Law School Discussion

seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
« Reply #40 on: August 19, 2015, 06:34:00 AM »
I ate Pie-

"The FAA? Lets not pretend we are anywhere near that important."

So? I hate to break it to you, but attorneys have the power to put people in (and keep people out of) prison. They are officers of the court, and have the power (in many jurisdictions) to compel attendance and testimony without any further court order. Are they as important as pilots? Who knows. But can have power, just like many other professions that require licensing.

"The MBE tests on stuff that is NOT the law in your home state"
While a person might disagree with aspects of the MBE, it tries to distill generally applicable principles of law. No, they do not apply specifically anywhere, but they are usually slightly helpful everywhere.

"Then make it tested on real life stuff. Make it a real life series of court hearings after real life pretrial draftings for both civil and criminal cases in both district and circuit court."
I'm not sure how many times we've been over this, but many attorneys are not litigators. My friend couldn't draft a motion for extension of time to save his own life; on the other hand, when it comes to real estate closings on complex commercial developments, he's the man.

Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
« Reply #41 on: August 19, 2015, 09:09:58 AM »
I hate to break it to you.............but we don't have the power to do jack. We make arguments. Cops have 100x the power and they have no where near the license requirements (they have one, but no where near what we do)

Your argument for the MBE seems to be that has remedial value and is better than nothing. Um......ok? Lets make a better something to replace it with though is my point.

As to your last point about not all attorneys doing all things, even more my point about how useless the bar exam is then. Most attorneys won't cover the majority of its content in their careers. So if that is a factor according to you, factor it in a bit deeper too.

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
« Reply #42 on: August 19, 2015, 09:30:28 AM »
"I hate to break it to you..."

Everything you wrote it is incorrect. I gave you specific examples. I am quite aware of my power, both under the rules (without requiring any court intervention) and, in general, as an officer of the court. If you are not aware of this, I don't know what to tell you.

Next, you seem to fundamentally misunderstand how to analyze this as a barrier to entry. So let's look-
First, does it work to prevent too many attorneys from practicing? Empirically, the answer is no. If anything, the bar (heh) is set too low.
Next, let's look at your argument re: ABA schools getting a free pass. Initially, this argument can be dismissed for the same reason you dismiss the bar exam, but at an even deeper level. Many ABA schools teach you nothing substantive about the practice of law in a particular jurisdiction. They are filled with electives, and don't have a set curriculum after the first year. Even if your school offers jurisdiction-specific classes, that will not account for people that want to practice, initially, in a different jurisdiction. Finally, and worst of all, there are two types of schools- those that work hard to keep their students in (in other words, you really have to affirmatively screw up to fail out), and those that fail out large numbers *because they admit to many that cannot pass the bar and they need to keep their ABA accreditation.*  IOW, for both types of schools, the bar exam operates as a necessary filter.
In short, your analysis is just that the bar exam isn't perfect. No, of course it isn't. Neither is the LSAT. Neither are the exams given to LEOs for admission (!!), training, certification, and promotion. But I'm glad we have them. Given the state of the profession, I think the least of the concerns is that barrier to entry is too high.

Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
« Reply #43 on: August 19, 2015, 09:45:46 AM »
Cops at least in California have a very extensive background check and I actually went through the hiring process to be a police officer, but it took so long that I ended up taking the LSAT and  enrolling in law school while my background was ongoing.  Obtaining employment as a Police Officer at least in California is very rigorous as it should be.  As Loki accurately points out lawyers have the power to take away someone's freedom, which is pretty important and being able to pass a test of "minimal competence" seems fair. 

Loki further points out there is no practical way to test everything you will ever do. I am a litigation attorney and know civil procedure etc, but if it came to doing a real estate transaction, patent, or tax law I would not know where to start.  There are countless areas of the law and the point of the bar exam is to prove you are capable of learning the law.

No matter what area of law you get into you need to be able to learn.

The whole point is that the Bar exam is hard. This is not made a secret to anyone enrolling in law school and, because you are forced to learn it you do.


Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
« Reply #44 on: August 19, 2015, 09:49:54 AM »
Cops at least in California have a very extensive background check and I actually went through the hiring process to be a police officer, but it took so long that I ended up taking the LSAT and  enrolling in law school while my background was ongoing.  Obtaining employment as a Police Officer at least in California is very rigorous as it should be.  As Loki accurately points out lawyers have the power to take away someone's freedom, which is pretty important and being able to pass a test of "minimal competence" seems fair. 

