OT: Boneyard Lawyers

[NJHusky]

Interesting perspective. Mine is quite the opposite.
In today's "day and age," I find the concept of a brick and mortar law school to be an anachronistic gatekeeper. That is, there are plenty of people who would be very good lawyers who just don't care to spend 100k or more and get bored out of their minds in law school for 3 years.

Here's my idea:

1. Construct the bar exam so that any person who can pass it can make a decent attorney. Make sure to make the exam an "all day" exam, meaning as much time as you want, so that nobody gets an unfair advantage. Some of you will understand that point.

2. Get rid of the requirement for law school to be a licensed lawyer.

Doing those two things will have the following effects: 1. Smart people who don't want to drop 100k and 3 years on law school will self-study for 6 months and then pass the bar. 2. The number of attorneys will increase, and the cost of legal services will decline. 3. Many law schools will go out of business (yay!!).

While I'm at it, improve the legal system by doing the following:
Introduce the concept of "offered settlement reimbursement" to all state court systems. That is, if a case gets started, and the other side offers to settle at a certain amount, and you decline that amount, and then you go to trial and get less than that amount, then you owe the other side legal fees for everything after the offer to settle, and the attorneys are on the hook if the client can't pay.
The way the system is now, nuisance cases have inordinate value because there is very little down side to prosecuting a case and losing. You're out your time and some costs in the case. No chance of paying the defendant for his/her hassle.

Jeez. I could write 50 pages on this.

Lawyers suck. Believe me. I deal with them every day.

or just switch to the British System. Loosing party pays legal fees for the winner. But the trial attorney lobby would NEVER let that pass

 

[the Q]

Interesting perspective. Mine is quite the opposite.
In today's "day and age," I find the concept of a brick and mortar law school to be an anachronistic gatekeeper. That is, there are plenty of people who would be very good lawyers who just don't care to spend 100k or more and get bored out of their minds in law school for 3 years.

Here's my idea:

1. Construct the bar exam so that any person who can pass it can make a decent attorney. Make sure to make the exam an "all day" exam, meaning as much time as you want, so that nobody gets an unfair advantage. Some of you will understand that point.

2. Get rid of the requirement for law school to be a licensed lawyer.

Doing those two things will have the following effects: 1. Smart people who don't want to drop 100k and 3 years on law school will self-study for 6 months and then pass the bar. 2. The number of attorneys will increase, and the cost of legal services will decline. 3. Many law schools will go out of business (yay!!).

While I'm at it, improve the legal system by doing the following:
Introduce the concept of "offered settlement reimbursement" to all state court systems. That is, if a case gets started, and the other side offers to settle at a certain amount, and you decline that amount, and then you go to trial and get less than that amount, then you owe the other side legal fees for everything after the offer to settle, and the attorneys are on the hook if the client can't pay.
The way the system is now, nuisance cases have inordinate value because there is very little down side to prosecuting a case and losing. You're out your time and some costs in the case. No chance of paying the defendant for his/her hassle.

Jeez. I could write 50 pages on this.

Lawyers suck. Believe me. I deal with them every day.

I was just talking to an attorney friend of mine about these bs nuisance suits about ada complaint websites and how they recycle clients and just go site to site.

It’s a joke that this is allowed, or even something worth a 5 figure settlement without a first offender warning

 

[the Q]

Interesting perspective. Mine is quite the opposite.
In today's "day and age," I find the concept of a brick and mortar law school to be an anachronistic gatekeeper. That is, there are plenty of people who would be very good lawyers who just don't care to spend 100k or more and get bored out of their minds in law school for 3 years.

Here's my idea:

1. Construct the bar exam so that any person who can pass it can make a decent attorney. Make sure to make the exam an "all day" exam, meaning as much time as you want, so that nobody gets an unfair advantage. Some of you will understand that point.

2. Get rid of the requirement for law school to be a licensed lawyer.

Doing those two things will have the following effects: 1. Smart people who don't want to drop 100k and 3 years on law school will self-study for 6 months and then pass the bar. 2. The number of attorneys will increase, and the cost of legal services will decline. 3. Many law schools will go out of business (yay!!).

