I've been on 3 juries in my day. In one, a civil suit the plaintiffs' lawyer was the only one to ask questions and did all the harm. In the jury room we talked more about that lawyer than we did the case. One vote in favor of the defendant. On another in a criminal case, we raised the question (in the jury room) of whether or not the search was legal. The judge said we couldn't consider that as it was not raised by the defendant. We found the guy guilty. Hundreds of pounds in drugs and thousands in cash was recovered. A few weeks later I'm reading in the paper how the guy had a new attorney and was released because the search was deemed illegal.
And the judge probably lied to you. They sure HATE IT, but jury nullification is one of the main reasons for the jury to exist. In Indiana, the jury decides the law and the facts (on paper anyway, I'm sure they lie about that too).
It is interesting that the judge would bring up that point himself, if not part of the case. That is partly of how the law works. An attorney can "accidentally" slip in statements to influence a jury, but the jury is supposed to ignore anything not properly submitted.
When I took the bar exam in 1980, less than half passed. I was lucky, I made it on my first time, but a lot of candidates were there for their third and fourth tries. One elderly gent had a heart attack and they took the poor soul out on a stretcher with EMS; it was the talk of the room for the next day. Like Steve I studied nonstop 3 months like it was a job, 9-5 every day. Could never do it again.
@@PatentDude When I took the Florida bar exam in the early 1980s, they accepted the multistate portion from your home state, so you only had to take the Florida-specific portion, which was heavy on Florida state constitutional law. Was an easy test, just memorisation.
Sir, you wasn't lucky to pass the bar. It meant you studied hard. Put in the work to prepare for it and you must be fairly intelligent in order to pass it on the first time
I'm not certain that's a ridiculous amount of memorization is a good test for lawyers. After all, as you said, the bar exam clearly does not prevent a fraction of lawyers being completely incompetent. Also, an important part of law is being able to look up and reference. I would compare it to the professional engineering exams, which are open everything. You can bring books, notes, or even exam guides. As an engineer, you will have those references when you do work, and so you should be able to have them during the test. When something isn't working, you should change it. We just need to figure out what to change it to
@@Benjamin1986980 Keep the BAR but dial it down a bit. IMO putting into place a residency program for Lawyers would also help. Medical professionals have to be overseen and taught firsthand - why don't lawyers?
@@Benjamin1986980 _"When something isn't working, you should change it."_ If you think an important, long-established solution is not working _well enough,_ you'd better have first clearly understood the rationale of those responsible for the current solution prior to making that judgement. Next, question if you have a solution which better meets the current criteria; then do a cost-benefit analysis, taking in to account the possibility and cost of failure; and finally, and only then do you question if it should be changed.
It's going to depend entirely on what the bar's review of the work system will wind up looking. But this might open the door up even further for nepotism, who is going to take random nobodies into their practice to not only act as a teacher and mentor but also having to also pay them while they learn? Only people given such a chance is going to be well connected rich kids. So how is the bar going to determine if they've learnt enough to practice law on their own?
@@Frag-ile -- Who is going to take them in? How about public-interest law firms? Also, look for prosecutor's offices and public defender's offices to open up some slots.
@ohsweetmystery hard disagree, would you want an unaccredited surgeon to do surgery on you. Accreditation is to make sure people have enough knowledge to be more specific. All trades should be merit based and accreditation is one way to do that
@@ohsweetmystery Accreditation is a way to identify who is qualified for a task. Some professions need to get it right, to the degree possible, on the first try. Lawyering is one such field. Medical is another, piloting, architecture, engineering, even electricians and plumbers. If they do their job correctly the public is well served. If not, the public is placed at undo risk and is potentially harmed. And they tend to work in areas that don't allow for do-overs.
If I am not mistaken, in NC you need only to be vetted by the bar to take the exam, no law degree necessary. I knew a lawyer once, who was known in certain circles to be the best in the area, who was well known to take high profile criminal cases, told me when I was a young child about the time he dropped out of law school. The son of a farmer, found out in his first year of law school, that you didn't need a law degree to practice law, so he saved his money, and spent all his time in the law library, watching courtrooms, and talking to other lawyers. His lesson to me, was that knowledge is real power, not a wall decoration. Some say he was a very smart man. He could fix a tractor too. lol
I tell people to learn everything they can about any business they work for. They may not get promoted but the knowledge gained may get them a better job in the future.
In 1992, I took my electrical contractor licensing test. I had 8,000 hours primarily in residential, with the full intention of concentrating on residential. I had to be tested on commercial, industrial, hospital redundant electrical systems etc. In other words, things I will never use. So I totally get where you're coming from.
@@sleepyearthDepends, is he unknowledgeable about parts of the law that literally have nothing to do with the case at hand but knows all the related law? Copyright law isn't helpful in traffic court after all.
Alternate paths to licensure has been a thing for Architects and Engineers for a long time, but at the end you still had to take some kind of examination to turn that experience into an actual license. I could see having a truncated exam based on experience as long as you meet certain criteria, but there really should be a way to prove your knowledge and experience. 🍻
I would think that a combo is also the way to go there. My main worry about this type of thing is that you might also have some places taking advantage of this kind of setup because, well, what better way to solve issues with not having enough public defenders
I (as an architect) would say that architecture licensing exams are as useful as a 1 legged man in an a$$ kicking contest. For 2 reasons: 1. I know architects who pass and couldn't do half of what other architects can do who didn't pass some of the sections the first time around. #2, the exams are timed and multiple choice. There is no real world application where you are in an office and someone says, "sorry you are out of time, throw the whole project away." As for the multiple choice, you NEVER guess at something. If you don't know it, you research and review and if you are still in doubt, you make phone calls. And any attorney who complains about taking the exams are crying to the wrong people. Architects (when I took my exam) were 7 exams (granted they didn't need to be done all at once), 5 years of architecture school (no undergrad partying major here), 3 years of apprenticeship, and THEN you could sit for your exams. At least architects are paid better than attorneys....oh wait, we arn't even paid remotely the same level. P.S. I am fun at parties before you ask. :)
@@uawldct I don't disagree with you one bit there. I have worked in Architecture for over 20 years, I do more "architecture" than some of the licensed Architects I know, so I get it. Nothing will ever beat practical experience, nor should it. That's why I think a more hybrid system that takes into account real world experience but tests it in a setting that is fitting of the profession would be ideal. The test may be a waste, but the ARB Interview does serve the purpose of weeding out those who should not be licensed. 🍻
In the age of AI, many jobs like non trial lawyers, pharmacists, many doctors, engineers, etc.. will be obsolete in a few years..💯💯 Many healthcare companies already started using computer aided treatments years ago and the old doctors just hated it because they saw the writing on the wall.. 😊😊
California has been a 3 day exam since mid 80s. First two days same as everywhere else. 3rd day was the Practical portion, you are given a case file and asked to complete a project. One year was write a will, another was draft a contract, not sure what others were. This may be where some have problems.
The next gen bar exam (ube) is rumored to move to this and away from multiple choice. I thought that was the dumbest part of the exam. Functionally it is a formatting, speed writing, and typing speed test.
It was decades ago now (I am pushing 80), but I remember the case (in California) of a legal secretary who impressed the attorney she was working for, who encouraged her to become an attorney. It was impractical for her to attend law school, so she pursued a very old method of qualifying for the bar exam that was still on the books, although rare by then: she "read the law" with her boss, and passed the bar exam on the first try. This "portfolio" approach sounds something like reading the law.
Iowa also had a process for people to "read the law" under the direction of a practicing attorney and then take the exam without law school. I remember in the 90s the last practicing attorney in Iowa to enter the bar that way retired.
Wahoo! With ChatGPT and no bar exam, and a quick printer or degree from Bob's State University ... I'm off to California to practice and earn some quick and dirty cash!
It's a favorite go to phrase of the cops after being quoted the law verbatim "Are you a lawyer?"......No, but neither are they and they like to forget about parts that inconvenience them all to often. Lawyers are just people that have devoted their careers to learning the law and working in it everyday. Average people can read the laws as well ( sometimes many times ) and open multiple tabs to the exclusions, addendums etc. to get a good understanding of it. I have yet to meet a LEO ( and I have 3 in my family ) that bothers with actually reading the statutes after what they get in the academies to pass other than the memos handed to them at their stations. End Qualified Immunity.
I'm a CPA and accountants experience much of what you're talking about with lawyers. We learn about all kinds of accounting topics to pass the exam that we will NEVER use in our career.
