, search and seizure
B. Confessions and privilege against
self-incrimination
C. Lineups and other forms of identification
D. Right to counsel
E. Fair trial and guilty pleas
F. Double jeopardy
G. Cruel and unusual punishment
H. Burdens of proof and persuasion

From personal experience, I can tell you that this is not only a favorite of the MBE (it's an easily adjudicated question for multi-state), it's also a common fact pattern within states, and tends to come up on the essays. Are you sure you took the bar exam?

"And whats up with you arguing against your self on amendments? Who prior to that exact moment even mentioned them in any way?"
Because I assumed the issue was pretty obvious? It's sort of like, if I state, "The City Council passes an ordinance prohibiting the burning of the American flag," I don't think I have to specifically state, "And that's the First Amendment, via the 14th Amendment, and you might want to look at Texas v. Johnson." Or if I talk about a company requiring janitors to have a college diploma, I don't need to go through the history of Title VII, Griggs v. Duke Power, and I certainly don't need to describe McDonnell Douglas. At least, I hope not.

"I call troll. Im done with you."

The last refuge of someone who just can't bring themselves to admit they were wrong. I suggest working on that. It's a valuable skill in practice. The most common error for most attorneys is a refusal to acknowledge error when it is obvious. It can have disastrous repercussions- for example, when it is obvious to the Court.

Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Maintain FL 350 on August 19, 2015, 11:41:30 AM
Pie, I almost can't believe that ANY lawyer would actually disagree with the notion of requiring a comprehensive exam to get a license to practice law. We can agree that the bar exam could be better administered and needs a make over, but no exam at all? Seriously?

Do you think that everyone you went to law school with was competent to practice law as soon as they graduated? Definitely not the case in my experience.

If you don't like the FAA example (which does require both written and cockpit tests, BTW), then how about CPAs or real estate brokers? Do you think they should be allowed to do people's taxes and transfer property based on nothing more than their degree?

Historically, the bar exam is a much more crucial part of the licensing scheme than the JD. Abraham Lincoln didn't even have to attend law school, but he still had to pass the Illinois bar. The public has a right to know that licensed attorneys are at least minimally competent.

As to your point about lawyers not having that much power, I wholeheartedly disagree. A lawyer can ruin someone's life, cost them millions, or cost them their freedom. The potential impact is far greater than many other professions which require a licensing exam.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: loki13 on August 19, 2015, 12:43:50 PM
Pie, I almost can't believe that ANY lawyer would actually disagree with the notion of requiring a comprehensive exam to get a license to practice law. We can agree that the bar exam could be better administered and needs a make over, but no exam at all? Seriously?

I have heard this proposal floated by various libertarians. It would involve some combination of the following-
-Anyone can practice law. No restrictions. No UPL charges.
-Changing the various rules and statutes that privilege attorneys.
-People that want to learn what they are doing can go to school, etc. There could be voluntary organizations (such as the ABA) that an attorney could apply to, or take an exam with, and then advertise. "I'm ABA-certified!"
-Use the tort system (malpractice) to enforce standards.

Now, I don't buy this for a number of reasons. It gets really vague around (2) - (4). And I think that the licensing is for the protection of the consumer, and given the information asymmetry, this would be a very, very bad idea. But I have heard it.

What I would be more amenable to is loosening the UPL strictures. There are certain things that, perhaps, a fully licensed attorney is not needed for. I realize that I'm arguing against self-interest, but devolving certain extremely basic legal services might be worth exploring.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Citylaw on August 19, 2015, 01:23:31 PM
I do think I saw some idea about that floating around with the California-Bar. Certain areas of the law people need representation i.e. Family Law.   Family Law is by no means rocket science and anyone with a J.D. for the majority of cases could fill out the appropriate Judicial Council Forms and if they had a stint of ethics they might eve tell both parents in a custody battle that every dime and minute you both spend and court is time and money not going to your kid.