While I'm at it, improve the legal system by doing the following:
Introduce the concept of "offered settlement reimbursement" to all state court systems. That is, if a case gets started, and the other side offers to settle at a certain amount, and you decline that amount, and then you go to trial and get less than that amount, then you owe the other side legal fees for everything after the offer to settle, and the attorneys are on the hook if the client can't pay.
The way the system is now, nuisance cases have inordinate value because there is very little down side to prosecuting a case and losing. You're out your time and some costs in the case. No chance of paying the defendant for his/her hassle.

Jeez. I could write 50 pages on this.

Lawyers suck. Believe me. I deal with them every day.

I don’t disagree with your first concept for sure.

I would just have an apprentice requirement rather than waste time with a bs exam. Or maybe like the CPA exam process for accountants

 

[BlueDogs]

Interesting perspective. Mine is quite the opposite.
In today's "day and age," I find the concept of a brick and mortar law school to be an anachronistic gatekeeper. That is, there are plenty of people who would be very good lawyers who just don't care to spend 100k or more and get bored out of their minds in law school for 3 years.

Here's my idea:

1. Construct the bar exam so that any person who can pass it can make a decent attorney. Make sure to make the exam an "all day" exam, meaning as much time as you want, so that nobody gets an unfair advantage. Some of you will understand that point.

2. Get rid of the requirement for law school to be a licensed lawyer.

Doing those two things will have the following effects: 1. Smart people who don't want to drop 100k and 3 years on law school will self-study for 6 months and then pass the bar. 2. The number of attorneys will increase, and the cost of legal services will decline. 3. Many law schools will go out of business (yay!!).

While I'm at it, improve the legal system by doing the following:
Introduce the concept of "offered settlement reimbursement" to all state court systems. That is, if a case gets started, and the other side offers to settle at a certain amount, and you decline that amount, and then you go to trial and get less than that amount, then you owe the other side legal fees for everything after the offer to settle, and the attorneys are on the hook if the client can't pay.
The way the system is now, nuisance cases have inordinate value because there is very little down side to prosecuting a case and losing. You're out your time and some costs in the case. No chance of paying the defendant for his/her hassle.

Jeez. I could write 50 pages on this.

Lawyers suck. Believe me. I deal with them every day.

They all suck until you need one. Then, they are your best friend. Funny how that works. Granted, there are some really crappy practitioners out there, but the good ones are worth every penny.

 

[BParkDog]

I would just have an apprentice requirement rather than waste time with a bs exam.

I have to respectfully disagree on this one, as well.
The problem with the "apprentice" requirement is that it becomes a "good ol' boys" network.
For example, if you want to be a licensed electrician in our city, you have to be a "journeyman," or some such scag, for a certain amount of time. What that does is put all the power in the hands of the existing electricians.
The same thing would apply to law - you'd have to find an existing lawyer or firm to take you in. That would particularly difficult if you were unconventional.

To me, that's the beauty of the exam. Figure out what you want attorneys to know, and then create the exam so that only people with the required knowledge can pass.

No barriers to entry other than knowledge.

At my law school, you had to write a paper sponsored by a professor to graduate. That was their way of, essentially, having veto power of your matriculation.

Where I am, you have to have something like 4 or 5 current "elder law" attorneys give their stamp of approval for you to get your "elder law" cert. What that crock of garbage does is limit competition and focus the elder law attorneys in firms.

For anybody who doesn't believe that a test can tell you what you want to know about a candidate for something like law, I'd disagree for all but a few cases. The people I knew who struggled with the bar exam, for the most part, have made the lower quality lawyers.

The current anti-test movement in the U.S. is going to lead to bad results.

You can hand out soccer participation trophies, you can socially promote academically struggling kids in school, you can give kids extra time on tests for this mental issue or that, you can target underperforming groups for hiring, and on and on.

But when you decide that you want to get rid of the MCATs, the Medical Boards, and any required testing to be a surgeon, please let me know so I can try to get all of my elective surgery in in the next 6 years or so.

 

[BParkDog]

They all suck until you need one. Then, they are your best friend.

Nah, most of them still suck, even if they are good - they're pretentious, self-important, condescending, officious, incorrigible in all those, and, worst of all, prolix.