My heartburn with the bar exam is that it's still "localized." For example, I was one of those nontraditional law students that attended law school when I was 40 while holding down a fulltime job and having a family. I graduated from a law school in Missouri, which offers the Uniform Bar Exam, but I ended up moving to Texas shortly after graduation. The Texas bar exam is "localized" and contains a fair bit on oil & gas, a topic no law student in Missouri would study. Needless to say, despite spending about eight weeks doing the Texas BARBRI prep course, I missed passing by that >< much. Also, pro tip: Don't go through a divorce while studying for or taking the bar exam. It's been 13 years since that two-day nightmare. I figure if I ever want to practice law as a retirement gig, I'll need to retire to Oklahoma (which also has and oil & gas topic in their bar exam) and take the Missouri bar, since Oklahoma offers reciprocity to those licensed in Missouri.
It's funny and had to smile at one point in this one because of a personal experience. I took legal studies in high school and was on the team that won the state mock trial competition (I'm not a lawyer though.) One of the things I was dinged on in a previous competition was doing what you described. I was not admitting my exhibits. So was so happy I remembered to do that at state. I loved doing mock trials. I learned so much that I still use today.
It’s a woke thing. Statistically “people of color” have a hard time with testing. Can’t wait till they lower the standards for cardiologists to promote DEI!
So you do realize that doing an intensive internship like Steve described is way more valuable than someone who could memorize a few fact out of a book right. Also, maybe read a little bit about Justice Robert Jackson. Justice Jackson never passed the bar nor did he even finish law school. Instead he became a lawyers apprentice & rose to become a Supreme Court justice and in 1945 took a temporary leave from the Supreme Court to become the lead prosecutor in one of the most important court cases in world history, a trial that is still used this very day in similar trials which was the Nuremberg Trials. The simple fact is bar exams being required is a fairly brand new thing & they haven't improved the quality of attorney's & I would argue they have gotten worse.
I know a lot of law students who went through the bar exam - they described it as 3 years of law school compressed in 2 days. From what I've heard, CA has been considered the hardest bar exam to pass. I like the idea of an apprenticeship, as they can get paid and would have some work experience. Your thought about criminal vs. civil law sounds good - that would make the bar exam more flexible for those who want to go in one area.
NY and NJ always had the reputation on the East Coast of being the hardest. I think one of the Kennedys took something like 10 times to pass the NY bar exam.
@@Erik_The_Viking I was lucky, passed both first time out, ditto for Florida. But I did nothing but study straight for 3 months like it was a regular job.
@@tomjones2056 What was it back in 1980, that’s when I took it? I know less than half passed that sat for the summer 1980 test. Have no idea what the numbers are today 43 years later.
You are so right on this one. I am a carpenter and been doing it for over 25 years. Young guys do have skills but for them to take a client on and do their own project. There going to make lots of mistakes that should never happen because it on hurts their client. Money from mistakes can absolutely ruin them
Engineers in Canada require 4 years of experience working under a licensed professional engineer and then are required to take an ethics exam. (With a qualifying engineering degree of course) it's not a terrible system.
That's no uncommon in order to obtain a PE. IMO companies want engineers with PE"s as it pushes liability onto the engineer and not the company. There never was enough of an incentive for me to get my PE.
U.S. engineers have to get a four year engineering degree, pass an FE exam, apprentice for 4 years, then take a PE exam to become a professional engineer. The FE is a fundamental of engineering exam, the PE is more focused on your branch on engineering (electrical, civil, etc...).
Hi Steve, I used to work in a university in Scotland and you got all sorts people like that. An nursing student that doesn't like blood, a teaching student that cannot speak in front of people. I do agree with you about how people should be made to learn and do certain things that are key to their future career.
Former California Governor Pete Wilson failed the bar 3 times, passing the bar the 4th time. Former LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa failed the bar 4 times...then stopped trying. Here's hoping that they don't make these same justifications for reducing the qualifications required for doctors.
Abolish the bar. Im done with their word manipulation, criminal, what it is, a monopoly made to drawn out and make you go broke trying to pay a lawer. If you cant get all the evidence together and present it for a wrong doing, than you should be put in jail for malicious prosecution. All this corporate law that is imposed on us needs to go bye bye.
Im glad we are challenging the rather newish system of examination. There should be more than 1 path accessible to become a licensed attourney. Especially in a field as the law, specialized training, apprenticeships many times better demonstrate ability and knowledge needed to be an effective and competent officer of the court.
The recognition of a particular lawyer's or firm's work is so real. I worked in a field which was very common. There were a lot of consumers and a lot of service providers, but the number of law practices that served both was a relatively small pool (perhaps 50 statewide) I am not an attorney. But I could read an RFP, a proposed change in an agreement from a client or just simple docs from a competitor and instantly and accurately know the law firm that they use. In one case, a client stated that they had proposed a change based on their retention of new council. I replied to her with the name of the firm and the particular attorney that was likely the source. She laughed as she confirmed that I was correct in my assumption.
Similar to Air Traffic Control, one should expect their lawyer to have been tested and qualified in the area they operate. Actual lives and livelihood can easily be at stake, it's important stuff. Also up for consideration, whether having more lawyers has really helped society.
I think practical experience should be used for hiring and promotion rather than just having a degree, excluding someone with practical experience because there’s no degree is protectionism of an industry or job just like having to join a union to work. It’s also used by by licensing boards to not over populate their industry to keep wages higher, that being said there probably should still be a test of some sort to demonstrate your practical knowledge.
It wasn't that long ago that all these professions didn't require a college degree and government exam. To become a doctor you studied under a current doctor until he said you were ready. Same with lawyers. Almost all professions used apprenticeships.
In 1994, while I was in College, we had a guest speaker, that was called a "Mustang". He never went to University, never went to Law School. He started in an Attorney's office, and worked his way up, and was still an Attorney-in-Good-Standing with the State Bar. When he spoke to us, he was in his 90's. He said he would ride his horse to the office every morning.
If I’m doing my math right, the guy you’re talking about studied law during the 1920s/30s. Back then, hardly any lawyers went to law school, so his case isn’t unusual at all. Totally different landscape nowadays compared to 100 years ago.
As a professor for several years, I always thought that most difficult tests test memorization and study skills more than whether they learned what I was trying to teach. I evolved take-home tests where the student did practical work that the course was supposed to facilitate. The most important aspect is that it was followed by an in-class portion where the student had to defend or apply their take-home work in a way that would be impossible if they had not done the work.
My point is that if a portfolio is a substitute for the exam, the applicant should be required to defend the work on their portfolio in some controlled way.
Steve: In addition to the Trial Practice curriculum you mentioned, another very valuable course offered at my law school was the Business of Law. Essentially, how does one start at square one and coordinate all the moving parts of a profitable and sustainable law practce. An example of one topic was how to charge for your services and what variables go into setting an hourly rate. All basic stuff but unless one has previously built a start up from scratch, the nuts and bolts of profit and loss can be a difficult lesson. And yes, studying for the Bar was a full time job for 3 months! Regards, Jeff'
I know at least two lawyers that passed the bar exam in Pennsylvania that shouldn’t be lawyers. Well in one case he’s not a lawyer any longer. In the other case a law firm that I have used for 30 years told me that the Pennsylvania state police trooper who gave me a citation which ended up being malicious prosecution, was a good guy. He said Nick is a good guy. Obviously they’ve lost our confidence in our relationship both as business and personally for my entire family. Now I go around telling people don’t use that law firm and here is why. I’ve recommended many people over the decades and they’ve made lots of money from my recommendations. I sent them an individual who had an injury and they got him $25,000 and they got 35% of that, I could’ve sent him to other attorneys. All it takes is one stupid statement. By the way, at a hearing that I requested I beat the cop pro se in less than six minutes. I think some law firms are looking for a plea deal. That’s how they roll.
Trial Practice, where you learn that if you want a jury trial, you make damn sure you tick the checkbox for jury trial before you schedule the trial. XD
When I studied for the bar, I studied 2 1/2 months in my (soon to be) husband's deck. Passed on the first try and got the best tan of my life. I also was sick to my stomach and beyond, if you get my meaning.. Well, for the Big Days my internist (whom I consulted three times during Bar Prep) prescribed a suspension of belladonna. So I could sit for three hours without soiling myself. My hand to God. Belladonna. Tuesday New York. Wednesday Multistate. Jet to Boston Wednesday night. Thursday Massachusetts. I passed both. I practiced law. Clients stiffed me. I WANT A DO-OVER!!!!!!!
Regarding borrowing the work of others and modifying it: I've seen lots of attorneys do this. It is a great time saver to not have to reinvent the wheel on a similar case. Also, I'm not an attorney, but I've assisted several organizations in filing to be incorporated as a non-profit corporation and to become recognized as 501c3 by the IRS. I've had attorneys compliment my work and how it looks like it was drafted by an attorney. The thing is that the IRS has a publication that lays out what they want to see in the articles of incorporation. I copied that verbatim, added the name of the organization and modified the purposes listed to suit that organization. It is not rocket science and doesn't take 7 years of school to do. I've seen attorneys charge $5k to $10k for the same work.