From my understanding of the difference between Osteophatic Medicine and a full M.D. it would be a similar setup. You don't need a brain surgeon to tell a Hypochondriac that the small wart on their hand is not terminal cancer and so on.

The Osteopathist is competent and knows a lot, but just not as much as the full M.D.

The law already does this for Patent Law and screens many licensed lawyers from this process. So minimizing standards for less complex, but more emotionally charged areas of the law might be a good idea.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Maintain FL 350 on August 19, 2015, 01:46:20 PM
To some (limited) extent, this already goes on. There are "document preparation" services which facilitate stuff like no-contest divorces.

I have mixed feelings on this one. Although I agree that there are simple legal issues which you probably don't need a JD to handle, someone who is not a lawyer might also miss important issues embedded within the seemingly "simple" issue. This could result in an involuntary waiver of otherwise legitimate claims, that sort of thing. So even then, I think there would have to be some sort of licensing or certification.

In CA we have a problem with "notaries" which the state bar has been trying to address. They are common in Latin America, but have a bad reputation here for engaging in UPL. Helping to fill out a form is one thing, but giving bad legal advice is another. Again,  think there would have to be some way to monitor such services.

I have heard this proposal floated by various libertarians. It would involve some combination of the following-
-Anyone can practice law. No restrictions. No UPL charges.
-Changing the various rules and statutes that privilege attorneys.
-People that want to learn what they are doing can go to school, etc. There could be voluntary organizations (such as the ABA) that an attorney could apply to, or take an exam with, and then advertise. "I'm ABA-certified!"
-Use the tort system (malpractice) to enforce standards.

This is the problem I have with ideologically based solutions. They aren't practical. The average person has no clue what ABA certification is, and it would be ridiculously long and expensive to let the tort system take care of it. A much easier solution is just require an exam!
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Maintain FL 350 on August 19, 2015, 02:44:09 PM
Sorry, I meant "notarios" not notaries. Notaries are fine.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on August 19, 2015, 08:59:41 PM
Sorry, I meant "notarios" not notaries. Notaries are fine.
The Spanish speaking nonlawyers helping illegal immigrants illegally? Yeah, I recall my immigration law lawyer calling them a "necessary evil".
My personal feeling (and this goes a step deeper) is that the rules of professional procedure say we can't help someone CONTINUE an illegal act. So, I'm all for helping illegal immigrants become legal, or even just help them with unrelated issues, but the practices out there with fully licensed lawyers who openly admit that their practice exists to help illegal immigrants find ways to avoid getting caught and continue to stay illegally (I have met a fair share of self righteous ones and I know so have all of you no doubt) should be suspended for violating prof procedure. Yes its not equate to murder or the serious "crimes", but its still an act against the law. People love to go "but they came here legally and just didn't leave on time" I get that. And "its a civil issue". Sometimes that's true, worth noting not always, but for sure a good chunk of the time, ok. But its still an ongoing violation of the law. It blows my mind that we go "on this for political reasons, we'll treat this one different".  Especially the ones actively in hiding, insert any other non legal act with people seeking advice on how to avoid law enforcement officers.........it seems transparent.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Groundhog on August 20, 2015, 06:29:13 AM
So many things to respond to...

Never heard of these rules of professional procedure and I'm from a border state.

Not sure those lawyers are advocating anyone break the law either or what exactly this supposed epidemic of illegal legal advice is.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: loki13 on August 20, 2015, 07:19:54 AM
So many things to respond to...

Never heard of these rules of professional procedure and I'm from a border state.

Not sure those lawyers are advocating anyone break the law either or what exactly this supposed epidemic of illegal legal advice is.

This side issue confused me, as well. And I can't speak to it, specifically, since I am unaware of the particulars of these claims. That said, I am familiar with immigration attorneys, and they will zealously represent their clients' interests. Which is what they are supposed to do. If there is a particular claim made that a certain action violates a rule of professional conduct, I'd be open ears.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Maintain FL 350 on August 20, 2015, 08:35:45 AM
I doubt if they're breaching the rules of conduct, as long as they aren't knowingly filing false claims of asylum/political asylum (which, no doubt, some do), etc. Illegal immigration is indeed a political as well as legal issue, however, and is fraught with difficulties and competing interests.

