[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.