This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Maintain FL 350
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27  29 30 31 32 33 ... 85
« on: May 17, 2014, 06:45:32 PM »
I agree, there are many associated problems. For selfish purposes I would rather see the legal field restricted to lawyers. However, many people can't afford a lawyer and need some very basic guidance. There could be a way to regulate this stuff, as they do in the UK.
They tend to operate as solo practitioners now, and I assume that would be the case even if they got some kind of license. Firms aren't going to hire them.
Another issue is this: many of their clients may not care whether or not they're licensed or bonded, so regulating the field may not have much impact.
As it is now, they are allowed to help with stuff like document preparation. However, they routinely give (very bad) legal advice. It's a serious problem.
« on: May 17, 2014, 12:58:38 PM »
The best bet is probably SS advocate, simply because there are so many potential clients.
Something like McKenzie Friends is probably necessary in the U.S. in order to provide low(er) cost, basic legal assistance. But it's got to be regulated, and the regs need to be enforced.
Here in CA we have a problem with "notarios", which are a common feature in Latin America but operate here without any oversight. They often have no legal training, don't carry malpractice insurance, and give out bad advice. In many cases they are simply practicing law without a license, and their clients get what they pay for.
I'd rather see that replaced with something like McKenzie Friends.
« on: May 17, 2014, 11:54:19 AM »
I'm not sure you understand how an LLB actually works.
It requires to first have an undergrad in prelaw and then get a "second bachelors" in law
I love it when people speak authoritatively, yet are completely wrong.
An LL.B does not require a preceeding Bachelor's degree. The LL.B is usually completed in four years, followed by supervised on the job training. This is how it works in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and the Caribbean.
I'm currently preparing for the UK exams, and have several friends and family who are UK solicitors. Trust me, this is how it works.
I believe that Jon Levy is also a licensed UK solicitor?
In civil law jurisdictions the law diploma has various iterations. Sometimes it's a doctorate, sometimes not. It can be completed in four to six years depending. Admission to both LL.B and civil law diploma programs is usually quite competitive, and universities will strictly limit the number of entrants.
Half of law school is electives anyways. Why waste peoples time with that an internships?
I agree. Electives at the graduate/professional level are an absurd waste of time. Just a way to get more tuition. Most students would be far better served spending that time learning how to draft a will or living trust, review a contract, or filing a motion. Our legal education is almost entirely academic, and needs more practical training.
« on: May 15, 2014, 05:26:14 PM »
It depends on what you want to do and where you want to live.
For the majority of law students, ABA is definitely the way to go. If you ever plan on leaving CA, get an ABA degree. But I disagree that any
ABA degree is always better than any
non-ABA degree. If we're talking about non-accredited/online schools, then yes, I'd agree. But the California (CBE) accredited schools are a little different.
They've been around for a long time and a significant portion of the CA bar is comprised of CBE grads. It's not just one guy here and there. They are exempt from the FYLSX, too. The DA/PD/City Attorney and small firms in CA are pretty well stocked with CBE educated lawyers. For example, in Orange County something like 25% of the DAs and judges are Western State grads (before it became ABA approved).
As a result, the stigma that might normally attach to a non-ABA is somewhat reduced in CA. In my experience, CBE and low ranked ABA schools are viewed as roughly equivalent. A firm that is willing to hire a Whittier grad is probably willing to look at a CBE grad, too. A firm that actually cares about pedigree, however, likely won't hire from either.
For a non-traditional student who wants to hang out their own shingle and practice DUI defense in the suburbs, it might make more sense to spend $50k on a CBE degree than $150k on an ABA degree.
statistics don't lie
That's true. The bar pass rates for CBE schools are usually a lot lower than in-state ABA schools. However, they are comparable to many out of state ABA schools. Have you ever looked at the bar pass rates for out of state schools in CA? A lot of schools with 80% rates in their home state have a 30% rate in CA. In that case, an ABA school is not necessarily a better choice.
Again, depending on the person's goals a CBE could make complete sense.
« on: May 14, 2014, 04:57:50 PM »
Yeah, I know what you mean.