Not sure those lawyers are advocating anyone break the law either or what exactly this supposed epidemic of illegal legal advice is.


If you mean the notarios issue, it is a genuine problem in CA. Notarios operate almost exclusively within the immigrant community and act as quasi-lawyers. They often have no legal training, and advise people on a broad range of subjects, not just immigration. They stand in the hallways outside the courtroom huddling with clients and telling them what to do. The advice is often bad, and the client has no recourse since the notario is unlicensed and uninsured, and can disappear into the woodwork.

Calbar was looking into this about a year ago and put up a warning on their website in Spanish telling people how to distinguish between lawyers and notarios.   
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: loki13 on August 20, 2015, 09:09:27 AM
If you mean the notarios issue, it is a genuine problem in CA. Notarios operate almost exclusively within the immigrant community and act as quasi-lawyers.

Going completely afield of the original topic, IIRC, isn't it it the case that there is a difference between the function of an American notary and notaries in (some) other countries? For example, I believe that certain European notaries have what some of us would view as quasi-lawyer abilities.

Might that be the case with "true" Mexican (in Mexico) notaries, thus causing some confusion?
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Groundhog on August 20, 2015, 10:27:58 AM
Maintain, I didn't say anything about notarios. Soy de Los Angeles, so I am certainly familiar with them. I was more shocked that the poster was alleging that attorneys were violating their professional responsibilities by advocating for immigrants.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Citylaw on August 20, 2015, 12:48:04 PM
Just to go back I think the whole point of lawyers is to argue for things that are not necessarily legal.

A few months ago helping a same-sex couple get married was illegal now it is not.

Harboring fugitive slaves was highly illegal and I am sure lawyers defended those that participated in that.

American soliders putting Japanesse in Internment Camps were doing so legally, but now that is frowned upon.

Many attorneys advocate for changes in Guantanemo Bay I could go on and on, but the point of a lawyer is to do what they can to protect their clients' interest.

The "law" changes quite often and what is or is not legal can be entirely different in 10 years.

Clearly a lawyer cannot do illegal acts, but they can advice someone how to not get in trouble.  I.E. a Criminal Defense Lawyer will tell their client don't say anything as they are trying to avoid a conviction.

Lawyers represent their clients needs. Of course if a client asks a lawyer to kill someone that does not justify it, but helping illegal immigrants stay in the country is not something I would want to work on, but there are certainly rational arguments supporting helping immigrants come to America.

Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on August 20, 2015, 12:54:47 PM
Just to go back I think the whole point of lawyers is to argue for things that are not necessarily legal.

A few months ago helping a same-sex couple get married was illegal now it is not.

Harboring fugitive slaves was highly illegal and I am sure lawyers defended those that participated in that.

American soliders putting Japanesse in Internment Camps were doing so legally, but now that is frowned upon.

Many attorneys advocate for changes in Guantanemo Bay I could go on and on, but the point of a lawyer is to do what they can to protect their clients' interest.

The "law" changes quite often and what is or is not legal can be entirely different in 10 years.

Clearly a lawyer cannot do illegal acts, but they can advice someone how to not get in trouble.  I.E. a Criminal Defense Lawyer will tell their client don't say anything as they are trying to avoid a conviction.