The CT lawyer that mishandled my 102 year old mom's estate, pissed off the judge and the result was that I was personally, financially punished to the tune of $2,000 and I am NOT part of that estate? In addition, the judge wouldn't admit mom's will which held me to be the executor but then the judge decreed me to pay him $1,200 in fees and to pay the lawyer (who originally agreed to charge only $200) an additional $600 fee for her mistakes. Worse the judges decree which was sent to me demanding that I do impossible things, has not been settled after 3 full years because some of the stipulations that the lawyer made about money from mom's social security were impossible, to get, to begin with? The social security people laughed at me when I showed them the judges decree! Basically, I'm screwed due to an incompetent (but wealthier at my expense) lawyer. WTF can I do to get out of this impossible decree? I'm certainly no lawyer and the lawyer refuses to respond when I ask her what I must do?
Awesome video, Steve. I wouldn't be surprised if California does away with the bar exam. Greta Van Susteren says, the bar exam is a scam! I like your farewell, "I'm not perfect but I'm a limited edition. California if ever, could be the 4th state to eliminate the bar exam. 🍸Bottoms up bar friends! Who's watching 👀 Attorney Lehto with me in 2024?
Your assessment of value of the test itself and its scope reminds me of studying physics. So much material that I know I will never use because of my specialization. Often I wish I could just study the areas I'm interested in and become highly knowledgable in it. But the old ways die hard.
Step in the right direction. I think every state should do away with the bar exam so that the public courts won't be controlled by the strictly-for-profit legal industry anymore.
The bar exam literally almost killed me. I contracted bacterial pleural empyema shortly after taking the test. It is a good test for commitment. I don't want anyone as a fellow attorney without the level of commitment required to take and past the bar exam.
You always address very interesting topics that are exceptionally pertinent! I have learned so much from your videos that help my understanding of the legal profession. (I am retired but still professionally prepare income tax returns - which is a whole other ball game.).
people should just represent themselves at that point. I mean, why waste so much money hiring a fool to represent you when you can be that fool in court.
I have long heard the story that in my mother's family there was a long line of lawers and it was either her father or grandfather who was the last person in Massachusetts to bas the bar after reading law. This was an apprenticeship with his father who was a lawyer instead of going to law school.
If they do this they should require a list of things you have to do under the tutelage of an experienced supervisor. Other licenses require that... like student teaching. And you can't just student teach under any teacher. They have to be able to check off experience boxes too.
I can attest to passing things like written tests not inherently proving anything, especially multiple choice only test. I had a lab partner in a technical class who could pass every test at 100% with enough brute force studying, but they couldn't do the hands on part beyond step 3, which is something you do EVERY lab, well into 75% of a year long course. I on the other hand can do the hands on stuff very well, to the point I was fixing errors other students didn't notice passed down from the equipment vendor and test makers, but I have trouble passing written tests over 90% even with notes when permitted. It's an issue that needs to be solved, but just not doing it isn't very good either.
Some people are just good at tests. I am such a person. If you give me a multiple choice test, and i have a passing familiarity with the subject mater, i will likely pass. It's a skill. Usually in a multiple choice tests, at least two answers can be discarded without even much knowledge of the subject matter. In a 4 choice test, that drops you down to 50%. You can pass that just be guessing smartly.
It's similar to job interviews. I'm autistic and really struggle in interviews but if I'm applying for a job then in general I'll be the best person on earth at that job. If I'm not I'LL BECOME THE BEST PERSON. It's totally crazy that they place such importance on tasks unrelated to the job
@@jeromethiel4323i am too. They act like getting rid of the bar would make it easier but that's likely not the case. A lot of people sneak in because they're good at tests but bad at being lawyers. I'm SO GOOD at tests but I would be horrible at most types of work as a lawyer Also my dad was special forces. He knew a guy who SLEPT during instruction but got perfect results on every exam because he noticed a linguistic pattern in the answers. Like the correct answers were drawn from the textbooks but the other answers were made up by the person who wrote the test
@@no_peace Indeed. The process of getting a job is very different from the process of doing the job. I am also terrible at interviews, i just don't have the charisma for it. But generally, i was good to excellent at every job i ever had. At least those that required me to fix things, which is my strong point. People, OTOH, they suck. But given time, you can learn the navigate the social landscape. I've been there, brother, you can get there too. It's just harder for you than most.
@@no_peace Yep. This is my experience too. A good instructor doesn't write multiple guess or true/false tests. A good instructor will craft a test that doesn't directly involve any of the examples, but instead requires you to prove you understand the underlying concepts. This is much harder to do, so most instructors don't bother. And the military is all about standardization, so they write a test and then keep using the same basic test with minor changes to keep the cheating down. But it doesn't take much to figure out the correct answer even if you have little to no knowledge of the subject material, because you can, as you say, pick up the pattern. Ask me how i know! ^-^
As a resident of Wisconsin our State's Diploma Privilege is used more as a marketing tactic than anything else to get people to come to Wisconsin Colleges. UW Madison Law School boasts about it on their website. From what I have seen Wisconsin has too many lawyers and certainly too many bad lawyers. I see the worst from generational lawyers where grandpa was a lawyer, then dad, then son. Many of them are given an extra easy ride thru the programs vs someone who is aiming to be the first lawyer in their family. Worst part is there is no easy way to know for sure which one has or hasn't passed the bar exam as they are not required to tell you.
1986: My firm paid for the Bar/BRI course which started 90 days before the exam, and the firm gave me 30 days off before the exam to study. Seems near impossible without that help.
You and Lehto are the best. When can I consider myself ready to take the bar exam? No!, not the leaving the bar exam. I will stop here I don't consent to searches or answer question. Have a nice day sir.
Heck, even taking a trial practice course doesn't really prepare you fully for real court - it's a start but there's a lot more to it. Observing actual real-life trials and better yet helping a lawyer prepare for and perform a trial is invaluable experience.
Law schools are racket. The super high tuition must be based on getting a piece of expected future earnings of students as lawyers because not a lot of capital required to book learn. Classroom, desks, books and someone to read and explain to a student.
One of my friends / coworker who is at least twice the engineer I am, but tests poorly. He studied for, took, failed, and repeated to process for the pe exam several times. At least 4 times, it might have been 7. I was moved on before he passed so I don't recall the exact number. He doesn't advocate removing the requirement.
I purchased two professional study books with examples and practice tests. I did them all. I wanted to pass the first time. In my company people would study the minimum and pray for a 70. It would take them 3 to 4 times. Not for me. I did get a 92.@@RoseNZieg
Some years ago I graduated with a law degree (UK based), in order to practice law as a solicitor (attorney for the USA readers) I would have work with an established firm, training in the different heads of practice. To be a Barrister one needs to attend the college, and only when approved is called to the Bar. The thought of a newly qualified law graduate, without practical experience, as either prosecutor or defender is rather terrifying.
I came from at country and time where numerous professions had a system where people served "articles" for a period time with an exam. Quite often these people were known as Article Clerks, in other words, a person served an apprenticeship.
This truly sounds like a handful of lawmakers, that are not lawyers, but want to be. Changing the laws so they can call themselves lawyers later on down the road.
You do realize that the overwhelming majority & when I say overwhelming majority I'm talking roughly 80% of lawmakers went to law school right. Also, you do realize that doing a form of internship is actually WAY more valuable than trying to learn stuff out of a book right.
@@kenyattaclay7666if you can’t pass the bar you can’t be a lawyer I don’t care how black or trans you are or what you paid some Indian on fiver to put in your “portfolio”
@@kenyattaclay7666 The fact that so many of our "lawmakers" are lawyers explain a lot of the problems we have and our laws that make no sense to regular people.
@@ZboeC5 I’d actually say it’s the other way around that so many “regular” people don’t understand the laws. Sorry but it’s when you get a bunch of idiots who are high school dropouts. took three tries to pass the GED test & have zero basic understanding of the constitution like that bobblehead in Colorado that we have problems. Sorry but “regular” people shouldn’t have a damn thing to do with making laws & we should have higher standards for our elected officials.
I've taken a number of certification exams that not only had an extremely high failure rate but took hours to complete. I appreciate both aspects of that as it weeded out the people that weren't capable of the job. Those exams really only covered the basics and tested for minimum needed understanding to do the job mostly competently.
Ok. I'm autistic. I can hardly talk. I am a genius. I took an exam for work that took everyone else several hours, but it took me 45 minutes. The person running the exam said "this test is supposed to take several hours. Are you SURE YOU'RE DONE?" so I sat back down and stared at my test for 10 minutes. Because at the time I was not able to advocate for myself. Am I qualified to do the job? 🙄
One of the things that having to pass a bar exam is that people will now value their license because it was hard to get. Using the disadvantaged to lower standards is usually a cover for some other reason less optically sound
Then where do you draw the line exactly? I have a construction supervisors license. I have never used more than 30% of my exam or class study. Areas of building I won't touch. I also have my EMT certification, once again lots of knowledge that I haven't touched. It comes down to at least knowing something on everything. Even just for the simple fact, if the situation should arise, you can ar least explain your position or view it articulately enough to be understood by others in your profession or field.
