You mean somebody thinks California should LOWER their standards for attorneys even further? I mean, if they lower it much further, the only remaining requirement will probably be for something like clean underwear.
Lower standards??? Please, explain again how California has done that.
California was ranked as 2nd toughest overall based on 2006 data; 2nd to DC
I am however opposed to letting in attorneys without a bar exam from states who would keep out non ABA California lawyers.
The situation has gotten so bad after the lawsuits filed that California Federal Court Judges in the Central and Northern Districts have tried to sanction me because I have an out of state address even though I am a member of their bars.
Frankly, if you ask me, anybody who passes the bar exam should be allowed to be an attorney.
Each US District Court in the US sets it own admission requirements, has nothing to do with the ABA but everything to do with state bar membership. Only a few let everyone become members without restrictions - notably USDC North Dakota and Northern District of Illinois (Chicago), most of the rest have limited or no reciprocity. The NAAMP pleading was misleading on that issue - shows a lot of green states that have reciprocity when that really is not the case. For exampme New York federal courts keep out everyone except NY, Conneticut and Vermont bar members, the NAAMP map makes it look like there is total reciprocity.
Therefore, I say the bar exam is doing exactly what it should be doing weeding out those who fail to cut the mustard. While those who fail the bar may appear to have wasted their time, I counter that anyone who has taken to learn the law, in whatever capacity, has improved themselves, and society, overall for a law degree offers more than the ability to practice law.
Page created in 0.26 seconds with 18 queries.