Law School Discussion

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

Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
« Reply #50 on: August 19, 2015, 10:14:29 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.
I mentioned this already, read my posts

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
« Reply #51 on: August 19, 2015, 10:22:53 AM »
"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."

Wow.... "Helping your friend out is an example of something someone can do for themselves"

Are you sure you passed the bar? On your *first* try? This is one of those "general questions" that is actually applicable in all jurisdictions. So let's try this again.

Your friend was just arrested for a crime. You are a licensed attorney. Your friend says that you are his attorney, and he wants to speak to you. Now, what is the difference between you being his attorney, and you being his friend. Any power there?

"I stand by my points."

Why? You haven't answered any of the specific things I brought up. Did you look at the rules for your jurisdiction? What powers and abilities does a licensed attorney have that are not available to the general public? Did you look into your subpoena rules? How about various rules for recording? Anything?

I am somewhat amazed that you manage to stand by points that are demonstrably incorrect. That's not a good way to go through life.

Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
« Reply #52 on: August 19, 2015, 10:35:43 AM »
"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."

Wow.... "Helping your friend out is an example of something someone can do for themselves"

Are you sure you passed the bar? On your *first* try? This is one of those "general questions" that is actually applicable in all jurisdictions. So let's try this again.

Your friend was just arrested for a crime. You are a licensed attorney. Your friend says that you are his attorney, and he wants to speak to you. Now, what is the difference between you being his attorney, and you being his friend. Any power there?

"I stand by my points."

Why? You haven't answered any of the specific things I brought up. Did you look at the rules for your jurisdiction? What powers and abilities does a licensed attorney have that are not available to the general public? Did you look into your subpoena rules? How about various rules for recording? Anything?

I am somewhat amazed that you manage to stand by points that are demonstrably incorrect. That's not a good way to go through life.
couldn't read past first line, only saw the "did you pass bar" yeah, yeah I did. And I can prove it by point out how that question isn't even test on it (proof of how stupid the exam is actually) although it may have been on the MPRE (can't recall, that ritual with near 100% pass rate was that boring to me) but if you had reading comp you'd see I meant that the person could represent themselves.

Are you sure you passed the bar?

Update: ok, I went back and read the rest. WOW, you are WRONG about that being on the bar exam. 100% wrong.  WOW.
As to being wrong, on what? I stand by my points.

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
« Reply #53 on: August 19, 2015, 10:42:39 AM »
I'm guessing it took more than one time for you.

But since you aren't clear on the fact pattern, this is basic Criminal Procedure. Specifically, the 5th (not 6th!) Amendment invocation of right to counsel to end custodial proceedings. Fair amount of case law on that. Also? Shows up on bar exams.

"As to being wrong, on what? I stand by my points."

I think your level of competence, at this point, speaks for itself.

Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
« Reply #54 on: August 19, 2015, 10:54:41 AM »
I'm guessing it took more than one time for you.

But since you aren't clear on the fact pattern, this is basic Criminal Procedure. Specifically, the 5th (not 6th!) Amendment invocation of right to counsel to end custodial proceedings. Fair amount of case law on that. Also? Shows up on bar exams.

"As to being wrong, on what? I stand by my points."

I think your level of competence, at this point, speaks for itself.
All the ad hominem in the world doesn't change the fact that is NOT a tested crimpro question
and heck, if someone had taken it multiple times they'd know MORE about it not less.........you don't think before you leap do you?
And whats up with you arguing against your self on amendments? Who prior to that exact moment even mentioned them in any way?
I know you THINK there is a connection there, but its casual at best. You honestly just come up with a conclusion and work backwards from there don't you?

I call troll. Im done with you.

Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
« Reply #55 on: August 19, 2015, 10:58:41 AM »
A little harsh, but the point of a licensing exam any licensing exam is to protect the public. To a lawyer anyone can be a lawyer it is not hard, because after all we choose to be lawyer. I have a lot of friends who are doctors and they think it is easy being a doctor, but are amazed that I passed the bar, etc I conversely am amazed that they became doctors.

I also have friends that are pilots they think anyone could be pilot again not something I could learn.

The point is that the bar should be and is hard. Medical school should be and is hard. Being a Police Officer should require an extensive background check and it does. Becoming a pilot should be hard and it is. So on and so on.

I think shortening the bar, because people were complaining about its difficulty is a bad decision, but obviously the people in charge of making the decisions think otherwise. There are reasons to make the change, but reasons not to.

Perhaps with this shortened exam it could be the difference between Osteopathic medicine and an actual M.D. 

I get that there are plenty of times when someone needs a lawyer to provide basic info, such as in Loki's point about the friend being charged with a crime. Any lawyer would know to tell your client/friend/etc that is being held to not stay anything other than clearly say "I want a lawyer" to invoke your right to counsel and not incriminate themselves. Not rocket science, but Jay-Z in 99 Problems, but a bi**ch ain't one ain't passed the bar, but he knows a little bit can attest to.