Lawyers represent their clients needs. Of course if a client asks a lawyer to kill someone that does not justify it, but helping illegal immigrants stay in the country is not something I would want to work on, but there are certainly rational arguments supporting helping immigrants come to America.
Giving legal advice on how to continue an illegal act is a violation of the rules of prof procedure
and yeah, harboring runaway slaves WAS illegal (and enforced). And murder is another example, equally illegally. Your post pretty much sums up my point about how people view the subject, the feel they are in the moral right, so it justifies being in the legal wrong. I have trouble digesting that concept. And just so you know if simply tell them how to get away with an upcoming murder, you'd be in violation too. Just in case there is any confusion there. You don't have to do the act, its the aiding through legal advice and assistance of any kind that is the violation. And helping immigrants come to America is legit, and it is funny how often people try to confuse those two. They are polar opposites. That's like comparing legally buying a car to carjacking.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Citylaw on August 20, 2015, 01:59:33 PM
See I think you are missing a key element, which is the timeline. Of course you cannot aid in the murder, but if someone commits the murder you can defend them.

With an illegal immigrant the act is committed and they are defended. If an attorney forged paperwork to help them enter and achieve the act that is different.

As to the ideology argument that is what most lawyers do argue an idealogy.

There are Tenant Advocates that protect deadbeats, then there are bank lawyers that cover up foreclosure fraud, so on and so on.

As a Judge once told me agreed about everything we wouldn't have any work.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: loki13 on August 20, 2015, 02:03:08 PM
Giving legal advice on how to continue an illegal act is a violation of the rules of prof procedure
and yeah, harboring runaway slaves WAS illegal (and enforced). And murder is another example, equally illegally. Your post pretty much sums up my point about how people view the subject, the feel they are in the moral right, so it justifies being in the legal wrong. I have trouble digesting that concept. And just so you know if simply tell them how to get away with an upcoming murder, you'd be in violation too. Just in case there is any confusion there. You don't have to do the act, its the aiding through legal advice and assistance of any kind that is the violation. And helping immigrants come to America is legit, and it is funny how often people try to confuse those two. They are polar opposites. That's like comparing legally buying a car to carjacking.

There's a lot that's confusing, here. Let's take the first sentence. For example, one can often get confused with the term "illegal." I know that in your first post, you basically stated, "civil, whatevs," but the difference between malum in se and malum prohibitum is kind of important. More importantly, you don't really specify what it is that you are objecting to. There are some undocumented immigrants that are allowed to stay here, upon going through proper procedures. And there are occasions when they aren't, but an attorney is well within their rights to advocate for their clients interests to try and stay as long as possible (and, conversely, the opposing attorney may want to get deport them).

Think of another civil context- if a person represents a business, and knows the business committed a civil infraction, but the statute of limitations past, should the attorney just think to themselves, "Well, I shouldn't argue procedure, because what they did was illegal!" What if it's something more arguable (an unclear affirmative defense)?

I think your policy views might be affecting your other views.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Maintain FL 350 on August 20, 2015, 02:03:51 PM
Maintain, I didn't say anything about notarios. Soy de Los Angeles, so I am certainly familiar with them. I was more shocked that the poster was alleging that attorneys were violating their professional responsibilities by advocating for immigrants.

Indeed.

Advocating for an immigrant, even an illegal immigrant, is not in itself a violation of any professional duty.

Pie:

Your argument is that by assisting the illegal immigrant in becoming legal, the lawyer is furthering the illegal activity? I see the logic, but no. And this isn't just an issue of politics or political correctness.

Lawyers are permitted to assist clients who are currently afoul of the law but wish to become compliant. Think of a client walking into a tax lawyer's office and saying "I haven't paid income tax in five years, but I want to get right with the IRS and avoid jail." As long as the lawyer does not assist the tax fugitive in hiding assets, or setting up offshore accounts, or producing fake returns, he can assist the client in clearing up his legal problems with the IRS.

So, if an immigration lawyer tells an immigrant to claim political asylum when he knows it's a bogus claim, or tells the client to lie about how long he's been in the country to take advantage of an amnesty, or whatever, then he's breached his ethical duties. But not just by representing and advocating zealously on behalf of the client.

Going completely afield of the original topic, IIRC, isn't it it the case that there is a difference between the function of an American notary and notaries in (some) other countries? For example, I believe that certain European notaries have what some of us would view as quasi-lawyer abilities.