When you "need" a lawyer, that's like "needing" to have a bunch of fly grubs eat the dead flesh from between your radius and ulna so that the Doc can lay in the graft . . . you don't like the maggots any more than you did before the procedure, but you do appreciate them more, for a bit.

 

[Improviser]

I have to respectfully disagree on this one, as well.
The problem with the "apprentice" requirement is that it becomes a "good ol' boys" network.
For example, if you want to be a licensed electrician in our city, you have to be a "journeyman," or some such scag, for a certain amount of time. What that does is put all the power in the hands of the existing electricians.
The same thing would apply to law - you'd have to find an existing lawyer or firm to take you in. That would particularly difficult if you were unconventional.

To me, that's the beauty of the exam. Figure out what you want attorneys to know, and then create the exam so that only people with the required knowledge can pass.

No barriers to entry other than knowledge.

At my law school, you had to write a paper sponsored by a professor to graduate. That was their way of, essentially, having veto power of your matriculation.

Where I am, you have to have something like 4 or 5 current "elder law" attorneys give their stamp of approval for you to get your "elder law" cert. What that crock of garbage does is limit competition and focus the elder law attorneys in firms.

For anybody who doesn't believe that a test can tell you what you want to know about a candidate for something like law, I'd disagree for all but a few cases. The people I knew who struggled with the bar exam, for the most part, have made the lower quality lawyers.

The current anti-test movement in the U.S. is going to lead to bad results.

You can hand out soccer participation trophies, you can socially promote academically struggling kids in school, you can give kids extra time on tests for this mental issue or that, you can target underperforming groups for hiring, and on and on.

But when you decide that you want to get rid of the MCATs, the Medical Boards, and any required testing to be a surgeon, please let me know so I can try to get all of my elective surgery in in the next 6 years or so.

Interesting comments.

A written test is inherently "objective," unless somehow the grader knows you personally and has it in for you. In CT, there is a written test to be certified as a Workers' Compensation Specialist. It does not bar an attorney, not so designated, to practice in the Workers' Comp. field. It does give the successful candidate a leg up in advertising his expertise.

Yes, sometimes there are panels that can approve or disapprove someone as in the case of a doctoral candidate who writes a thesis and needs approval before the granting of a PHD. Maybe that is a good thing or maybe not.

A test properly constructed can show the competency and depth or lack of depth of the test taker for a specialized field.

Would anyone want a pharmacist who did not pass a comprehensive certification test dealing with understanding the chemical and molecular composition of a drug ? They are not going to get snowed by an attractive , ex cheerleader pharma rep. Unless, they got distracted and didn't check PDR or the pharma databases.

Or, an electrician that did not know the complexity of wiring , or of a circuit board, especially in an industrial setting? Improper wiring could lead to a fire or maybe an explosion. Yes, he will get OJT, but he has to know how to handle the circuitry and know how to read the manual. A comprehensive written test would no doubt give a hypothetical asking in a multiple choice question, what he would do.

This below applies to the non-lawyer posters and non-licensed posters:

Lots of do it yourselfers out there, and know it alls. Nothing like reading something on the Internet and thinking you know more than the licensed --------. Maybe, they have it all figured out and maybe without a license and a test, they wired their own houses, went to court pro se and whipped an attorney on the other side, or maybe they pulled out their infected tooth with a plyers and a shot of Scotch or Irish Whiskey.

If you are somebody's Cousin Vinny, good for you.

Good for you.

 

[NJHusky]

I have to respectfully disagree on this one, as well.
The problem with the "apprentice" requirement is that it becomes a "good ol' boys" network.
For example, if you want to be a licensed electrician in our city, you have to be a "journeyman," or some such scag, for a certain amount of time. What that does is put all the power in the hands of the existing electricians.
The same thing would apply to law - you'd have to find an existing lawyer or firm to take you in. That would particularly difficult if you were unconventional.

To me, that's the beauty of the exam. Figure out what you want attorneys to know, and then create the exam so that only people with the required knowledge can pass.

No barriers to entry other than knowledge.

At my law school, you had to write a paper sponsored by a professor to graduate. That was their way of, essentially, having veto power of your matriculation.

Where I am, you have to have something like 4 or 5 current "elder law" attorneys give their stamp of approval for you to get your "elder law" cert. What that crock of garbage does is limit competition and focus the elder law attorneys in firms.

