Hi Jordan, if law school is not the training ground, where do candidates of the Legal Knowledge Examination get the information to have the five qualities you indicate that a competent lawyer should have? (Granted the 5th is not much provided in law school). Presumably law schools would still be operating and an industry around educating candidates would be created, which undoubtedly would create the same barriers based on cost, time and ability to attend. I presume a minority might have the innate ability to pass the test but that surely would be a minority. I presume some might be able to self study, but again those privileged to come from a legal family or one well connected would again have an advantage. I think it is a worthwhile exercise to consider alternatives and having an open mind, as long as in the end the public is protected and well served.
"Removing the law degree mandate could result in a Cambrian explosion of people and organizations willing to teach candidates the (now publicly identified) knowledge required for licensure. Aspiring lawyers could turn to bar associations, CLE providers, paralegal programs, individual lawyers — and yes, absolutely, law schools, still the experts in this field, could unbundle their degree programs and offer individual courses on a standalone basis to anyone who wants them."
And here's the thing: My suggested four-step licensing system could still work even if a candidate opted to get a law degree. There are manifold benefits to a law degree -- as I said in my previous newsletter, I enjoyed my law school experience greatly -- and I can easily imagine that a number of legal employers would make a degree mandatory for hiring a new associate. So we could still carry on with licensure candidates getting a full law degree if they want one. But the key here is that they wouldn't *need* to. Make the law degree optional and you get the best of both worlds.
Candidates who don't have the money and time to get a law degree should be able to avail themselves of an alternative path to the bar admission process that still assures their competence. And if that process is good enough for people without law degrees, it's good enough for people with law degrees too. That's all I'm saying.
In my humble opinion, your recommended item 3 is the true key and what’s missing in today’s legal education/prep/licensure system. Few grads understand anything about customer service and even less about running a business. For a profession that proclaims it’s there “to serve clients” there’s scant evidence of any true customer focus, let alone a commitment to delivering value to those customers. A lawyer’s place in provision of legal services is really solely about applied judgment -- and neither knowledge, process, nor written or oratory prowess. Your proposed structure goes quite a way along the distance to doing so -- but in addition to licensure reform, it must be combined with elimination of guild-protective structures such as UPL & firm ownership.
As the practice of law continues to develop in response to new technology, the concept of lawyer competency is also developing. The traditional idea of the learned lawyer possessed of a deep understanding of the nature of law beyond practice for the good of society has been almost entirely lost. Instead, competency is now defined exclusively as the virtues needed for commercial production within a legal practice. However, a sufficient understanding of law beyond the practical aspects is essential for lawyers to participate effectively in a self-regulating profession, particularly during a period of rapid social change. While competency as a professional should certainly include practical skills, a deeper understanding of the nature of law and its role in society is also important. If the legal profession is to remain self-regulating, it needs to recover, as an educational goal, the broader understanding of the function and purpose of law in the democratic plan.
Jordan I for the most part agree with you except I think where we might differ is not every area of practice requires the same competencies and although I think some basic prerequisites are probably necessary I think there are dramatic differences between areas. I can foresee a situation where people can be licensed to practice certain types of work but not others. This notion that you can be licensed on day one and practice anything has never made any sense.
Hi Jordan, if law school is not the training ground, where do candidates of the Legal Knowledge Examination get the information to have the five qualities you indicate that a competent lawyer should have? (Granted the 5th is not much provided in law school). Presumably law schools would still be operating and an industry around educating candidates would be created, which undoubtedly would create the same barriers based on cost, time and ability to attend. I presume a minority might have the innate ability to pass the test but that surely would be a minority. I presume some might be able to self study, but again those privileged to come from a legal family or one well connected would again have an advantage. I think it is a worthwhile exercise to consider alternatives and having an open mind, as long as in the end the public is protected and well served.
Ray, the possibilities you've listed are indeed those that I was thinking of. I went into some more detail on this in my previous newsletter (https://jordanfurlong.substack.com/p/7-reasons-to-get-rid-of-the-law-degree):
"Removing the law degree mandate could result in a Cambrian explosion of people and organizations willing to teach candidates the (now publicly identified) knowledge required for licensure. Aspiring lawyers could turn to bar associations, CLE providers, paralegal programs, individual lawyers — and yes, absolutely, law schools, still the experts in this field, could unbundle their degree programs and offer individual courses on a standalone basis to anyone who wants them."
I also developed these possibilities further in my report to the Law Society of BC (https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/Website/media/Shared/docs/publications/reports/Furlong_Report_-_A_Competence-Based_System_for_Lawyer_Licensing_in_BC.pdf), where I suggested (but did not formally recommend) dropping the law degree requirement in that province(pp. 36-40). The point I made there was that this potential ecosystem of legal knowledge providers, exciting as it seems, will never flourish so long as the law degree requirement is intact.
And here's the thing: My suggested four-step licensing system could still work even if a candidate opted to get a law degree. There are manifold benefits to a law degree -- as I said in my previous newsletter, I enjoyed my law school experience greatly -- and I can easily imagine that a number of legal employers would make a degree mandatory for hiring a new associate. So we could still carry on with licensure candidates getting a full law degree if they want one. But the key here is that they wouldn't *need* to. Make the law degree optional and you get the best of both worlds.
Candidates who don't have the money and time to get a law degree should be able to avail themselves of an alternative path to the bar admission process that still assures their competence. And if that process is good enough for people without law degrees, it's good enough for people with law degrees too. That's all I'm saying.
In my humble opinion, your recommended item 3 is the true key and what’s missing in today’s legal education/prep/licensure system. Few grads understand anything about customer service and even less about running a business. For a profession that proclaims it’s there “to serve clients” there’s scant evidence of any true customer focus, let alone a commitment to delivering value to those customers. A lawyer’s place in provision of legal services is really solely about applied judgment -- and neither knowledge, process, nor written or oratory prowess. Your proposed structure goes quite a way along the distance to doing so -- but in addition to licensure reform, it must be combined with elimination of guild-protective structures such as UPL & firm ownership.
As the practice of law continues to develop in response to new technology, the concept of lawyer competency is also developing. The traditional idea of the learned lawyer possessed of a deep understanding of the nature of law beyond practice for the good of society has been almost entirely lost. Instead, competency is now defined exclusively as the virtues needed for commercial production within a legal practice. However, a sufficient understanding of law beyond the practical aspects is essential for lawyers to participate effectively in a self-regulating profession, particularly during a period of rapid social change. While competency as a professional should certainly include practical skills, a deeper understanding of the nature of law and its role in society is also important. If the legal profession is to remain self-regulating, it needs to recover, as an educational goal, the broader understanding of the function and purpose of law in the democratic plan.
Jordan I for the most part agree with you except I think where we might differ is not every area of practice requires the same competencies and although I think some basic prerequisites are probably necessary I think there are dramatic differences between areas. I can foresee a situation where people can be licensed to practice certain types of work but not others. This notion that you can be licensed on day one and practice anything has never made any sense.