Might that be the case with "true" Mexican (in Mexico) notaries, thus causing some confusion?
 

Yes, definitely. Notarios are common in Latin America and usually have some degree of training or certification. They have very clear roles, and can only perform certain tasks. How well this is regulated varies according to the country.

The problem in the U.S. is that many people calling themselves "notarios" and running storefront offices have zero training in American law. I believe Calbar was looking into some sort of training or regulatory action, but I don't know what came of it.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on August 20, 2015, 03:46:19 PM
Giving legal advice on how to continue an illegal act is a violation of the rules of prof procedure
and yeah, harboring runaway slaves WAS illegal (and enforced). And murder is another example, equally illegally. Your post pretty much sums up my point about how people view the subject, the feel they are in the moral right, so it justifies being in the legal wrong. I have trouble digesting that concept. And just so you know if simply tell them how to get away with an upcoming murder, you'd be in violation too. Just in case there is any confusion there. You don't have to do the act, its the aiding through legal advice and assistance of any kind that is the violation. And helping immigrants come to America is legit, and it is funny how often people try to confuse those two. They are polar opposites. That's like comparing legally buying a car to carjacking.

There's a lot that's confusing, here. Let's take the first sentence. For example, one can often get confused with the term "illegal." I know that in your first post, you basically stated, "civil, whatevs," but the difference between malum in se and malum prohibitum is kind of important. More importantly, you don't really specify what it is that you are objecting to. There are some undocumented immigrants that are allowed to stay here, upon going through proper procedures. And there are occasions when they aren't, but an attorney is well within their rights to advocate for their clients interests to try and stay as long as possible (and, conversely, the opposing attorney may want to get deport them).

Think of another civil context- if a person represents a business, and knows the business committed a civil infraction, but the statute of limitations past, should the attorney just think to themselves, "Well, I shouldn't argue procedure, because what they did was illegal!" What if it's something more arguable (an unclear affirmative defense)?

I think your policy views might be affecting your other views.
I mentioned these counter theories which I why I stressed the non legal act part of it. Helping to further a non legal act violates prof procedure.
Any deeper analysis is just justification.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: loki13 on August 21, 2015, 07:49:52 AM
I mentioned these counter theories which I why I stressed the non legal act part of it. Helping to further a non legal act violates prof procedure.
Any deeper analysis is just justification.

What? Seriously, I don't understand your point. Let's take an easy example. How about a foreclosure. Let's say we have two "bad" actors in a judicial foreclosure state-
A bank that, arguably, doesn't have requisite standing at the beginning of the case. (Issues with the note)
A borrower that hasn't been paying.

So, by your argument, neither side is entitled to representation? And any deeper analysis is only "justificiation?" The bank shouldn't have representation, because no attorney should help a bank try to establish standing to foreclose when it appears the bank lacks standing. And no attorney should help the borrower, because no one is entitled to keep living in a place they have no right to (sound familiar)?

I'm having serious trouble understanding your views, other than you don't like something, so you don't feel the need to think about it.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Citylaw on August 21, 2015, 10:01:29 AM
Excellent points.

Basically, if your gong into the legal profession expect your client to have done something wrong.

Something as wholesome as representing the Catholic Church, is not without its illegal activities such as child molestation, taking land from people and god knows what else. Of course they do plenty of good things as well and that is the case with any client.

Very few people are just terrible with no redeming quality. Illegal immigrants I could justify representing them and I could justify forcing them out.

The banks are a perfect example. Did banks do shady stuff that led to the mortgage meltdown? Yep. Are their deadbeats that did not pay these shady organizations? Yep.  I wouldn't say either is some righteous person and I could see arguing for either side.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Maintain FL 350 on August 21, 2015, 11:37:48 AM
In fairness to Pie, I think he was arguing that by assisting the illegal immigrant in staying in the U.S. the lawyer is helping to perpetuate an ongoing illegal activity.

