The Oregon Supreme Court on Tuesday approved an alternative licensing program that bar exam reformers hope will spur further innovation in other states. After law school, candidates will spend 675 hours working under the supervision of an experienced attorney and create a portfolio of legal work that bar officials will grade as an alternative to the traditional bar exam.
The program, called the Supervised Practice Portfolio Examination, will be open to graduates of both in-state and out-of-state law schools — a departure from the two existing alternative licensing programs in the country.
Wisconsin allows graduates of the state's two law schools to become licensed without passing the bar in what is known as a diploma privilege, and New Hampshire allows a small cohort of law students who complete a specialized curriculum to bypass the bar.
Interesting. Essentially an apprenticeship system designed to get journeymen lawyers some experience? It works for therapists, so I don't see why having some legitimate work experience wouldn't be...
Interesting. Essentially an apprenticeship system designed to get journeymen lawyers some experience? It works for therapists, so I don't see why having some legitimate work experience wouldn't be as good or better than a sit-down test.
I can only speak for California, but there's an actual test, but also 2000 hours of supervised work. I'm much more of a believer in the training value of the work, but the test does have some...
I can only speak for California, but there's an actual test, but also 2000 hours of supervised work. I'm much more of a believer in the training value of the work, but the test does have some value as well.
Oh certainly, required hours for graduation/initial licensure and then for the upper licensure (name varies by state). And I'd agree the practical work - internships, supervision hours - is more...
Oh certainly, required hours for graduation/initial licensure and then for the upper licensure (name varies by state). And I'd agree the practical work - internships, supervision hours - is more valuable but the test sets a, forgive me, bar.
Just made it sound like the comparison was to therapists with no testing.
New York state did had a apprentice system, called reading law, prior to WW2. The Nuremburg Trials prosecutor Robert H. Jackson, and last Supreme Court justice to not have a law degree, started...
New York state did had a apprentice system, called reading law, prior to WW2. The Nuremburg Trials prosecutor Robert H. Jackson, and last Supreme Court justice to not have a law degree, started his career this way. So there is historical biases for this type of system. But this went away because of the law schools that popped up around the nation. So I can see this affecting kids who want to get into law, but can't because they cannot afford to go to law school.
Edit: so I did read the article, and it does say that you need to be a law school graduate to quality for this licensing way.
Washington state does have a non-law-school program (called a law clerk program) that one can do if one qualifies, where the student is employed by an attorney for 4 years, completes a program of...
Washington state does have a non-law-school program (called a law clerk program) that one can do if one qualifies, where the student is employed by an attorney for 4 years, completes a program of study under them and occasional substitutes mentors, and can then take the bar without having obtained a law degree. It does still involve taking the bar, but doesn't necessarily involve the expense of law school. (As an aside, when I brought this up to the firm I worked for, they wanted me to pay for the overhead + more of the attorney who would be mentoring me, so I wouldn't be surprised if some unsuspecting law clerks unwittingly end up in weird financial situations due to similar "arrangements".)
I'm not sure of any concrete disadvantages to this system, but it's worth considering one of the principle advantages -- preparing to take the bar exam is essentially a full-time job for a law...
I'm not sure of any concrete disadvantages to this system, but it's worth considering one of the principle advantages -- preparing to take the bar exam is essentially a full-time job for a law school grad. Unless you're indepedently wealthy or already signed with a big enough firm that they're paying for your time while you prep so that you can work for them once you pass the bar, it can be very difficult for you financially to need to spend all that time on prep without a solid income yet. This is obviously pretty inequitable, since it disproportionately affects law school grads from poor backgrounds. This type of inequality probably wouldn't be present with an apprenticeship-type system.
From the article:
Interesting. Essentially an apprenticeship system designed to get journeymen lawyers some experience? It works for therapists, so I don't see why having some legitimate work experience wouldn't be as good or better than a sit-down test.
Does Wisconsin not require licensure exams for therapists? (Most have them to my knowledge but perhaps things have changed)
I can only speak for California, but there's an actual test, but also 2000 hours of supervised work. I'm much more of a believer in the training value of the work, but the test does have some value as well.
Oh certainly, required hours for graduation/initial licensure and then for the upper licensure (name varies by state). And I'd agree the practical work - internships, supervision hours - is more valuable but the test sets a, forgive me, bar.
Just made it sound like the comparison was to therapists with no testing.
I think this is reasonable so long as the work is meaningful.
New York state did had a apprentice system, called reading law, prior to WW2. The Nuremburg Trials prosecutor Robert H. Jackson, and last Supreme Court justice to not have a law degree, started his career this way. So there is historical biases for this type of system. But this went away because of the law schools that popped up around the nation.
So I can see this affecting kids who want to get into law, but can't because they cannot afford to go to law school.Edit: so I did read the article, and it does say that you need to be a law school graduate to quality for this licensing way.
Washington state does have a non-law-school program (called a law clerk program) that one can do if one qualifies, where the student is employed by an attorney for 4 years, completes a program of study under them and occasional substitutes mentors, and can then take the bar without having obtained a law degree. It does still involve taking the bar, but doesn't necessarily involve the expense of law school. (As an aside, when I brought this up to the firm I worked for, they wanted me to pay for the overhead + more of the attorney who would be mentoring me, so I wouldn't be surprised if some unsuspecting law clerks unwittingly end up in weird financial situations due to similar "arrangements".)
The lawyers that I know think that the bar is a complete waste of time. I imagine they'll approve of this measure.
I'm not sure of any concrete disadvantages to this system, but it's worth considering one of the principle advantages -- preparing to take the bar exam is essentially a full-time job for a law school grad. Unless you're indepedently wealthy or already signed with a big enough firm that they're paying for your time while you prep so that you can work for them once you pass the bar, it can be very difficult for you financially to need to spend all that time on prep without a solid income yet. This is obviously pretty inequitable, since it disproportionately affects law school grads from poor backgrounds. This type of inequality probably wouldn't be present with an apprenticeship-type system.