For anybody who doesn't believe that a test can tell you what you want to know about a candidate for something like law, I'd disagree for all but a few cases. The people I knew who struggled with the bar exam, for the most part, have made the lower quality lawyers.

The current anti-test movement in the U.S. is going to lead to bad results.

You can hand out soccer participation trophies, you can socially promote academically struggling kids in school, you can give kids extra time on tests for this mental issue or that, you can target underperforming groups for hiring, and on and on.

But when you decide that you want to get rid of the MCATs, the Medical Boards, and any required testing to be a surgeon, please let me know so I can try to get all of my elective surgery in in the next 6 years or so.

I don't disagree...you make valid points. BUT...I would argue that there should be a practical element in the testing if you don't want an apprentice program...face it...none of us coming out of law school knew anything practical....it was all black letter law. The How To comes from being in a firm

 

[Improviser]

I don't disagree...you make valid points. BUT...I would argue that there should be a practical element in the testing if you don't want an apprentice program...face it...none of us coming out of law school knew anything practical....it was all black letter law. The How To comes from being in a firm

The only thing practical that I remember, was the occasional visiting trial lawyer who addressed the class and bragged about his courtroom triumphs. He said he would cross examine an opposing doctor whether he performed tests on the patient.. Those tests had nothing to do with the patient's condition, but he thought the jury would be look down on the doctor for missing important tests.

It seemed to me even then, that opposing counsel would ask his defense doctor why he did not perform that test. And, the doctor would say, "those tests are for the foot, not for the back(the body part injured in the accident)."

Then, the jury would probably believe nothing else the lecturing lawyer would say.

So yes, I learned practical advice. If you represent the plaintiff for a back injury, don't ask the defense's medical expert why he did not perform a test for a ruptured achilles.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Yeah I assumed he was staying active in MA.

I still can’t believe there are places where you have to do your CLE in person.

MA has...wait for it...no CLE at all.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I don’t disagree with your first concept for sure.

I would just have an apprentice requirement rather than waste time with a bs exam. Or maybe like the CPA exam process for accountants

Based on my observations of online learning in the pandemic, this would fail miserably. In person is essential for law school.

 

[the Q]

Based on my observations of online learning in the pandemic, this would fail miserably. In person is essential for law school.

I disagree. Due to the Socratic method it would be the same.

I sat in the back of all my classes. Most of my classmates were on their fb pages or surfing the web anyway. At least at some point.

The lint mostly being, you rely on fading and absorbing the material (plus a horn book or two).

I don’t think it would be nearly as bad as say elementary school

 

[HuskyHawk]

I disagree. Due to the Socratic method it would be the same.

I sat in the back of all my classes. Most of my classmates were on their fb pages or surfing the web anyway. At least at some point.

The lint mostly being, you rely on fading and absorbing the material (plus a horn book or two).

I don’t think it would be nearly as bad as say elementary school

I think Socratic method doesn't work virtually. Obviously things were different when I started law school in 1991, we mostly took notes in notebooks. But there is also the discussions with other law students and even after class with teachers. I learned as much from bouncing things off my classmates as anywhere else.

I used to think that remote/online was likely the future, I think it has failed massively. Value is just barely above zero. If you're going to do it, don't bother hiring a faculty. The teacher adds very little. Just make it electronic book learning because I think that's all it is. My niece is a would be 1L this year who deferred. I absolutely agree that was the right call. I can't imagine being a 1L remotely.

 

[the Q]

I think Socratic method doesn't work virtually. Obviously things were different when I started law school in 1991, we mostly took notes in notebooks. But there is also the discussions with other law students and even after class with teachers. I learned as much from bouncing things off my classmates as anywhere else.

I used to think that remote/online was likely the future, I think it has failed massively. Value is just barely above zero. If you're going to do it, don't bother hiring a faculty. The teacher adds very little. Just make it electronic book learning because I think that's all it is. My niece is a would be 1L this year who deferred. I absolutely agree that was the right call. I can't imagine being a 1L remotely.

Being the jerky lawyer here..., I’ll just say it depends.

My learning style And personality type would’ve been fine.

You can also do study groups virtually.

But for me, something like math online was brutal (although my online math class had no actual “class “ sessions anyway. It was pace as you go).

