[shicholas]

Disagree, IAAL and they should both eliminate the bar exam and the law school requirements. We need more lawyers subject to background checks and swearing an oath to act ethically. There’s an ethics test called the MPRE that should stay.

We need more lawyers bc imo the biggest need with AI is trust and safety, and that’s something humans must decide for ourselves in perpetuity, we need as many diverse voices as possible to ensure equity for everyone.

[ketzo]

Free market seems disastrous here. Most people hire an attorney… once? twice? in their entire lives, and the consequences of that person being incompetent could be life-altering.

There’s not a quick enough feedback loop here, I think. The vast, vast majority of people would not be “informed buyers,” so to speak.

[wmidwestranger]

Close relative just curled one finger of that monkey's paw in a trust dispute: can confirm, they were not especially happy with either the outcome nor the months of optimism from the lawyer before the final calamity. Even after having heard about it regularly and in-depth and having read the written communications, I have no idea where that lawyer would land on a scale of 1-10. I suppose in this case, nearer the bottom but given it's the most I've ever observed a lawyer, I have zero context or basis for expectations.

[shicholas]

imo if there were substantially more lawyers or startups in this forum can dole out legal advice, there would be substantially more legal interactions.

People should see a lawyer frequently for preventative care (e.g. having someone do a prenup or look over their employment contract) the same way people should see a doctor and do preventative care for their bodies.

[jahewson]

Yes a bunch of incompatible opinions is the solution.

[Turing_Machine]

Isn't that pretty much how the court system works in the first place?

[shicholas]

Better to have disagreement than coerced conformance.

[nonethewiser]

How would you rank the merits of candidates?

[shicholas]

IMO anyone who passes the MPRE and a background check is fit to serve - free market and who customers choose to rank the merits of their lawyers is their own prerogative. I'm against the gatekeeping to the profession.

Once you're a lawyer checks like malpractice insurance are great for everyone.

[kelnos]

Passing an ethics test and background check may indicate you're fit to be an attorney, but it certainly doesn't give you the skills or knowledge to be one. I do believe that there are a variety of ways someone might come by those skills and knowledge, and that law school need not have a monopoly on that.

But just as I wouldn't trust a plumber or electrician to work on my house without being licensed to perform those tasks (despite acknowledging that this licensing process is not perfect), I wouldn't trust a lawyer to represent me whose only independently-assessed qualification was that someone thought they were an ethical person.

> free market and who customers choose to rank the merits of their lawyers is their own prerogative.

We can't even get reliable, non-gamed restaurant recommendations, for crying out loud. What makes you think consumers will be able to make an informed decision about lawyers in the absence of any sort of licensing body?

[nonethewiser]

> Passing an ethics test and background check may indicate you're fit to be an attorney, but it certainly doesn't give you the skills or knowledge to be one.

Why should someone be prohibited from hiring such an person as their attorney though? The implication of what you say is that people shouldnt want them as an attorney but the question is if they should be disallowed.

Being presumed to be unskilled just doesnt seem like a good reason especially since you grant they are fit.

[shicholas]

agree, but law school certainly didn't give me any skills nor knowledge to be an attorney too. I'd be in favor of some sort of apprenticeship like what Washington or Oregon have.

Consumers already make gamed personal injury recommendations on who has the most audacious commercials, I don't think anything here re: gatekeeping will change that.

[gnicholas]

> law school certainly didn't give me any skills nor knowledge to be an attorney too.

Can I ask where you went to law school? Do you think your experience is common? I gained a lot of valuable skills and knowledge when I was in law school that I used in practice and still use as a founder. I could have learned this stuff elsewhere, but there's no doubt that learning it in law school is one (increasingly expensive) way to do it.

[shicholas]

I went to a mid-ranked state school. My experience is the classes were too esoteric and I was embarrassed when I had no idea how to file a motion once barred. Admittedly my school has improved with more clinic experiences (something I should have done).

Imo you could learn everything in law school better with apprenticeship, especially the most important part - having tough conversations.

What about your experience made you feel that law school was valuable?

[nonethewiser]

Ok actually, im on board

[post-it]

We should also remove food standards regulations. Free market and who customers choose to rank the safety of their food is their own prerogative. /s

[shicholas]

Missing my point, ethics regulations like Model Rules of Professional Conduct that lawyers must adhere to are important like the health code. We should make it easier for anyone to be a lawyer, just like you or I can open a restaurant.

If you serve cockroaches in your food or give fraudulent advice, you should be blasted on the local news (and sued).

[kelnos]

You or I can open a restaurant, but if we don't understand health codes and food safety, we're going to get shut down by a governmental body before we serve our first customer. Assuming we can pass a food safety evaluation and can open our doors for business, the worst that's likely to happen is that people won't like our food and won't want to come back. No one's lost anything there except for the cost of a meal and an hour or so of their time.

I'm sure I could pass an ethics test, no problem. But my first client as a self-described "lawyer" would almost certainly lose their case, and that could cause them significant harm. I'm sure there are ways forward from there, but I don't think I'd characterize this as no big deal, simply because I'd then get bad LawYelp reviews and no one would want to engage my services anymore.

[shicholas]

maybe work for someone else first before going at it alone? I'd have the same advice for an aspiring chef.

Also if you give me salmonella and I can trace it to you, I’m definitely considering a lawsuit.