I am of the opinion that you can't have too many law schools, or new lawyers. If people really want to practice law, let them. I think the CA method of letting everyone try and letting the bar sort it out works well. I think it's better to have more failed lawyers, than to limit the number of people who can practice.The alternative, in my mind, would be to switch to a solicitor/barrister system. We've got paralegals who do so much legal work as is, that might not be a horrible idea. But as long as we define the "practice of law" the way we do, and require licensing under a unified bar, I think that the more the merrier.
Oh yea...you're delicious and lean, but unsustainable and not to be consumed daily.
If tuition isn't forced down by the Cooleys of the world, no proliferation of law schools is going to take care of it.Suing the ABA is laughable- do you see anyone suing the AMA? The ABA should be doing precisely what the AMA does.
What exactly would be a "failed lawyer?"
If people really want to practice law, let them.
Quote from: bl825 on April 29, 2009, 02:34:33 PMWhat exactly would be a "failed lawyer?"In my mind, one who cannot make a living practicing law.
Restricting government loans seems like a bad idea to me. Although tuition might come down some, you would ensure that only the wealthy could attend law school.
To restate some things that nealric has already broached, the lawyer who fails ends up hurting a lot of people on his or her road to realizing that he or she cannot make a living practicing law. I've heard too many stories about people whose lawyers screwed up their cases to believe that we should just let everybody take a shot and see how they do. Please note: this post does not express a position in terms of how we should restrict access to the profession.