My understanding (and this based only on the CA bar exam) is that the nature of the test taker pool (repeaters, etc) does not necessarily increase your chances of passing.
It would seem that a high performing student would benefit from being compared to lower performers, but I've been told the impact is minimal.
I was told that because the overall performance on the MBEs is lower than in July, scores which are already above average receive very little boost from scaling. Thus, someone who is borderline supposedly has a better chance of being pushed over the top due to scaling in July than in Feb.
As far as the essays and PTs, I'm not sure. You still have to hit all the issues to get a 65. The fact that the pass rate is significantly lower makes me think the bar examiners aren't cutting much slack based on comparative performance.
« on: May 14, 2014, 02:38:24 PM »
I seem to remember that at least in California it was considered a little more difficult to pass the Feb bar due to MBE scaling. Most people get less of boost in their MBE score in Feb as compared to July.
« on: May 14, 2014, 01:36:03 PM »
Are you confused about what you wrote yourself, or the idea of the bar being a gatekeeper?
I'm confused with your statement "...if you're talking about a weeding out process, you'd have to take that to the bar".
Take what to the bar? A school's attrition policy? There is no such requirement. Why would that be more fair than allowing the schools (and students!) to make their own decisions?
It boils down to this:
We agree that there are too many people in law school who shouldn't be there. I believe the best way to weed them out is through academic attrition, you think it is through the LSAT and new ABA standards regarding admission.
Just make the LSAT harder and make an ABA standard requiring minimum admission standards
Making the LSAT harder will result in lower scores across the board, but won't solve the problem. Law schools will simply admit classes with lower average scores.
Creating new ABA standards is very lengthy, complex, and political process. As far as I'm aware, the ABA has shown no interest whatsoever in adopting such a recommendation. There would be huge pushback against such a standard from the law schools themselves as well as various interest groups.
That leaves academic attrition as the most viable option for dealing with underperformers.
« on: May 14, 2014, 12:56:59 AM »
Do, you even know what the ABA is?
Of course I do.
It's the American Barrister's Association, and is responsible for regulating solicitors and barristers in the United States, Canada, and Jamaica.
And if you are talking about a weeding out process you'd have to take that to the bar, that is far more rational if you are into "giving a chance"
« on: May 13, 2014, 10:25:46 PM »
I think weeding out underperformers through attrition is the better option.
Lots of people with lowish GPA/LSATs gain admission to local law schools, pass all their classes, graduate, and become lawyers. They are given an opportunity to prove themselves, and rise to the occasion. Many go on to become DAs, PDs, Main Street lawyers, etc. and play a vital role in the legal market.
Their classmates who are given the same opportunity and don't rise to the challenge should be weeded out, but I don't see the sense in throwing the baby out with the bath water. It makes more sense to me to give people the chance, then make the necessary cuts.
I don't know if attrition needs to be as high as 33%, but 5-10% seems low. Attrition (academic) at my school was only around 6% I believe. It should have been higher, probably more like 15%.
There is also a political aspect to this issue which makes it unlikely that the ABA will attempt to impose numeric admission standards. The arguments against such bright line regulations range from the detrimental effect on URM enrollment, to the impact on legal services to the poor, to the impact on small firms. I imagine that the law schools, too, don't want the ABA making admissions decisions for them.
« on: May 13, 2014, 06:25:52 PM »
I think it has much more to do with economics than hand holding. If schools routinely failed out 33% of their class they would lose large amounts of tuition money. Again, proving the point no school wants to kick students out removing one student can result in a loss of 60k to 80k over two years.
I don't think anyone was ever trying to argue that they "want" to fail them out
just that (for whatever reason) they DO
Well, I would argue that they don't fail them out "for whatever reason", they fail them out because they aren't meeting the minimum acceptable standards. If someone can't pass the first year courses, they're unlikely to pass the bar.
Law school attrition should probably be higher than it currently is. There were multiple people at my school who scraped by with barely acceptable grades, graduated, and never passed the bar. I'm not sure the school did them any favors by allowing them to repeat failed courses and continue.
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27  29 30 31 32 33 ... 85