Apparently, this will go to the California Supreme Court for a final decision and we will see what happens. I think a three day-exam sucks, but it is a good way to keep people out. Honestly, if I could pass the bar anyone with enough competence to practice law can.

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
« Reply #56 on: August 19, 2015, 11:09:09 AM »
This is, quite literally, too much fun!
"All the ad hominem in the world doesn't change the fact that is NOT a tested crimpro question"

From the MBE, here are the list of topics tested that you might find relevant-
V. Constitutional protection of accused persons
A. Arrest, search and seizure
B. Confessions and privilege against
self-incrimination
C. Lineups and other forms of identification
D. Right to counsel
E. Fair trial and guilty pleas
F. Double jeopardy
G. Cruel and unusual punishment
H. Burdens of proof and persuasion

From personal experience, I can tell you that this is not only a favorite of the MBE (it's an easily adjudicated question for multi-state), it's also a common fact pattern within states, and tends to come up on the essays. Are you sure you took the bar exam?

"And whats up with you arguing against your self on amendments? Who prior to that exact moment even mentioned them in any way?"
Because I assumed the issue was pretty obvious? It's sort of like, if I state, "The City Council passes an ordinance prohibiting the burning of the American flag," I don't think I have to specifically state, "And that's the First Amendment, via the 14th Amendment, and you might want to look at Texas v. Johnson." Or if I talk about a company requiring janitors to have a college diploma, I don't need to go through the history of Title VII, Griggs v. Duke Power, and I certainly don't need to describe McDonnell Douglas. At least, I hope not.

"I call troll. Im done with you."

The last refuge of someone who just can't bring themselves to admit they were wrong. I suggest working on that. It's a valuable skill in practice. The most common error for most attorneys is a refusal to acknowledge error when it is obvious. It can have disastrous repercussions- for example, when it is obvious to the Court.


Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
« Reply #57 on: August 19, 2015, 11:41:30 AM »
Pie, I almost can't believe that ANY lawyer would actually disagree with the notion of requiring a comprehensive exam to get a license to practice law. We can agree that the bar exam could be better administered and needs a make over, but no exam at all? Seriously?

Do you think that everyone you went to law school with was competent to practice law as soon as they graduated? Definitely not the case in my experience.

If you don't like the FAA example (which does require both written and cockpit tests, BTW), then how about CPAs or real estate brokers? Do you think they should be allowed to do people's taxes and transfer property based on nothing more than their degree?

Historically, the bar exam is a much more crucial part of the licensing scheme than the JD. Abraham Lincoln didn't even have to attend law school, but he still had to pass the Illinois bar. The public has a right to know that licensed attorneys are at least minimally competent.

As to your point about lawyers not having that much power, I wholeheartedly disagree. A lawyer can ruin someone's life, cost them millions, or cost them their freedom. The potential impact is far greater than many other professions which require a licensing exam.

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
« Reply #58 on: August 19, 2015, 12:43:50 PM »
Pie, I almost can't believe that ANY lawyer would actually disagree with the notion of requiring a comprehensive exam to get a license to practice law. We can agree that the bar exam could be better administered and needs a make over, but no exam at all? Seriously?

I have heard this proposal floated by various libertarians. It would involve some combination of the following-
-Anyone can practice law. No restrictions. No UPL charges.
-Changing the various rules and statutes that privilege attorneys.
-People that want to learn what they are doing can go to school, etc. There could be voluntary organizations (such as the ABA) that an attorney could apply to, or take an exam with, and then advertise. "I'm ABA-certified!"
-Use the tort system (malpractice) to enforce standards.

Now, I don't buy this for a number of reasons. It gets really vague around (2) - (4). And I think that the licensing is for the protection of the consumer, and given the information asymmetry, this would be a very, very bad idea. But I have heard it.

What I would be more amenable to is loosening the UPL strictures. There are certain things that, perhaps, a fully licensed attorney is not needed for. I realize that I'm arguing against self-interest, but devolving certain extremely basic legal services might be worth exploring.

Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
« Reply #59 on: August 19, 2015, 01:23:31 PM »
I do think I saw some idea about that floating around with the California-Bar. Certain areas of the law people need representation i.e. Family Law.   Family Law is by no means rocket science and anyone with a J.D. for the majority of cases could fill out the appropriate Judicial Council Forms and if they had a stint of ethics they might eve tell both parents in a custody battle that every dime and minute you both spend and court is time and money not going to your kid.

From my understanding of the difference between Osteophatic Medicine and a full M.D. it would be a similar setup. You don't need a brain surgeon to tell a Hypochondriac that the small wart on their hand is not terminal cancer and so on.

The Osteopathist is competent and knows a lot, but just not as much as the full M.D.

The law already does this for Patent Law and screens many licensed lawyers from this process. So minimizing standards for less complex, but more emotionally charged areas of the law might be a good idea.