[tyjen]

Texas and most other states should push for additional freedom in this space. Anyone who can pass the state's bar exam, should be allowed to practice law. Let the legal market sort out the rest from there.

California, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington already allow people to practice law within their states without attending law school, but via "reading the law" type apprenticeships. Extending this nationally would benefit lawyers and the people who need them.

[realslimjd]

There's not a shortage of lawyers and Texas is not pushing for freedom. They're taking over accreditation so they can start bullying law schools the same way they have with undergraduate institutions like A&M.

[mapontosevenths]

This is likely the correct answer. The ABA really leads (somewhat indirectly) to three things:

1) A common moral and professional code

2) Credential portability through standards

3) A "minimum threshold" of competence

I suspect that it is the first thing that Texas objects to. There's probably a specific flavor of *-ism they want to allow their lawyers to practice. That said, you can already get into law via apprenticeship or reading in CA, VA, VT, WA. It's not the end of the world.

[dragonwriter]

> I suspect that it is the first thing that Texas objects to.

Perhaps, but the piece they are actually acting directly against is the 2nd (perhaps the 3rd, but that is itself really part of the 2nd, rather than an independent thing.)

And the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and Model Code of Judicial Conduct—which presumably are largely what you are referring to by the first—are just what the names say: models; each jurisdiction adopts its own actual rules for these things.

> That said, you can already get into law via apprenticeship or reading in CA, VA, VT, WA.

And in at least some states, also through non-ABA law schools, though there may be additional state requirements in that case (which may also apply to the apprenticeship/reading—two different names for the same thing, not two different options—option where that is available in the same jurisdiction; e.g., in California the First Year Law Students exam is required for both those reading for the law and those attending non-ABA law schools.)

[mapontosevenths]

> each jurisdiction adopts its own actual rules for these things.

Sure, but because the schools must be ABA approved that means the ABA gets to decide that schools omitting those codes don't get approved... doesn't it? That was my assumption anyhow.

> which may also apply to the apprenticeship/reading—two different names for the same thing, not two different options

I never realized that. Thanks!

[elevation]

> There's not a shortage of lawyers

I spoke with a VP of a state bar association who described chronic, widespread lawyer shortages, constant attrition in the pool of eligible judicial appointees, a growing backlog of cases (compounded by the effects of COVID) with trial dates many years in the future, declining law school graduations, and declining projected law school enrollment. These conditions may not hold across every county and metro, but in a lot of places the system is buckling (citizens already waiting 5-6 years for a ruling on open-shut civil matters) because there’s so much more work than workers.

[palmotea]

> There's not a shortage of lawyers and Texas is not pushing for freedom.

Exactly. Law isn't medicine, and there are so many law graduates that many of them can't even find work in the legal industry, and the earnings of many graduates are surprisingly low (the distribution is bimodal: https://www.nalp.org/salarydistrib).

Unfortunately too many here will reflexively believe some libertarian narrative of "professional organization limiting supply to drive salaries up," even when it doesn't apply.

[stockresearcher]

Arizona is the only state that artificially limits the number of lawyers it has. Every year they decide how many new ones they need, and that is exactly how many will pass the bar exam.

I don’t think that this has has had the effect of driving up salaries, however.

[biotechbio]

I disagree, in my opinion passing the bar exam is necessary but not nearly sufficient for competently practicing law.

The bar is an imperfect filter. One could study for the exam and pass and still be hugely deficient in ability as an attorney.

I would argue there's no exam that could replace the evaluative and experiential component of 3 years in law school, and accreditation helps enforce at least some standard of quality in the profession. More incompetent lawyers -> more wasteful behavior -> a more bloated and slower legal system -> worse outcomes for everyone.

I think reducing barriers to completing the legal education (part-time programs, lower cost, etc) are better avenues for increasing access.

[stackedinserter]

Same for any profession.

[hshdhdhj4444]

I don’t have an opinion either way in this, but the legal profession seems like it suffers from some of the same issues that emergency healthcare does that makes licensing important.

It’s not something regular people are using consistently so they have researched the people in advance. They usually have to scramble when they need a lawyer. And it’s very hard for a lay person to identify whether a lawyer did a good job or not.