The problem with this argument however, is that even though the illegal immigrant's continued presence in the country may be illegal, the lawyer is actually attempting to rectify the situation by bringing the client into compliance with the law. There is nothing unethical about a lawyer saying "You are currently here illegally, but you may qualify for legal status via X, Y, and Z." This is what lawyers do all the time, in all sorts of contexts.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Citylaw on August 21, 2015, 12:02:42 PM
That is a valid point, but I think a lot of legal practice is more or less going to assist someone rectify a prior bad act.

The bank example is a good analogy.

The Banks engaged in robo-signing, bad mortgages, blah blah, and Bank Attorneys will seek to validate a Bank's authority to foreclose even if was initially done illegally. 

Conversely, the homeowner being foreclosed likely did not make payments and is holding over in the home. Their attorney will represent them to keep them in their home and rectify their failure to pay.

There are hundreds of examples of that and basically any time you are in a litigation scenario you are resolving some prior unlawful act.

A Transnational Attorney is preventive so it is a little different, but even there a client may want to do as little as possible and get to a gray-area of lawful/unlawful.

In summary the legal legal profession is not all Lolipops and Rainbows.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on August 21, 2015, 08:56:57 PM
In fairness to Pie, I think he was arguing that by assisting the illegal immigrant in staying in the U.S. the lawyer is helping to perpetuate an ongoing illegal activity.

The problem with this argument however, is that even though the illegal immigrant's continued presence in the country may be illegal, the lawyer is actually attempting to rectify the situation by bringing the client into compliance with the law. There is nothing unethical about a lawyer saying "You are currently here illegally, but you may qualify for legal status via X, Y, and Z." This is what lawyers do all the time, in all sorts of contexts.
you understand me in part and misunderstand in another. I agree that going to court (for anything) is a good idea. Make your good faith arguments.
I am talking about lawyers who give advise to AVOID court/arrest/etc. They are out there and very open about it. Replace with any other non legal act and its that simple. People who are still confused WANT to be confused on it.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: loki13 on August 22, 2015, 05:56:07 AM
you understand me in part and misunderstand in another. I agree that going to court (for anything) is a good idea. Make your good faith arguments.
I am talking about lawyers who give advise to AVOID court/arrest/etc. They are out there and very open about it. Replace with any other non legal act and its that simple. People who are still confused WANT to be confused on it.

I'm still confused by Artist formerly known as Pie. First, your continued use of the phrase "non-legal" is carrying a lot of freight, as you appear to be conflating civil and criminal infractions (malum in se and malum prohibitum). Second, you aren't being specific, at all, as to what you are alleging, or what the fact pattern could be. Facts can make a huge difference. Third, ethical rules do matter- they are not "justifications." Rules regarding, inter alia, confidentiality. 

So let's take an easy example culled from your fear of undocumented individuals in America. A student from England has overstayed their student visa, and is currently working in a bar in New York City. She goes to an immigration attorney. What advise, if any, would it be acceptable, in your mind for this attorney to give? Why? Refer, if necessary, to relevant rules in your jurisdiction or the Model Rules.

Now, contrast that situation to this one- a business owner goes to an attorney regarding a tax issue. During the course of the conversation, the attorney learns that the business owner is non-compliant with a local ordinance (which is an entirely separate issue). To comply with this local ordinance (which only involves the spacing of his buildings on his property) would require millions and millions of dollars to rebuild, while his business could not operate, costing millions more. In your analysis, what can this attorney ethically do? Why? Refer, if necessary, to relevant rules in your jurisdiction or the Model Rules.

I'm really curious- after all, real life isn't always so neat. Now, if your argument was that immigration attorneys (but not others?) were lying in court, I would completely agree with you, but now I am even more confused as to what your point really is.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Maintain FL 350 on August 22, 2015, 12:58:05 PM
I am talking about lawyers who give advise to AVOID court/arrest/etc. They are out there and very open about it. Replace with any other non legal act and its that simple. People who are still confused WANT to be confused on it.

