Several American states are rewriting the rules of lawyer licensure and bringing the US into line with a key element of lawyer formation worldwide: supervised practice.
Great write up Jordan. An observation from the ground here in Oregon (disclosure: I was on the Oregon Bar's Board of Governors when we chartered the committees to study and propose new pathways to licensure, but was not otherwise involved with this work): Much of the pushback to the proposals predictably took some form of the public-protection argument, "If lawyers don't pass the bar exam, how will we know they are competent to practice?" The folks on the committee took that argument seriously, but upon scrutiny found little evidence that the bar exam creates or promotes more competent practitioners.
Oregon has several legal regulatory reforms -- some approved and some in-progress -- that are both contributors to, and the result of, a multi-year rethinking of what it means to be a competent legal practitioner in the 21st century. While it is hard to point to a genesis moment for these efforts, they were crystallized and focused by changes we made to the Bar's mission and functions several years ago (including its statutory charge approved by the legislature in 2019).
The new language is worth considering. From the statutory charge (ORS 9.080):
"The board [of governors of the Oregon State Bar] is charged with the executive functions of the state bar and shall at all times direct its power to serve the public interest by:
(a) Regulating the legal profession and improving the quality of legal services;
(b) Supporting the judiciary and improving the administration of justice; and
(c) Advancing a fair, inclusive and accessible justice system."
Provisions "a" and "c" of that charge provided impetus and context for additional lawyer licensing pathways, paralegal licensure, and other reform efforts. From "a," Oregon has been engaged in sweeping discussions around what it means to perform "quality legal services," and how we might improve that quality. The charge has led to efforts to build more objective standards of quality and to invent mechanisms for assessing professionals against those standards.
Notably, this focus on defining and improving quality has given context to any discussion around what it means to "protect the public" through legal services regulation. The Bar's own statement of its Mission and Functions reflects this: "Our goal is to protect the public by ensuring competence and integrity and by promoting professionalism in the legal profession." Yes we protect the public, and here's how. (see https://www.osbar.org/about.html)
What's more, the language in subsection "c" forces the Bar's regulatory efforts into a healthy tension with the co-equal goal of increasing fairness, inclusivity, and accessibility in the justice system overall. When we look at Oregon's justice system's public protection shortcomings versus its need for better inclusivity and accessibility, the evidence clearly favors focusing the Bar's efforts on the latter.
While there are certainly examples where members of the public continue to be harmed by unscrupulous legal providers, few would argue that the Oregon justice system has a public protection crisis. But we have overwhelming evidence that Oregon is in the midst of a long-brewing and acute access to justice crisis. Its most visible manifestation is our ongoing public defender shortage, but access to civil legal help is arguably even worse (just not Constitutionally mandated).
It is this recognition -- viewed through the lens of the Bar's mission and functions -- that has spurred Oregon's Bar and its Supreme Court to act.
It is why Oregon eliminated RPC 7.3's "cocktail party rule" prohibiting real-time solicitation of clients and replaced it with a more balanced standard making it easier for lawyers and clients to connect. (Note that "ambulance chasing" is still prohibited by statute.)
It is why Oregon replaced its reciprocity rules for Bar admission with more permissive comity rules; any lawyer licensed in any US jurisdiction can waive into Oregon so long as they have a clean disciplinary history and have actively practiced in 2 of the last 5 years.
It is why Oregon approved our paraprofessional licensure program, and it has guided our implementation of licensure rules for determining competence to practice in each of the (so-far) approved areas of law.
And it is why Oregon has developed new pathways to Bar membership for new lawyers, including the supervised practice program just approved and several others still under consideration.
All of which is to say that the new admission pathway you and others are reporting on, while seemingly revolutionary when viewed from the outside, is really the most visible manifestation of a years-long effort to redefine the purpose and goals of legal services regulation in Oregon. Because we embedded the concepts of "quality" and "accessibility" (among others) into the Bar's mission and it's statutory charge, I expect Oregon to continue to lead the way in legal regulatory reform for years to come.
Jordan, I was wondering whether new Oregon pathway also applies to international law school graduates / practicing lawyers? Or is there any state looking to consider active US law practice by international lawyers as part of a potential bar admission scheme?
