Law School Discussion

Chemerinsky Advocates Replacing CA Bar Exam

Re: Chemerinsky Advocates Replacing CA Bar Exam
« Reply #30 on: June 02, 2015, 02:20:00 PM »
Yes, I see your point but again you're attributing to me positions that I haven't advocated. I'm not advocating adoption of a uniform exam because it would either increase the national supply of lawyers (although, as you stated there would likely be regional increases), or because I believe it would provide better consumer protections.

My argument is very simple:

1) Current licensing requirements already provide sufficient consumer protection. The especially rigorous nature of the CA bar does not necessarily result in better consumer protection than any other states' exam.

2) The UBE is not an easy exam. It is at least as difficult, if not more, than most states' exams. An applicant who passes the UBE is sufficiently qualified to practice.

3) By adopting the UBE we can have both a rigorous exam which weeds out underperformers andallows greater mobility for lawyers. That seems like a win/win to me. 

Look, the Calbar is three years behind me so other than the mobility aspect I have no dog in this fight. But yeah, I think it would be awesome if I could apply for a job in Hawaii without having to take another bar.

And if you can't pass the CalBar, btw, you have absolutely no business practicing.

Well, that's not really the point. The question is whether the Calbar in it's current iteration is the only exam which can sufficiently meet our requirements. I mean, do you really think that a NY law grad who passes the UBE in Manhattan is so drastically under-tested that they can't be trusted?

As far as I can tell, the biggest difference between the two exams is the PT section, which I think is sort of BS anyway.


  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: Chemerinsky Advocates Replacing CA Bar Exam
« Reply #31 on: June 02, 2015, 02:33:17 PM »
"Well, that's not really the point. The question is whether the Calbar in it's current iteration is the only exam which can sufficiently meet our requirements."

You are conflating two separate issues. One is admission to a bar in general (regulated by the state bar), and the other is the bar exam (which is one component of the bar admission process).

Let me break this down- imagine that, next year, the CalBar adopts the UBE for part of the Bar. Yes, you say. Won't that be awesome! But it won't change anything except the passing scores. Because everyone still has to get admitted to individual bars! Which is a function of each bar's rules. And unless and until California relaxes their rules, other states won't relax their own rules (reciprocity). Which is what matters. Not to mention many states that allow for UBE scores still require their own procedural requirements.

Then, of course, there is the question as to what the cutoff score for the UBE would be. California could, at their discretion, set it high enough that it wouldn't "solve" the problem Chemerinsky wants to solve.

Also? It is my understanding that Hawaii is not one of the few states that allows for the transfer of MBE scores.

Re: Chemerinsky Advocates Replacing CA Bar Exam
« Reply #32 on: June 02, 2015, 09:29:03 PM »
I support some of what you say........but not sure if "strawman argument" is the best descriptor. (In my experience people overuse/misuse that term WAY too often)

As for the bar privilege, if you note being ABA was only ONE of the requirements I proposed in my Hypo.

I agree with protectionism being bad though. I say weed out the dead wood first if anything. Too many states don't require continuing education at all (or a joke version of it at most) Heck, start requiring a "refresher bar exam" once ever 5 years to make  that "Senile Old Man Wilson" who thinks that he still knows what he's talking about PROVE it! (laws change, and memories fade) We ALL know far too many people first hand who fall into that category. I'd go as far as to say a majority of the ones over 50 IMHO. Brutal honesty. Just like drivers on the highway, they think they know more (and have the experience to support that theory) but that doesn't make it true.

I don't care if it angers AARP either. If your KIDS are Boomers, its time for them AND you to BOTH retire.........
treat it like you would anything else in nature. Control burn the old wood first to make room for the new green, otherwise it ALL dies.

Fear drives this sort of rant. What are you afraid of? You've carelessly picked 50 years old as marking the sunset clause on the majority's functionality, but I would  guess that you don't know even three people really well who've reached 50 yet. A good lawyer has empathy, among other traits, recognizing that each generation contributes something different and meaningful to the collective machination and understanding of the human condition. There's a lot to be said for the wisdom of years, just as there is a lot to be said for the spirit of youth. Painting with such a broad brush ignores this.
Fear? It was a counter argument to the "weed out the new people"
and the "broad stroke" argument DIES with the fact that those who were not an issue would pass said requirements
If you want to talk about "fear" direct it at the "lets not lose our jobs to the new kids" poster.
And the "experience" is great, but doesn't make them COMEPETANT TO PRACTICE. The age old idiom of "Those who can't do teach" exists for a reason.
Think of your junior varsity you really think he CHOSE to hang out with you instead of playing pro???

-But I DO fear them killing us all on the roads. No joke there. Just cold hard real life first hand experience. (but that's a side rant)