It takes a little more focus and discipline to make that work, and I’m not sure it’s a bad thing for people who are going to be lawyers to be learning that.

 

[alphasigko]

Better Call Saul for additional advice on this

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

Oh man, that feeling of not having any idea what the duck___ your Fed Courts professor is talking about as you desperately try to make yourself invisible as he/she looks for someone to call on. Nothing like it.

 

[Guapo]

@BigErnMcCracken because he asked the same kinds of questions. I’m not on the litigation side of things, so no, I won’t ever need to do that. I’m commercial/transactional with some IP and product regulatory stuff. The company is big enough that they’ll never need me to make an appearance. I suppose that could be different if I change jobs. CLE is waived for inactive so I’m set there.

I’ll just pay it this year. It’s just frustrating that there is no easy way to get out of it. California goes to 70 and Missouri to 75. I plan to be done working before 65, or maybe go part time.

Not an attorney, but I do work in patent prosecution.

Nothing to add to this convo but always like to shout out fellow IP people; it’s a weird little world we’ve got for ourselves.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Oh man, that feeling of not having any idea what the duck___ your Fed Courts professor is talking about as you desperately try to make yourself invisible as he/she looks for someone to call on. Nothing like it.

That was Tax for me, maybe Civ Pro as a 1L. Our Tax guy was the editor of the book used at virtually every law school. His knowledge of the code, regulations and cases was encyclopedic, Super nice guy, great teacher, but very intimidating when he called on you.

 

[Improviser]

That was Tax for me, maybe Civ Pro as a 1L. Our Tax guy was the editor of the book used at virtually every law school. His knowledge of the code, regulations and cases was encyclopedic, Super nice guy, great teacher, but very intimidating when he called on you.

I remember it being very intimidating when after they call on you with their hypothetical, they keep on with more directed to you. Most did not, but some did, as I recall.

 

[the Q]

That was Tax for me, maybe Civ Pro as a 1L. Our Tax guy was the editor of the book used at virtually every law school. His knowledge of the code, regulations and cases was encyclopedic, Super nice guy, great teacher, but very intimidating when he called on you.

Let’s all agree to never again talk about how awful 1L is/was. Lol

 

[the Q]

I think Socratic method doesn't work virtually. Obviously things were different when I started law school in 1991, we mostly took notes in notebooks. But there is also the discussions with other law students and even after class with teachers. I learned as much from bouncing things off my classmates as anywhere else.

I used to think that remote/online was likely the future, I think it has failed massively. Value is just barely above zero. If you're going to do it, don't bother hiring a faculty. The teacher adds very little. Just make it electronic book learning because I think that's all it is. My niece is a would be 1L this year who deferred. I absolutely agree that was the right call. I can't imagine being a 1L remotely.

That was Tax for me, maybe Civ Pro as a 1L. Our Tax guy was the editor of the book used at virtually every law school. His knowledge of the code, regulations and cases was encyclopedic, Super nice guy, great teacher, but very intimidating when he called on you.

I remember it being very intimidating when after they call on you with their hypothetical, they keep on with more directed to you. Most did not, but some did, as I recall.

my favorite professor did an “on-call” Socratic system where you were Only going to be cold called upon a few select times over the course of the semester (like 2-3) but he would drill down on each student. I thought it was more than fair and would still work in virtual environments imo.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Let’s all agree to never again talk about how awful 1L is/was. Lol

I loved it. Had an absolute blast all three years. So much more pleasant than having an actual job.

 

[the Q]

I loved it. Had an absolute blast all three years. So much more pleasant than having an actual job.

I worked and did law school. It was hard. But I still kicked ass.

Too bad I’m weird and awkward and a terrible interviewer lol

 

[JohnFSilver]

Wait. If you are a lawyer, and were once admitted to that stated bar, it is lifetime obligation to pay? You can’t just up out and go inactive, you still gotta pay?

What is this, the mob or something?

 

[HuskyHawk]

Wait. If you are a lawyer, and were once admitted to that stated bar, it is lifetime obligation to pay? You can’t just up out and go inactive, you still gotta pay?

What is this, the mob or something?

I think the answer to that last is pretty much a yes, if government ran the mob.