I have always wondered what would happen if a witness were to protest being limited on their answers, since one swears to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". If either of the lawyers or the judge restricts the answers, that would be forcing the witness to purger themselves by not telling the whole truth.
Does anyone remember the gateway exam? Two of my six kids had to take a gateway exam to get a highschool diploma. It didn't matter if you made straight A's and didn't miss a day. You had to take this test at the end of senior year that took a couple days. If you couldn't pass it you didn't get a diploma regardless of your grades. People raised hell because some kids couldn't pass it even though they had good grades on their report cards. Now kids are getting diplomas that can't read an analog clock or read cursive. So a highschool diploma doesn't mean anything anymore.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but they also pass people without having to learn how to use Morse code for the telegraph 😔 Truly, the kids these days live in the world of today and not the good world that you grew up in.
That makes sense! Narrow the bar exam to what they are actually going to practice! Isn't this concept similar to college courses? For example, you CAN have general studies but, you can also have classes designed specifically for the subject you're going to school for.
Very much the same with the roofing contractor's license exams in Florida. I will say most of the questions were applicable to what a roofing contractor can expect to see.
Hi Steve I like your shirt. I worked at the old tucker plant in Ypsilanti its marshplayting when we opened the plant their was a tucker car in the plant they took it to Henry Ford Is museum.I know you like cars so do I keep up the good work love the channel
Steve, if the Bar Exam is like the Engineering Licensure exams, they count wrong answers until you have missed too many questions to pass, and then they quit counting the wrong answers and give you a fail at 68 or 69%. So a lot of people who “almost pass” keep retaking the exam without studying enough to actually pass it. And those who hand xeroxed their way through their undergrad degree may never pass it. The experience could be verified the same way Engineering Boards verify it. The candidate states their experience and what Licensed Engineer they did it under. The Board then sends letters to those licensees requesting they verify the experience. Engineers are required to have a minimum of four years of more complex work in a variety of specialty areas, with increasing levels of responsibility and difficulty.
so now it appears you have no idea what an apprenticeship is do you. Police academies don't last 3-5 years like law school does and having to serve an apprenticeship means that lawyer will actually know what they are doing before they start practicing law.
Because the bar exam, at least in Colorado, doesn't test how to advocate for a client in a courtroom, or draft a will, or how to write a legal motion or brief, etc. It is mostly multiple choice questions which test basic areas of law.
I spent 7 hours a day, 5 days a week for 30 years in Calif courtrooms. I saw plenty of idiots that did pass the bar exam!. California continues to lead the nation with novel ideas that are deteriorating our society
When I graduated with a BS in EE all the faculty were telling me I really needed to take the Engineer In Training exam. This is a comprehensive, many subject test where they quiz you on Math, Statics (Civil Engineering stuff), Dynamics and ThermoDynamics (Mechanical Engineering stuff), Circuits (EE stuff--yay), etc, etc. Lots of subjects. And when I ask "why would I want to take this" the answer is "it's a prerequisite for becoming a Professional Engineer". ok... "Why would I want to be a PE?" "Oh, well *sputter* *sputter* ok, so many jobs in Civil Engineering or Mechanical require a PE". "I'm not a CE or ME, why does an EE need to be a PE?" "Ummmm... I've gotten a couple contracts just because I could put PE after my name." Hard Pass. 40 years later, I'm happy not to have wasted the time on it. Never once did anybody in my working life ask "are you a PE?"
When I was in training to be an insurance agent, we had to pass the state test to actually work. Three weeks of training were dedicated to learning the rules for passing the test. There were 30 folks in my class. I studied nights and weekends also. Half the class passed on the first attempt. The younger generation, didn’t take the test seriously, and all of them failed three times and were fired. Months later, apparently someone challenged the studying after hours without pay, so I had to guess how many hours I spent studying, and was paid overtime for those hours.
a less generous telling is younger people who have more obligations in life because of low pay and inflation could not afford the additional time clearly required to pass this test that their employer wanted them to pass and were fired in retaliation for them not giving the employer free work. And you were a scab who benefited from their fight. But I do see why you tell it the way you do.
I remember cramming all day for an exam in grad school, memorizing everything in a list, bold text, italics; going in and taking the exam in like 15 minutes, getting perfect scores on almost everything, walking out the door and immediately forgetting almost-everythimg.
When I clicked on this video I thought it was a dumb idea to get rid of the bar exam. My daughter passed it on her first attempt (in CA). After your presentation, I now think an alternative *could* be better but the potential cheating aspects need some real (strict?) scrutiny. My daughter loves lawyer jokes! I think alternatives to written questions would be good. My wife is a retired teacher so I know about "multiple intelligences" (which don't have to do with intellect, but with how different people learn). As a non-lawyer, the only thing I know is that court is not like Perry Mason, and that when examining a witness one never asks a question to which one does not already know the answer!
When I was younger I was admitted to my local bar every Friday does that count 😂😂😂😂
How was the happy hour?
😂😂😂
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Dude's over here takin' shots!
You must of had to deal with a lot of objections…you’re expert level! Lol
I've been on 3 juries in my day. In one, a civil suit the plaintiffs' lawyer was the only one to ask questions and did all the harm. In the jury room we talked more about that lawyer than we did the case. One vote in favor of the defendant. On another in a criminal case, we raised the question (in the jury room) of whether or not the search was legal. The judge said we couldn't consider that as it was not raised by the defendant. We found the guy guilty. Hundreds of pounds in drugs and thousands in cash was recovered. A few weeks later I'm reading in the paper how the guy had a new attorney and was released because the search was deemed illegal.
And the judge probably lied to you. They sure HATE IT, but jury nullification is one of the main reasons for the jury to exist. In Indiana, the jury decides the law and the facts (on paper anyway, I'm sure they lie about that too).
Darrell Brooks kept trying to tell the jury that they decide the law, judge wasn't going to let it happen
@@VinlaellNot gonna let it happen? But it did happen. She told them to disregard what he said but judge is powerless in how the jury votes.
It is interesting that the judge would bring up that point himself, if not part of the case. That is partly of how the law works. An attorney can "accidentally" slip in statements to influence a jury, but the jury is supposed to ignore anything not properly submitted.
The crazy part is if you don't bring it up the other side can't question your witness about it. And I just learned that in court lol
When I took the bar exam in 1980, less than half passed. I was lucky, I made it on my first time, but a lot of candidates were there for their third and fourth tries. One elderly gent had a heart attack and they took the poor soul out on a stretcher with EMS; it was the talk of the room for the next day. Like Steve I studied nonstop 3 months like it was a job, 9-5 every day. Could never do it again.
I waived into Michigan after practicing long enough in another state. I understand Florida doesn't allow one to waive in and one has to take the bar.
Ditto, graduated Dec of 79' took the bar in Feb of 80'. Only 6 weeks to cram but passed.
@@PatentDude When I took the Florida bar exam in the early 1980s, they accepted the multistate portion from your home state, so you only had to take the Florida-specific portion, which was heavy on Florida state constitutional law. Was an easy test, just memorisation.
That's just what we need. More less qualified lawyers.
Sir, you wasn't lucky to pass the bar. It meant you studied hard. Put in the work to prepare for it and you must be fairly intelligent in order to pass it on the first time
Not like we don't have enough incompetent and unknowledgeable lawyers and worse, awful judges, and this won't help at all.
I'm not certain that's a ridiculous amount of memorization is a good test for lawyers. After all, as you said, the bar exam clearly does not prevent a fraction of lawyers being completely incompetent. Also, an important part of law is being able to look up and reference.
I would compare it to the professional engineering exams, which are open everything. You can bring books, notes, or even exam guides. As an engineer, you will have those references when you do work, and so you should be able to have them during the test.
When something isn't working, you should change it. We just need to figure out what to change it to
@@Benjamin1986980 Keep the BAR but dial it down a bit. IMO putting into place a residency program for Lawyers would also help. Medical professionals have to be overseen and taught firsthand - why don't lawyers?
@@Benjamin1986980 _"When something isn't working, you should change it."_ If you think an important, long-established solution is not working _well enough,_ you'd better have first clearly understood the rationale of those responsible for the current solution prior to making that judgement. Next, question if you have a solution which better meets the current criteria; then do a cost-benefit analysis, taking in to account the possibility and cost of failure; and finally, and only then do you question if it should be changed.