Loki further points out there is no practical way to test everything you will ever do. I am a litigation attorney and know civil procedure etc, but if it came to doing a real estate transaction, patent, or tax law I would not know where to start.  There are countless areas of the law and the point of the bar exam is to prove you are capable of learning the law.

No matter what area of law you get into you need to be able to learn.

The whole point is that the Bar exam is hard. This is not made a secret to anyone enrolling in law school and, because you are forced to learn it you do.
I've done the police screening too, its no worse than character and fitness. And the training is the equate of military boot camp at best (done both first hand)
and if you want to use another example fine. My point is we don't have any real power despite what loki was saying. We do stuff that people can do for themselves and often can do for eachother under the right circumstances. We're just allowed to do it as a business is the only significant difference.
You can't legally give someone your "power of surgeon" to cut you up can you? (and yes, I know power of attorney is a limited example, lets cut that one off at the pass shall we)

The bar exam exists for the same reason they trumped up the degree to a "doctorate". To pretend we have the importance that loki was saying that we have (but don't) The whole degree should be an associates degree if you want a licensing exam after it.

Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
« Reply #45 on: August 19, 2015, 09:53:25 AM »
  As Loki accurately points out lawyers have the power to take away someone's freedom

but.................that's NOT true though.............

the ONLY people who (kind of) does is a prosecutor or a judge. Make it another exam to be a prosecutor and an even harder exam to a judge then.
And yet even then the prosecutor is just making arguments and the trier of fact has the power too. The average lawyers has jack power over this.

Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
« Reply #46 on: August 19, 2015, 09:55:07 AM »


Loki further points out there is no practical way to test everything you will ever do. I am a litigation attorney and know civil procedure etc, but if it came to doing a real estate transaction, patent, or tax law I would not know where to start.  There are countless areas of the law

so why test arbitrary parts of it that don't even apply to you, let alone real life at all? (MBE comes to mind as law that isn't actually law and actually contradicts local laws in many situations being COUNTER productive if anything)

Its a sham. Just like the MPRE.

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
« Reply #47 on: August 19, 2015, 09:57:44 AM »
" My point is we don't have any real power despite what loki was saying."

Really? I think you haven't practiced very long, or (perhaps) you're in an odd jurisdiction. Sure, a person can represent themselves (pro se). But this isn't just about the little "niceties" like, you know, being able to testify in court without swearing in (officer of the court) or registering for efiling. Or about "optional stuff" (quick- name a pro se prosecutor).

Can random person issue subpoenas without a case? Liens against property? Have you recently looked at the statutory allowances in your jurisdiction for what an attorney is allowed to do in your jurisdiction?

If your friend gets arrested, and says that you are his attorney, what happens when you show up at the precinct? How is that different than, say, if you don't have that meaningless license? Shall I keep going on, or will confess error?

Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
« Reply #48 on: August 19, 2015, 10:12:07 AM »
An attorney has the power to charge someone with a crime this does not necessarily mean the other person will go to jail, but as far as realities goes in our society charging someone with a crime is enough to destroy numerous people. See Duke Lacrosse Case and the numerous mistakes the prosectuor, which drastically impacted people's lives, reputations, and so forth. The prosecutor in this matter lost his license, but it shows the power that D.A. - licensed lawyer can have.


Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
« Reply #49 on: August 19, 2015, 10:13:07 AM »
" My point is we don't have any real power despite what loki was saying."

Really? I think you haven't practiced very long, or (perhaps) you're in an odd jurisdiction. Sure, a person can represent themselves (pro se). But this isn't just about the little "niceties" like, you know, being able to testify in court without swearing in (officer of the court) or registering for efiling. Or about "optional stuff" (quick- name a pro se prosecutor).

Can random person issue subpoenas without a case? Liens against property? Have you recently looked at the statutory allowances in your jurisdiction for what an attorney is allowed to do in your jurisdiction?

If your friend gets arrested, and says that you are his attorney, what happens when you show up at the precinct? How is that different than, say, if you don't have that meaningless license? Shall I keep going on, or will confess error?
Helping your friend out is an example of something someone can do for themselves
and its not the power to take any ones freedom, at best its the opposite of that, in reality its making arguments still.
I stand by my points. I'd rather risk being jaded than self righteous. We wear a tie and use pomp a lot, but lets not confuse that with anything more than it is.