[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?

[gnicholas]

I learned tons about the law! Some was directly related to my daily work as a tax lawyer (business associations, tax law x3, IP law x2), and some was important from time to time (conlaw).

This knowledge could have been gained another way, via a mix of apprenticeship and online learning. But I would have needed to do a bit of online learning before I was able to add much value or absorb the learnings from an apprenticeship position. There might be other areas of law with an easier learning curve, but corporate international tax isn't one of them.

I readily concede that at current tuition levels, going to law school now is a risky proposition. When I went 15 years ago, it was a pretty good deal with in-state tuition and some scholarship. I'm all in favor of students having alternative pathways that allow them to demonstrate the necessary competencies, especially if this lowers the cost to getting a law license.