It's going to depend entirely on what the bar's review of the work system will wind up looking. But this might open the door up even further for nepotism, who is going to take random nobodies into their practice to not only act as a teacher and mentor but also having to also pay them while they learn? Only people given such a chance is going to be well connected rich kids. So how is the bar going to determine if they've learnt enough to practice law on their own?
@@Frag-ile -- Who is going to take them in? How about public-interest law firms? Also, look for prosecutor's offices and public defender's offices to open up some slots.
Lowering standards always works out well....
What could possibly go wrong?
I'm very proud of my participation trophies, thank you very much
Accreditation is a valuable tool, but accreditation should be voluntary. Not allowing everyone to participate in any profession is anti-free market.
@ohsweetmystery hard disagree, would you want an unaccredited surgeon to do surgery on you. Accreditation is to make sure people have enough knowledge to be more specific. All trades should be merit based and accreditation is one way to do that
@@ohsweetmystery Accreditation is a way to identify who is qualified for a task. Some professions need to get it right, to the degree possible, on the first try. Lawyering is one such field. Medical is another, piloting, architecture, engineering, even electricians and plumbers. If they do their job correctly the public is well served. If not, the public is placed at undo risk and is potentially harmed. And they tend to work in areas that don't allow for do-overs.
If at first you don't succeed, drop all the standards. Wow. Clown World.
If I am not mistaken, in NC you need only to be vetted by the bar to take the exam, no law degree necessary. I knew a lawyer once, who was known in certain circles to be the best in the area, who was well known to take high profile criminal cases, told me when I was a young child about the time he dropped out of law school. The son of a farmer, found out in his first year of law school, that you didn't need a law degree to practice law, so he saved his money, and spent all his time in the law library, watching courtrooms, and talking to other lawyers. His lesson to me, was that knowledge is real power, not a wall decoration. Some say he was a very smart man. He could fix a tractor too. lol
Vinnie??? You know Vinnie?
Yeah. That's my cousin.
He's thinking of the plot of Catch Me if You Can.
Are you sure about that? How many movies am I referencing, dear?@@YoungGirlz8463
I tell people to learn everything they can about any business they work for. They may not get promoted but the knowledge gained may get them a better job in the future.
In 1992, I took my electrical contractor licensing test. I had 8,000 hours primarily in residential, with the full intention of concentrating on residential. I had to be tested on commercial, industrial, hospital redundant electrical systems etc. In other words, things I will never use. So I totally get where you're coming from.
idk. Do you want some unknowledgeable "lawyer" to represent you ?
@@sleepyearthDepends, is he unknowledgeable about parts of the law that literally have nothing to do with the case at hand but knows all the related law? Copyright law isn't helpful in traffic court after all.
Shall we make it less challenging for those you wish to specialize in civil rights and criminal law?
Alternate paths to licensure has been a thing for Architects and Engineers for a long time, but at the end you still had to take some kind of examination to turn that experience into an actual license. I could see having a truncated exam based on experience as long as you meet certain criteria, but there really should be a way to prove your knowledge and experience. 🍻
I would think that a combo is also the way to go there.
My main worry about this type of thing is that you might also have some places taking advantage of this kind of setup because, well, what better way to solve issues with not having enough public defenders
Ya, but you don't need a licence for 95% of engineering positions, and in some industries a PE license literally means nothing
I (as an architect) would say that architecture licensing exams are as useful as a 1 legged man in an a$$ kicking contest. For 2 reasons:
1. I know architects who pass and couldn't do half of what other architects can do who didn't pass some of the sections the first time around.
#2, the exams are timed and multiple choice. There is no real world application where you are in an office and someone says, "sorry you are out of time, throw the whole project away." As for the multiple choice, you NEVER guess at something. If you don't know it, you research and review and if you are still in doubt, you make phone calls.
And any attorney who complains about taking the exams are crying to the wrong people. Architects (when I took my exam) were 7 exams (granted they didn't need to be done all at once), 5 years of architecture school (no undergrad partying major here), 3 years of apprenticeship, and THEN you could sit for your exams. At least architects are paid better than attorneys....oh wait, we arn't even paid remotely the same level.
P.S. I am fun at parties before you ask. :)
@@uawldct I don't disagree with you one bit there. I have worked in Architecture for over 20 years, I do more "architecture" than some of the licensed Architects I know, so I get it. Nothing will ever beat practical experience, nor should it. That's why I think a more hybrid system that takes into account real world experience but tests it in a setting that is fitting of the profession would be ideal. The test may be a waste, but the ARB Interview does serve the purpose of weeding out those who should not be licensed. 🍻
In the age of AI, many jobs like non trial lawyers, pharmacists, many doctors, engineers, etc.. will be obsolete in a few years..💯💯
Many healthcare companies already started using computer aided treatments years ago and the old doctors just hated it because they saw the writing on the wall.. 😊😊
California has been a 3 day exam since mid 80s. First two days same as everywhere else. 3rd day was the Practical portion, you are given a case file and asked to complete a project. One year was write a will, another was draft a contract, not sure what others were. This may be where some have problems.
The next gen bar exam (ube) is rumored to move to this and away from multiple choice.
I thought that was the dumbest part of the exam. Functionally it is a formatting, speed writing, and typing speed test.
When I took my first bar exam it was two and a half days. Two days of essays and a half day of multi state if I recall correctly.
AI will be able to complete the exams in one hour.. 😊😊😊
It was decades ago now (I am pushing 80), but I remember the case (in California) of a legal secretary who impressed the attorney she was working for, who encouraged her to become an attorney. It was impractical for her to attend law school, so she pursued a very old method of qualifying for the bar exam that was still on the books, although rare by then: she "read the law" with her boss, and passed the bar exam on the first try. This "portfolio" approach sounds something like reading the law.
So law school is a waste of money if you can get a job at a law firm. What about people who can't get hired by a law firm? Can they read the law too?
Nope portfolio method is a scam so your lawyer doesn’t have to be able to even read when they lock you up
Iowa also had a process for people to "read the law" under the direction of a practicing attorney and then take the exam without law school. I remember in the 90s the last practicing attorney in Iowa to enter the bar that way retired.
AI can read all of those law books in seconds.. 😊😊
That's how Kim Kardashian is working towards her California law license right now.
Wahoo! With ChatGPT and no bar exam, and a quick printer or degree from Bob's State University ... I'm off to California to practice and earn some quick and dirty cash!
It's a favorite go to phrase of the cops after being quoted the law verbatim "Are you a lawyer?"......No, but neither are they and they like to forget about parts that inconvenience them all to often. Lawyers are just people that have devoted their careers to learning the law and working in it everyday. Average people can read the laws as well ( sometimes many times ) and open multiple tabs to the exclusions, addendums etc. to get a good understanding of it. I have yet to meet a LEO ( and I have 3 in my family ) that bothers with actually reading the statutes after what they get in the academies to pass other than the memos handed to them at their stations. End Qualified Immunity.
It's funny how allowing practical experience is lowering standards for lawyers but...not for cops!
Cali the Oprah of lawyers🙄 YOUR a lawyer and YOUR a lawyer and YOUR a lawyer! PERFECT, just what the world needs
I'm a CPA and accountants experience much of what you're talking about with lawyers. We learn about all kinds of accounting topics to pass the exam that we will NEVER use in our career.
Yep
That also describes college. You waste money and time on courses that have nothing to with your major
My heartburn with the bar exam is that it's still "localized." For example, I was one of those nontraditional law students that attended law school when I was 40 while holding down a fulltime job and having a family. I graduated from a law school in Missouri, which offers the Uniform Bar Exam, but I ended up moving to Texas shortly after graduation. The Texas bar exam is "localized" and contains a fair bit on oil & gas, a topic no law student in Missouri would study. Needless to say, despite spending about eight weeks doing the Texas BARBRI prep course, I missed passing by that >< much. Also, pro tip: Don't go through a divorce while studying for or taking the bar exam. It's been 13 years since that two-day nightmare. I figure if I ever want to practice law as a retirement gig, I'll need to retire to Oklahoma (which also has and oil & gas topic in their bar exam) and take the Missouri bar, since Oklahoma offers reciprocity to those licensed in Missouri.
Your divorce only took 2 days? That doesn't sound so bad.
LOL@@timbowden1680
Got to love it when people decide that being fair matters more than making sure people are competent at their job.
It's funny and had to smile at one point in this one because of a personal experience. I took legal studies in high school and was on the team that won the state mock trial competition (I'm not a lawyer though.) One of the things I was dinged on in a previous competition was doing what you described. I was not admitting my exhibits. So was so happy I remembered to do that at state. I loved doing mock trials. I learned so much that I still use today.
Who wants all of these lawyers who can't pass the bar defending them from going to prison.
Or even prosecuting them .
The real question is how will they punish dissenting viewpoints if they can't disbar people who represent disfavored people?