But even when it comes to bigger firms which do have the resources to find good lawyers, there’s a different advantage to heavy handed licensing. The fact that the law depends extremely heavily on lawyers being largely honest especially when it comes to stuff like discovery and maintaining confidentiality. Licensing is one of the strongest tools has to ensure that.

[gamblor956]

Licensing is the only tool to ensure that lawyers are honest in their dealings in things like discovery and confidentiality.

[chaps]

Agreed.

I'm currently looking to get a law degree and the education requirements are... silly. I've done a significant amount of law-and-law-accessories work over the past ten years and have had a nice career in sysadmin/sre/devops/ops work. Yet I need a(ny) bachelors to even get started and I don't even have an associates.

It truly feels like the only way forward is to waste several years of my life and exhaust myself to the bone to get a degree.

(WGU is awful and is not the answer here)

[treetalker]

> I'm currently looking to get a law degree …

May I inquire why?

[chaps]

Masochism, or something like that :)

But more honestly, it comes from reflecting about the ways that knowledge gaps affect FOIA litigation/conversation/interpretation and the criminal litigation reporting/research/investigations I've done/beenapartof. A lot of law-and-law-accessories is learnable within context-and-scope, especially with attorneys to help interpret, but I would like to get past that point. It helps that it's all very interesting.. and people keep asking me when I'm going to become a lawyer, so, ope.

[treetalker]

Godspeed!

[pohl]

How would "the legal market" sort out someone who repeatedly uses the legal system in bad faith but, because they're in Donald's orbit the only hope left of consequences is the threat of disbarment? It increasingly seems like the last line of defense of late.

[barbazoo]

It's not about removing the requirement of the bar exam, just who decides who can take it

> The Texas Supreme Court issued an order Tuesday finalizing a tentative September opinion, asserting the ABA should "no longer have the final say" on which law school graduates can take the bar exam — a requirement to becoming a licensed lawyer in each state.

[dhd415]

This question is orthogonal to the question of whether ABA accreditation is beneficial.

[Rapzid]

Agree. Also, most JD programs in most states require a 4 year degree to enter.

That sounds like "a good idea" to a lot of people in the context of high school graduates. But for someone older who had a (let's say successful) career in the trades, or software engineering, without needing a 4 year degree.. It's a huge barrier to entry needing 4 years of college before even starting JD for those interested in law later in life.

[tyjen]

This, and most law schools are businesses capturing student debt and too many law students foster a flawed perception of legal practice. There's a surplus of debt-laden law graduates who are unemployed, underemployed, or working in completely different fields. Transitioning to an apprenticeship styled career path would help solve the significant mismatching that's occurring. Too many people misspending their youth and incurring debt by falling for law school marketing ploys.

Turn Tier-1 law schools and state flagship law schools into legal scholarship graduate studies for people interested in pursuing highbrow judicial work.

[randycupertino]

> California, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington already allow people to practice law within their states without attending law school, but via "reading the law" type apprenticeships.

Famously this is how Kim Kardashian tried to become an attorney without ever attending undergrad, let alone law school. However, to date she has not be able to pass the bar exam.

https://people.com/kim-kardashian-cries-has-mental-breakdown...

Her boyfriend already got a "My girl's a lawyer" tattoo though so hopefully she will pass on her next attempt! https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/kim-kardashian-pe...

[pc86]

There are already way too many attorneys, and way too many lawyers who can't even get jobs as attorneys, I'm not sure how letting anyone who takes the bar exam cosplay as an attorney will help things.

(I am not an attorney, or a lawyer, and I've never attended law school)

[darth_avocado]

> Let the legal market sort out the rest from there.

This isn’t a field where supply demand free market economics should be the goal. Literal lives could be at stake. Should we also let surgery market sort itself out by allowing people to perform surgeries if they pass an exam?

[HoJojoMojo]

You mean in Texas where they cap medical liability or somewhere with no limits of liability and insurance markets to determine relative costs of practicing while incompetent?

[gamblor956]

Fun fact: the reason bar associations exist is because people got tired of the free market free-for-all that existed before bar associations.

Law, like medicine, isn't something you want some rando handling. The free market is not a magical panacea. Rules are created for a reason, and that reason is usually grounded in human suffering.