Monday, October 12, 2009

Is a Uniform Bar a Good Thing or Not?

I received an email from Master Posse today: "It could mark one of the biggest changes for lawyers joining the profession since the first U.S. bar examination was given in Delaware in 1763 -- a single bar exam aimed at standardizing attorney credentials nationwide. Next year, at least 10 states are expected to switch to the Uniform Bar Exam, and 22 other jurisdictions are positioned to adopt the test in the next few years. The test will allow law school graduates to transport their bar scores across state lines without re-taking exams."

I'm curious as to whether this is a good thing or a bad thing.  Will this allow new lawyers to move to places where lawyers are needed--such as Vegas and Ohio where foreclosures are more abundant than attorneys to service mortgagors?  Or will this just draw more student to law school?  After all, one of the issues that I considered when deciding to go was whether I cared that the bar exam shackled me to state. Of course, in the end, it didn't really change my decision.  It's food for fodder in any case.  My intuition tells me it's a good thing.


Maybe this chick, a Harvard Grad, will take the uniform bar and find a real job in Iowa or something.

7 comments:

  1. I was hoping someone would blog on this. I saw the same article. Such a system would made "waive-ins" easier without the hassle of retesting. However, I also see the already saturated attorney market of location A open itself up to more lawyers who waive in from location B.

    It does make sense to me to "nationalize" the bar exam in a sense. The bar exam of my jurisdiction had not a single question about that state's law. Questions on the bar exam tend to be focused on general common law. I Texas is a glaring exception with its Oil & Gas section and Civ Pro. I don't see why an attorney shouldn't be able to transfer her score on the MBE and Multistate Essay to another jurisdiction.

    ReplyDelete
  2. But if lawyers were unfettered, why would they flock to a jurisdiction that is already saturated? For example? If I weren't limited to my 2 bars, I might be inclined to look for jobs in Alaska or Nevada. Then I could go where the job was, rather than limit the job search to my bars. One of my bar exams was pretty much the MBE and that's it. Bullshit that I even had to take it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Because most lawyers have a can-do attitude. Everyone believes that they will be in the top ten percent and land that high paying job. The dose of reality hits once you start networking and learning that the JD is unmarketable.

    ReplyDelete
  4. For all intents and purposes, the bar exam should be uniform. The MBE is uniform. So is the Professional Responsibility portion of the bar exam (the acceptable scores vary by State, but the exam itself is uniform and the results can be sent to any State).

    The downside is that lawyers in oversaturated markets (NY, CA) will be tempted to go to areas where there is not an over-supply of lawyers, i.e. WY, SD, ND. Plus, the standard of living in these latter States is MUCH lower than in the prior group. Then there will soon be an oversupply of lawyers in the latter group.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You know all those bar preparation services (Barbri, et al) would be fiercely opposed to allowing a single bar exam for the entire country...to much revenue would be lost from not having to take another prep course for another bar exam. Just my two cents..

    ReplyDelete
  6. I wonder if Barbri is lobbying different state bars against this trend.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Interesting that you would post one of Allison's videos in this discussion considering she's one of those 1/100 lawyers who actually is making it big time in this economy.

    ReplyDelete

 

Blog Template by YummyLolly.com - Header Image by Arpi