It’s a woke thing. Statistically “people of color” have a hard time with testing.
Can’t wait till they lower the standards for cardiologists to promote DEI!
So you do realize that doing an intensive internship like Steve described is way more valuable than someone who could memorize a few fact out of a book right. Also, maybe read a little bit about Justice Robert Jackson. Justice Jackson never passed the bar nor did he even finish law school. Instead he became a lawyers apprentice & rose to become a Supreme Court justice and in 1945 took a temporary leave from the Supreme Court to become the lead prosecutor in one of the most important court cases in world history, a trial that is still used this very day in similar trials which was the Nuremberg Trials. The simple fact is bar exams being required is a fairly brand new thing & they haven't improved the quality of attorney's & I would argue they have gotten worse.
@@mlconleyyou still have to join the bar....
I know a lot of law students who went through the bar exam - they described it as 3 years of law school compressed in 2 days. From what I've heard, CA has been considered the hardest bar exam to pass. I like the idea of an apprenticeship, as they can get paid and would have some work experience. Your thought about criminal vs. civil law sounds good - that would make the bar exam more flexible for those who want to go in one area.
NY and NJ always had the reputation on the East Coast of being the hardest. I think one of the Kennedys took something like 10 times to pass the NY bar exam.
@@jeffg.8964 Yes - NY was pretty hard, comparable to CA.
@@Erik_The_Viking I was lucky, passed both first time out, ditto for Florida. But I did nothing but study straight for 3 months like it was a regular job.
@@jeffg.8964you’re wrong. NJ and NY both have a 266 minimum (average is 270). Neighboring PA has 273
@@tomjones2056 What was it back in 1980, that’s when I took it? I know less than half passed that sat for the summer 1980 test. Have no idea what the numbers are today 43 years later.
What could possibly go wrong?
Nothing, the weak will still be weeded out.
You are so right on this one. I am a carpenter and been doing it for over 25 years. Young guys do have skills but for them to take a client on and do their own project. There going to make lots of mistakes that should never happen because it on hurts their client. Money from mistakes can absolutely ruin them
"For me, the sixth time was the charm." --Vincent LaGuardia Gambini
Ben loves Volume 5 of the OED.
And all this time I thought a bar exam was a test of one's ability to mix drinks!
Engineers in Canada require 4 years of experience working under a licensed professional engineer and then are required to take an ethics exam. (With a qualifying engineering degree of course) it's not a terrible system.
That's no uncommon in order to obtain a PE.
IMO companies want engineers with PE"s as it pushes liability onto the engineer and not the company.
There never was enough of an incentive for me to get my PE.
People die if an engineer messes up, no so much a lawyer
@@cas2985People can die if a lawyer bungles a criminal defense case resulting in their client either dying in prison or being executed.
Canada judging ethics is peak clown world show.
U.S. engineers have to get a four year engineering degree, pass an FE exam, apprentice for 4 years, then take a PE exam to become a professional engineer. The FE is a fundamental of engineering exam, the PE is more focused on your branch on engineering (electrical, civil, etc...).
Make it easier....there's too many lawyers already!
Hi Steve, I used to work in a university in Scotland and you got all sorts people like that. An nursing student that doesn't like blood, a teaching student that cannot speak in front of people. I do agree with you about how people should be made to learn and do certain things that are key to their future career.
Former California Governor Pete Wilson failed the bar 3 times, passing the bar the 4th time. Former LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa failed the bar 4 times...then stopped trying.
Here's hoping that they don't make these same justifications for reducing the qualifications required for doctors.
Based on my experience with many doctors, they already have...
We need it to be easy to become an airline pilot as well. What could go wrong with that?
Vincent LaGuardia Gambini failed the bar *6 times* and went on to be a brilliant criminal defense attorney...
That has already happened nationally. If you're smart, you'll be racist when choosing a doctor if he/she is young.
9:20 ->>>
Abolish the bar. Im done with their word manipulation, criminal, what it is, a monopoly made to drawn out and make you go broke trying to pay a lawer. If you cant get all the evidence together and present it for a wrong doing, than you should be put in jail for malicious prosecution. All this corporate law that is imposed on us needs to go bye bye.
Does this mean there will actually be "lawyer dogs" now
🤣
If your agenda is something other than merit, you must eliminate any objective measure of merit.
Im glad we are challenging the rather newish system of examination. There should be more than 1 path accessible to become a licensed attourney. Especially in a field as the law, specialized training, apprenticeships many times better demonstrate ability and knowledge needed to be an effective and competent officer of the court.
The recognition of a particular lawyer's or firm's work is so real. I worked in a field which was very common. There were a lot of consumers and a lot of service providers, but the number of law practices that served both was a relatively small pool (perhaps 50 statewide)
I am not an attorney. But I could read an RFP, a proposed change in an agreement from a client or just simple docs from a competitor and instantly and accurately know the law firm that they use. In one case, a client stated that they had proposed a change based on their retention of new council. I replied to her with the name of the firm and the particular attorney that was likely the source. She laughed as she confirmed that I was correct in my assumption.
My first couple of jury trials, I made damn sure every client knew that I was new, so that they had options.
Similar to Air Traffic Control, one should expect their lawyer to have been tested and qualified in the area they operate. Actual lives and livelihood can easily be at stake, it's important stuff.
Also up for consideration, whether having more lawyers has really helped society.
I think practical experience should be used for hiring and promotion rather than just having a degree, excluding someone with practical experience because there’s no degree is protectionism of an industry or job just like having to join a union to work. It’s also used by by licensing boards to not over populate their industry to keep wages higher, that being said there probably should still be a test of some sort to demonstrate your practical knowledge.
Err.. no.. you have to do both as civil matters may convert to criminal...
It wasn't that long ago that all these professions didn't require a college degree and government exam. To become a doctor you studied under a current doctor until he said you were ready. Same with lawyers. Almost all professions used apprenticeships.
That would have been quite some time ago
Doctors also used to use leeches and drill holes in people's heads.
@TheBoogerJames leeches are still used, so are maggots, and holes are still drilled in heads.
@@TheBoogerJamesare you implying they're better now? Look at the statistics. Tests ain't fixing it
In 1994, while I was in College, we had a guest speaker, that was called a "Mustang". He never went to University, never went to Law School. He started in an Attorney's office, and worked his way up, and was still an Attorney-in-Good-Standing with the State Bar. When he spoke to us, he was in his 90's. He said he would ride his horse to the office every morning.
If I’m doing my math right, the guy you’re talking about studied law during the 1920s/30s. Back then, hardly any lawyers went to law school, so his case isn’t unusual at all. Totally different landscape nowadays compared to 100 years ago.
As a professor for several years, I always thought that most difficult tests test memorization and study skills more than whether they learned what I was trying to teach. I evolved take-home tests where the student did practical work that the course was supposed to facilitate. The most important aspect is that it was followed by an in-class portion where the student had to defend or apply their take-home work in a way that would be impossible if they had not done the work.
My point is that if a portfolio is a substitute for the exam, the applicant should be required to defend the work on their portfolio in some controlled way.
@@stevengordon3271yeah like, show they can do the job
What a coincidence! In 1992 I sat for the RN in exam for 2 days in San Francisco. No computers back there, right Steve. It was grueling as well.
So in CA before you hire a lawyer just ask them if they took and passed the bar....
There are plenty of lawyers who have passed the bar who for one reason or another are now terrible lawyers.
Knowing California (I've lived here 50 years), they'll make a law forbidding making any claims about bar involvement.
Steve: In addition to the Trial Practice curriculum you mentioned, another very valuable course offered at my law school was the Business of Law. Essentially, how does one start at square one and coordinate all the moving parts of a profitable and sustainable law practce. An example of one topic was how to charge for your services and what variables go into setting an hourly rate. All basic stuff but unless one has previously built a start up from scratch, the nuts and bolts of profit and loss can be a difficult lesson. And yes, studying for the Bar was a full time job for 3 months! Regards, Jeff'
I know at least two lawyers that passed the bar exam in Pennsylvania that shouldn’t be lawyers. Well in one case he’s not a lawyer any longer. In the other case a law firm that I have used for 30 years told me that the Pennsylvania state police trooper who gave me a citation which ended up being malicious prosecution, was a good guy. He said Nick is a good guy. Obviously they’ve lost our confidence in our relationship both as business and personally for my entire family. Now I go around telling people don’t use that law firm and here is why. I’ve recommended many people over the decades and they’ve made lots of money from my recommendations. I sent them an individual who had an injury and they got him $25,000 and they got 35% of that, I could’ve sent him to other attorneys. All it takes is one stupid statement. By the way, at a hearing that I requested I beat the cop pro se in less than six minutes. I think some law firms are looking for a plea deal. That’s how they roll.