I'm not sure that anyone here would disagree with you on that, but you earlier comments seemed more broadly construed.

Telling a client to ignore the court and not show up is definitely a breach, and I'm sure that there are some unethical immigration lawyers who do it. I've heard stories about shady lawyers telling people to claim political asylum just to slow down the process, etc., just like I've heard about crooked criminal lawyers, even family law. There was a case here in CA recently where an immigration attorney was disbarred and sent to federal prison for running a scam to bring people in illegally.

But I think this kind of stuff can be easily distinguished from a lawyer who simply uses legit avenues to zealously advocate for their client.

Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on August 22, 2015, 08:00:37 PM
I don't doubt that people can justify any act, but I am glad you get what I was trying to say (even if it took awhile to get there) My point is that the MAJORITY of immigration attorneys I know do that, and I know law school Profs who get mad if you even question the idea of it.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: loki13 on August 24, 2015, 10:21:42 AM
I don't doubt that people can justify any act, but I am glad you get what I was trying to say (even if it took awhile to get there) My point is that the MAJORITY of immigration attorneys I know do that, and I know law school Profs who get mad if you even question the idea of it.

Snakes formerly known as Pie,

I am not sure where you would get the information that a majority (either capitalized or uncapitalized) of immigration attorneys behave in such a manner. Of course, you have the qualification that it is the attorneys that you know- do unethical people gravitate toward one another? :P
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Citylaw on August 24, 2015, 01:51:38 PM
Don't aid someone in a crime that is unethical.

Hypo #1
Lawyers contacts Mexican family and tells them don't bother filling out paperwork just sneak across the border and into my office, once you have entered illegally then I can fix everything. (No good he encouraged them to break the law and then he will fix it.)

Hypo #2
Mexican family illegally enters country and obtains housing, employment, etc then employer wants verification of immigration status. Family goes to attorney office and asks for help.  Attorney fills out paperwork goes to court do whatever he can within the law to keep the family employed and in America.  (Ok clients broke the law without attorney knowledge and committed the act attorney can advocate to protect them.)

If you create crime your in trouble, if the bad act already occurred then  an attorney can  use the legal tools available at their disposable to assist a client.



Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: Maintain FL 350 on August 24, 2015, 04:19:47 PM
If you create crime your in trouble, if the bad act already occurred then  an attorney can  use the legal tools available at their disposable to assist a client.

Exactly.

I have no clue whether immigration lawyers are any more or less ethical than other lawyers, but I think you'll find that are unethical bums in every branch of law. I mean, c'mon, you think OJ came up with that stupid alibi all by himself?

Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on August 24, 2015, 08:29:19 PM
I don't doubt that people can justify any act, but I am glad you get what I was trying to say (even if it took awhile to get there) My point is that the MAJORITY of immigration attorneys I know do that, and I know law school Profs who get mad if you even question the idea of it.

Snakes formerly known as Pie,

I am not sure where you would get the information that a majority (either capitalized or uncapitalized) of immigration attorneys behave in such a manner. Of course, you have the qualification that it is the attorneys that you know- do unethical people gravitate toward one another? :P
that I know........I am seriously wondering why you lack basic level reading comp skills
spice of adhominem to compensate for lack of reading comp? Not unexpected. Use that on a cop next time he pulls you over, then the judge. See how it goes.

Back to the original topic, I still think its standard to be a two day test.
Title: Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on August 24, 2015, 08:32:41 PM
If you create crime your in trouble, if the bad act already occurred then  an attorney can  use the legal tools available at their disposable to assist a client.

Exactly.

I have no clue whether immigration lawyers are any more or less ethical than other lawyers, but I think you'll find that are unethical bums in every branch of law. I mean, c'mon, you think OJ came up with that stupid alibi all by himself?
Not sure how this has confused anyone, was talking about an action, not attacking any group. Knee Jerk defenses people, once you know they exist you can try to overcome them.