Great write up Jordan. An observation from the ground here in Oregon (disclosure: I was on the Oregon Bar's Board of Governors when we chartered the committees to study and propose new pathways to licensure, but was not otherwise involved with this work): Much of the pushback to the proposals predictably took some form of the public-protection argument, "If lawyers don't pass the bar exam, how will we know they are competent to practice?" The folks on the committee took that argument seriously, but upon scrutiny found little evidence that the bar exam creates or promotes more competent practitioners.
Oregon has several legal regulatory reforms -- some approved and some in-progress -- that are both contributors to, and the result of, a multi-year rethinking of what it means to be a competent legal practitioner in the 21st century. While it is hard to point to a genesis moment for these efforts, they were crystallized and focused by changes we made to the Bar's mission and functions several years ago (including its statutory charge approved by the legislature in 2019).
The new language is worth considering. From the statutory charge (ORS 9.080):
"The board [of governors of the Oregon State Bar] is charged with the executive functions of the state bar and shall at all times direct its power to serve the public interest by:
(a) Regulating the legal profession and improving the quality of legal services;
(b) Supporting the judiciary and improving the administration of justice; and
(c) Advancing a fair, inclusive and accessible justice system."
Provisions "a" and "c" of that charge provided impetus and context for additional lawyer licensing pathways, paralegal licensure, and other reform efforts. From "a," Oregon has been engaged in sweeping discussions around what it means to perform "quality legal services," and how we might improve that quality. The charge has led to efforts to build more objective standards of quality and to invent mechanisms for assessing professionals against those standards.
Notably, this focus on defining and improving quality has given context to any discussion around what it means to "protect the public" through legal services regulation. The Bar's own statement of its Mission and Functions reflects this: "Our goal is to protect the public by ensuring competence and integrity and by promoting professionalism in the legal profession." Yes we protect the public, and here's how. (see https://www.osbar.org/about.html)
What's more, the language in subsection "c" forces the Bar's regulatory efforts into a healthy tension with the co-equal goal of increasing fairness, inclusivity, and accessibility in the justice system overall. When we look at Oregon's justice system's public protection shortcomings versus its need for better inclusivity and accessibility, the evidence clearly favors focusing the Bar's efforts on the latter.
While there are certainly examples where members of the public continue to be harmed by unscrupulous legal providers, few would argue that the Oregon justice system has a public protection crisis. But we have overwhelming evidence that Oregon is in the midst of a long-brewing and acute access to justice crisis. Its most visible manifestation is our ongoing public defender shortage, but access to civil legal help is arguably even worse (just not Constitutionally mandated).
It is this recognition -- viewed through the lens of the Bar's mission and functions -- that has spurred Oregon's Bar and its Supreme Court to act.
It is why Oregon eliminated RPC 7.3's "cocktail party rule" prohibiting real-time solicitation of clients and replaced it with a more balanced standard making it easier for lawyers and clients to connect. (Note that "ambulance chasing" is still prohibited by statute.)
It is why Oregon replaced its reciprocity rules for Bar admission with more permissive comity rules; any lawyer licensed in any US jurisdiction can waive into Oregon so long as they have a clean disciplinary history and have actively practiced in 2 of the last 5 years.
It is why Oregon approved our paraprofessional licensure program, and it has guided our implementation of licensure rules for determining competence to practice in each of the (so-far) approved areas of law.
And it is why Oregon has developed new pathways to Bar membership for new lawyers, including the supervised practice program just approved and several others still under consideration.
All of which is to say that the new admission pathway you and others are reporting on, while seemingly revolutionary when viewed from the outside, is really the most visible manifestation of a years-long effort to redefine the purpose and goals of legal services regulation in Oregon. Because we embedded the concepts of "quality" and "accessibility" (among others) into the Bar's mission and it's statutory charge, I expect Oregon to continue to lead the way in legal regulatory reform for years to come.
I graduated from University of California with LL.M degree! Am I eligible or just the JD?
Jordan, I was wondering whether new Oregon pathway also applies to international law school graduates / practicing lawyers? Or is there any state looking to consider active US law practice by international lawyers as part of a potential bar admission scheme?
This is very good news, very promising.