Kill All the Law Schools

[jonlevy]

The Wall Street Journal OpEd is suggesting we bring back the Bachelors in Law and get rid of the ABA law schools, I agree:


OPINION
 JANUARY 17, 2012
 .
First Thing We Do, Let's Kill All the Law Schools

Allowing undergraduate law majors to take the bar exam would increase the number of attorneys and lower legal fees..

By JOHN O. MCGINNIS
AND RUSSELL D. MANGAS

Over three years, tuition at a law school can exceed $150,000. Even this princely sum does not capture the full cost. During the time spent at these schools, most students could have earned substantial income. A recent analysis by Herwig Schlunk of Vanderbilt University suggests that for bright students with attractive career opportunities, the total cost of law school is closer to $275,000.

The high cost of graduate legal education limits the supply of lawyers and leads to higher legal fees. And higher fees place legal services out of the reach of middle-income families at a time when increasing complexity demands more access to these services. In short, the current system leaves citizens underserved and young lawyers indebted.

Some have argued that to reduce costs states should simply drop their educational requirements, policing lawyer quality through bar exams, if at all. But the requirement of a legal education can serve important public needs.

First, most citizens, particularly the less educated, do not know much about law and have difficulty evaluating the skill of individual lawyers. Some education in law makes it more likely that a lawyer will be competent. Second, educated lawyers provide a public good. In the United States, most important political questions become legal questions. Educated lawyers can supply a deeper social understanding that informs political policy-making.

Here is a straightforward solution: States should permit undergraduate colleges to offer majors in law that will entitle graduates to take the bar exam. If they want to add a practical requirement, states could also ask graduates to serve one-year apprenticeships before becoming eligible for admission to the bar.....
 
Full article in today's WSJ.

[FalconJimmy]

I absolutely oppose any apprenticeship requirement.  When that is implemented, only children of lawyers will be able to become lawyers.

[LincolnLover]

Since polticians tend to be lawyers don't except anything to pass that would lower legal fees and lower their standard of living. Toss in that all judges are lawyers(obviously) and see the result when taken to court if law did pass.

[LincolnLover]

Baloney. Two reasons: 1) There will always be lawyer looking for a way to get cheap labor, free legal clinics would take free labor, and even if not a market would open up for lawyers to profit by starting "teaching firms" (do you honestly think cooley wouldn't do that in like 5 minutes flat?)
2) Your hypo would only apply if no other option to legal license applied.

I absolutely oppose any apprenticeship requirement.  When that is implemented, only children of lawyers will be able to become lawyers.

[jonlevy]

I absolutely oppose any apprenticeship requirement.  When that is implemented, only children of lawyers will be able to become lawyers.

Seems to work in England. I suspect much of the apprecticeship could be done with the government which is after all the largest employer of attorneys and not individuals who hire their children who would be at best 1%-5% of the total. It would be a boon to corporations and law firms who could get talent for a minimal wage and possibly retain the ones who work out well in their training program.

[jonlevy]

Since polticians tend to be lawyers don't except anything to pass that would lower legal fees and lower their standard of living. Toss in that all judges are lawyers(obviously) and see the result when taken to court if law did pass.

Quite true but it is a sensible opinion and if it is being aired in the WSJ, it may have some support from the businness sector which is sick and tired of getting overcharged by big law firms. The ABA could be counted on to fight such a horrendous development tooth and nail.

[LincolnLover]

Worked just fine in America too for generations. Founding Fathers (many from poor families) and other country folk lawyers from humble beginings. (Lincoln comes to mind)

I absolutely oppose any apprenticeship requirement.  When that is implemented, only children of lawyers will be able to become lawyers.

Seems to work in England. I suspect much of the apprecticeship could be done with the government which is after all the largest employer of attorneys and not individuals who hire their children who would be at best 1%-5% of the total. It would be a boon to corporations and law firms who could get talent for a minimal wage and possibly retain the ones who work out well in their training program.

[LincolnLover]

Those in power tend to find ways to stay in power. The rich tend to find ways to stay rich. Combine the two into the same fight(as often the case) and bloody revolution is the most likely way to do it. (note I do not recommend that idea, but nothing short would likely win).

Since polticians tend to be lawyers don't except anything to pass that would lower legal fees and lower their standard of living. Toss in that all judges are lawyers(obviously) and see the result when taken to court if law did pass.

Quite true but it is a sensible opinion and if it is being aired in the WSJ, it may have some support from the businness sector which is sick and tired of getting overcharged by big law firms. The ABA could be counted on to fight such a horrendous development tooth and nail.

[jonlevy]

Things change as circumstances change, within 20 years all law schools will be fully or partially online to some degree for example.

There will be no need for those precious and expensive paper law libraries as everything will be beamed to your IPAD or tablet and students will have grown up not reading books but cross referencing Kindles.

The law professors will need to adapt or find another job or sip some hemlock like Socrates.

[LincolnLover]

I don't doubt that lawschools will rely more on electronic books and use online materials (like CALI which many already do)
and yet, and the ABA seems ok with some DL as long in a class room setting with the Prof in at least one of the rooms.

To believe that the ABA won't still have full control of it is just not realistic though if you are hoping for that. I also don't see them saying that you don't have to still show up to class for a lecture and your final exam. Plus Clinics and Moot Court needs to be in person to have much value to it. The idea of all online just will never happen. They won't let it. Some states might allow state approved online the way CA does and the way other states already have non-aba physical law schools. But the ABA will still have a majority grip and still won't let it be all online. They just won't.

Things change as circumstances change, within 20 years all law schools will be fully or partially online to some degree for example.

There will be no need for those precious and expensive paper law libraries as everything will be beamed to your IPAD or tablet and students will have grown up not reading books but cross referencing Kindles.

The law professors will need to adapt or find another job or sip some hemlock like Socrates.