That is going dumb down attorney like everyone else in California
Trial Practice, where you learn that if you want a jury trial, you make damn sure you tick the checkbox for jury trial before you schedule the trial. XD
When I studied for the bar, I studied 2 1/2 months in my (soon to be) husband's deck. Passed on the first try and got the best tan of my life. I also was sick to my stomach and beyond, if you get my meaning.. Well, for the Big Days my internist (whom I consulted three times during Bar Prep) prescribed a suspension of belladonna. So I could sit for three hours without soiling myself. My hand to God. Belladonna. Tuesday New York. Wednesday Multistate. Jet to Boston Wednesday night. Thursday Massachusetts. I passed both. I practiced law. Clients stiffed me. I WANT A DO-OVER!!!!!!!
Studying for the bar exam, as you described it, and as I experienced it, sounds like great training for a RUclips channel focusing on legal issues
Regarding borrowing the work of others and modifying it: I've seen lots of attorneys do this. It is a great time saver to not have to reinvent the wheel on a similar case.
Also, I'm not an attorney, but I've assisted several organizations in filing to be incorporated as a non-profit corporation and to become recognized as 501c3 by the IRS. I've had attorneys compliment my work and how it looks like it was drafted by an attorney. The thing is that the IRS has a publication that lays out what they want to see in the articles of incorporation. I copied that verbatim, added the name of the organization and modified the purposes listed to suit that organization. It is not rocket science and doesn't take 7 years of school to do. I've seen attorneys charge $5k to $10k for the same work.
The CT lawyer that mishandled my 102 year old mom's estate, pissed off the judge and the result was that I was personally, financially punished to the tune of $2,000 and I am NOT part of that estate? In addition, the judge wouldn't admit mom's will which held me to be the executor but then the judge decreed me to pay him $1,200 in fees and to pay the lawyer (who originally agreed to charge only $200) an additional $600 fee for her mistakes. Worse the judges decree which was sent to me demanding that I do impossible things, has not been settled after 3 full years because some of the stipulations that the lawyer made about money from mom's social security were impossible, to get, to begin with? The social security people laughed at me when I showed them the judges decree! Basically, I'm screwed due to an incompetent (but wealthier at my expense) lawyer. WTF can I do to get out of this impossible decree? I'm certainly no lawyer and the lawyer refuses to respond when I ask her what I must do?
Sounds like you need a lawyer
Consult with an expert attorney.
Make a formal complaint to the state bar or the state Supreme Court. In most states both have jurisdiction over attorney misconduct.
State bar licensing and judicial standards commission. Be sure you have your facts straight.
Awesome video, Steve. I wouldn't be surprised if California does away with the bar exam. Greta Van Susteren says, the bar exam is a scam! I like your farewell, "I'm not perfect but I'm a limited edition. California if ever, could be the 4th state to eliminate the bar exam. 🍸Bottoms up bar friends! Who's watching 👀 Attorney Lehto with me in 2024?
Remember Steve - you denied it - but the International British Accredited Registry is headquartered in London, England - since 1947.
Your assessment of value of the test itself and its scope reminds me of studying physics. So much material that I know I will never use because of my specialization. Often I wish I could just study the areas I'm interested in and become highly knowledgable in it. But the old ways die hard.
Step in the right direction. I think every state should do away with the bar exam so that the public courts won't be controlled by the strictly-for-profit legal industry anymore.
The bar exam literally almost killed me. I contracted bacterial pleural empyema shortly after taking the test. It is a good test for commitment. I don't want anyone as a fellow attorney without the level of commitment required to take and past the bar exam.
You always address very interesting topics that are exceptionally pertinent! I have learned so much from your videos that help my understanding of the legal profession. (I am retired but still professionally prepare income tax returns - which is a whole other ball game.).
people should just represent themselves at that point. I mean, why waste so much money hiring a fool to represent you when you can be that fool in court.
I have long heard the story that in my mother's family there was a long line of lawers and it was either her father or grandfather who was the last person in Massachusetts to bas the bar after reading law. This was an apprenticeship with his father who was a lawyer instead of going to law school.
The devil is always in the details.
Amen
If they do this they should require a list of things you have to do under the tutelage of an experienced supervisor. Other licenses require that... like student teaching. And you can't just student teach under any teacher. They have to be able to check off experience boxes too.
I can attest to passing things like written tests not inherently proving anything, especially multiple choice only test. I had a lab partner in a technical class who could pass every test at 100% with enough brute force studying, but they couldn't do the hands on part beyond step 3, which is something you do EVERY lab, well into 75% of a year long course. I on the other hand can do the hands on stuff very well, to the point I was fixing errors other students didn't notice passed down from the equipment vendor and test makers, but I have trouble passing written tests over 90% even with notes when permitted. It's an issue that needs to be solved, but just not doing it isn't very good either.
Some people are just good at tests. I am such a person. If you give me a multiple choice test, and i have a passing familiarity with the subject mater, i will likely pass. It's a skill.
Usually in a multiple choice tests, at least two answers can be discarded without even much knowledge of the subject matter. In a 4 choice test, that drops you down to 50%. You can pass that just be guessing smartly.
It's similar to job interviews. I'm autistic and really struggle in interviews but if I'm applying for a job then in general I'll be the best person on earth at that job. If I'm not I'LL BECOME THE BEST PERSON. It's totally crazy that they place such importance on tasks unrelated to the job
@@jeromethiel4323i am too. They act like getting rid of the bar would make it easier but that's likely not the case. A lot of people sneak in because they're good at tests but bad at being lawyers. I'm SO GOOD at tests but I would be horrible at most types of work as a lawyer
Also my dad was special forces. He knew a guy who SLEPT during instruction but got perfect results on every exam because he noticed a linguistic pattern in the answers. Like the correct answers were drawn from the textbooks but the other answers were made up by the person who wrote the test
@@no_peace Indeed. The process of getting a job is very different from the process of doing the job. I am also terrible at interviews, i just don't have the charisma for it. But generally, i was good to excellent at every job i ever had.
At least those that required me to fix things, which is my strong point. People, OTOH, they suck. But given time, you can learn the navigate the social landscape. I've been there, brother, you can get there too. It's just harder for you than most.
@@no_peace Yep. This is my experience too. A good instructor doesn't write multiple guess or true/false tests. A good instructor will craft a test that doesn't directly involve any of the examples, but instead requires you to prove you understand the underlying concepts.
This is much harder to do, so most instructors don't bother. And the military is all about standardization, so they write a test and then keep using the same basic test with minor changes to keep the cheating down. But it doesn't take much to figure out the correct answer even if you have little to no knowledge of the subject material, because you can, as you say, pick up the pattern.
Ask me how i know! ^-^
As a resident of Wisconsin our State's Diploma Privilege is used more as a marketing tactic than anything else to get people to come to Wisconsin Colleges. UW Madison Law School boasts about it on their website. From what I have seen Wisconsin has too many lawyers and certainly too many bad lawyers. I see the worst from generational lawyers where grandpa was a lawyer, then dad, then son. Many of them are given an extra easy ride thru the programs vs someone who is aiming to be the first lawyer in their family. Worst part is there is no easy way to know for sure which one has or hasn't passed the bar exam as they are not required to tell you.
1986: My firm paid for the Bar/BRI course which started 90 days before the exam, and the firm gave me 30 days off before the exam to study. Seems near impossible without that help.
You and Lehto are the best. When can I consider myself ready to take the bar exam? No!, not the leaving the bar exam. I will stop here I don't consent to searches or answer question. Have a nice day sir.
Heck, even taking a trial practice course doesn't really prepare you fully for real court - it's a start but there's a lot more to it. Observing actual real-life trials and better yet helping a lawyer prepare for and perform a trial is invaluable experience.
Law schools are racket. The super high tuition must be based on getting a piece of expected future earnings of students as lawyers because not a lot of capital required to book learn. Classroom, desks, books and someone to read and explain to a student.
I was an Engineer before I retired. I studied every night for a year before I took the PE exam. I passed.
oddly, I know people who studied and still failed PE.
One of my friends / coworker who is at least twice the engineer I am, but tests poorly. He studied for, took, failed, and repeated to process for the pe exam several times. At least 4 times, it might have been 7. I was moved on before he passed so I don't recall the exact number. He doesn't advocate removing the requirement.
I purchased two professional study books with examples and practice tests. I did them all. I wanted to pass the first time. In my company people would study the minimum and pray for a 70. It would take them 3 to 4 times. Not for me. I did get a 92.@@RoseNZieg
@@unexpectedparolemadwerewol6565there is no requirement
The Bar I grew up in in west Phoenix is still there, true story.
Some years ago I graduated with a law degree (UK based), in order to practice law as a solicitor (attorney for the USA readers) I would have work with an established firm, training in the different heads of practice. To be a Barrister one needs to attend the college, and only when approved is called to the Bar. The thought of a newly qualified law graduate, without practical experience, as either prosecutor or defender is rather terrifying.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME???
I came from at country and time where numerous professions had a system where people served "articles" for a period time with an exam. Quite often these people were known as Article Clerks, in other words, a person served an apprenticeship.
This truly sounds like a handful of lawmakers, that are not lawyers, but want to be. Changing the laws so they can call themselves lawyers later on down the road.
You do realize that the overwhelming majority & when I say overwhelming majority I'm talking roughly 80% of lawmakers went to law school right. Also, you do realize that doing a form of internship is actually WAY more valuable than trying to learn stuff out of a book right.
Having "been there and done that", I can confidently say, "they are not the same thing."
@@kenyattaclay7666if you can’t pass the bar you can’t be a lawyer I don’t care how black or trans you are or what you paid some Indian on fiver to put in your “portfolio”
@@kenyattaclay7666 The fact that so many of our "lawmakers" are lawyers explain a lot of the problems we have and our laws that make no sense to regular people.
@@ZboeC5 I’d actually say it’s the other way around that so many “regular” people don’t understand the laws. Sorry but it’s when you get a bunch of idiots who are high school dropouts. took three tries to pass the GED test & have zero basic understanding of the constitution like that bobblehead in Colorado that we have problems. Sorry but “regular” people shouldn’t have a damn thing to do with making laws & we should have higher standards for our elected officials.
I've taken a number of certification exams that not only had an extremely high failure rate but took hours to complete. I appreciate both aspects of that as it weeded out the people that weren't capable of the job. Those exams really only covered the basics and tested for minimum needed understanding to do the job mostly competently.
Ok. I'm autistic. I can hardly talk. I am a genius. I took an exam for work that took everyone else several hours, but it took me 45 minutes. The person running the exam said "this test is supposed to take several hours. Are you SURE YOU'RE DONE?" so I sat back down and stared at my test for 10 minutes. Because at the time I was not able to advocate for myself. Am I qualified to do the job? 🙄
I forgot to say that I got a perfect score
One of the things that having to pass a bar exam is that people will now value their license because it was hard to get. Using the disadvantaged to lower standards is usually a cover for some other reason less optically sound
I'm always amazed when lawyers or doctors do stupid shit and lose their licenses.
THEY ARE NOT LOWERING STANDARDS
@@no_peace Your right they are eliminating standards
Then where do you draw the line exactly? I have a construction supervisors license. I have never used more than 30% of my exam or class study. Areas of building I won't touch. I also have my EMT certification, once again lots of knowledge that I haven't touched. It comes down to at least knowing something on everything. Even just for the simple fact, if the situation should arise, you can ar least explain your position or view it articulately enough to be understood by others in your profession or field.
Would that mean that California prisoners could "pass" the bar while in jail?
They would still need a law degree and would need to work under a licensed attorney for whatever period of time the state would require.
In theory one can become President whilst in jail, but can't vote, of course.
I have always wondered what would happen if a witness were to protest being limited on their answers, since one swears to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". If either of the lawyers or the judge restricts the answers, that would be forcing the witness to purger themselves by not telling the whole truth.
Does anyone remember the gateway exam? Two of my six kids had to take a gateway exam to get a highschool diploma. It didn't matter if you made straight A's and didn't miss a day. You had to take this test at the end of senior year that took a couple days. If you couldn't pass it you didn't get a diploma regardless of your grades. People raised hell because some kids couldn't pass it even though they had good grades on their report cards. Now kids are getting diplomas that can't read an analog clock or read cursive. So a highschool diploma doesn't mean anything anymore.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but they also pass people without having to learn how to use Morse code for the telegraph 😔 Truly, the kids these days live in the world of today and not the good world that you grew up in.
It is called the practice of law or practicing law.
That makes sense! Narrow the bar exam to what they are actually going to practice! Isn't this concept similar to college courses? For example, you CAN have general studies but, you can also have classes designed specifically for the subject you're going to school for.
I don't understand why they couldn't have endorsements that they add over time as needed. Just like with a driver's license or any other certification
Very much the same with the roofing contractor's license exams in Florida. I will say most of the questions were applicable to what a roofing contractor can expect to see.
Ben on Vols. IV and V of the OED.
Hiding in the shadows. 😎
Hi Steve I like your shirt. I worked at the old tucker plant in Ypsilanti its marshplayting when we opened the plant their was a tucker car in the plant they took it to Henry Ford Is museum.I know you like cars so do I keep up the good work love the channel
Next, CA might do away with Medical Exams to be a Doctor! (sarcasm)
You may be a prophet.
Steve, if the Bar Exam is like the Engineering Licensure exams, they count wrong answers until you have missed too many questions to pass, and then they quit counting the wrong answers and give you a fail at 68 or 69%. So a lot of people who “almost pass” keep retaking the exam without studying enough to actually pass it. And those who hand xeroxed their way through their undergrad degree may never pass it.
The experience could be verified the same way Engineering Boards verify it. The candidate states their experience and what Licensed Engineer they did it under. The Board then sends letters to those licensees requesting they verify the experience. Engineers are required to have a minimum of four years of more complex work in a variety of specialty areas, with increasing levels of responsibility and difficulty.
So now not only do cops not need to know the law, neither do lawyers in CA?
so now it appears you have no idea what an apprenticeship is do you. Police academies don't last 3-5 years like law school does and having to serve an apprenticeship means that lawyer will actually know what they are doing before they start practicing law.
Lowering the Bar.
How about we keep the Bar Exam and ditch the law school part?
Because the bar exam, at least in Colorado, doesn't test how to advocate for a client in a courtroom, or draft a will, or how to write a legal motion or brief, etc. It is mostly multiple choice questions which test basic areas of law.
In the name of equity, we'll lower standards until the standards are so low the public will be put at risk. Sad but true.
Communism instead of American Exceptionalism
Elect Trump or zip it
I remember the scene from My Cousin Vinnie about his preparing for the bar by working in a repair shop.
I though to get a law degree all you had to do is be able to chase an ambulance and catch it.
I spent 7 hours a day, 5 days a week for 30 years in Calif courtrooms. I saw plenty of idiots that did pass the bar exam!. California continues to lead the nation with novel ideas that are deteriorating our society
Abe Lincoln was a self schooled lawyer and practiced for 25 years.
When I graduated with a BS in EE all the faculty were telling me I really needed to take the Engineer In Training exam. This is a comprehensive, many subject test where they quiz you on Math, Statics (Civil Engineering stuff), Dynamics and ThermoDynamics (Mechanical Engineering stuff), Circuits (EE stuff--yay), etc, etc. Lots of subjects. And when I ask "why would I want to take this" the answer is "it's a prerequisite for becoming a Professional Engineer". ok... "Why would I want to be a PE?" "Oh, well *sputter* *sputter* ok, so many jobs in Civil Engineering or Mechanical require a PE". "I'm not a CE or ME, why does an EE need to be a PE?" "Ummmm... I've gotten a couple contracts just because I could put PE after my name." Hard Pass. 40 years later, I'm happy not to have wasted the time on it. Never once did anybody in my working life ask "are you a PE?"
so this is to allow KIM K. to be a lawyer i wonder.
Honor system and lawyers ? 😂😂😂
Keep the bar and remove the education. Passing the test is the proof of qualification
When I was in training to be an insurance agent, we had to pass the state test to actually work. Three weeks of training were dedicated to learning the rules for passing the test. There were 30 folks in my class. I studied nights and weekends also. Half the class passed on the first attempt. The younger generation, didn’t take the test seriously, and all of them failed three times and were fired. Months later, apparently someone challenged the studying after hours without pay, so I had to guess how many hours I spent studying, and was paid overtime for those hours.
a less generous telling is younger people who have more obligations in life because of low pay and inflation could not afford the additional time clearly required to pass this test that their employer wanted them to pass and were fired in retaliation for them not giving the employer free work.
And you were a scab who benefited from their fight.
But I do see why you tell it the way you do.
I remember cramming all day for an exam in grad school, memorizing everything in a list, bold text, italics; going in and taking the exam in like 15 minutes, getting perfect scores on almost everything, walking out the door and immediately forgetting almost-everythimg.
When I clicked on this video I thought it was a dumb idea to get rid of the bar exam. My daughter passed it on her first attempt (in CA). After your presentation, I now think an alternative *could* be better but the potential cheating aspects need some real (strict?) scrutiny. My daughter loves lawyer jokes! I think alternatives to written questions would be good. My wife is a retired teacher so I know about "multiple intelligences" (which don't have to do with intellect, but with how different people learn). As a non-lawyer, the only thing I know is that court is not like Perry Mason, and that when examining a witness one never asks a question to which one does not already know the answer!