As law school applications decline, as well as the number of those taking the LSAT, there has been a good deal of attention to the issue of reforming law schools and the process by which law school graduates become lawyers. Over the past several weeks we have looked at different proposals to either: (1) shorten the amount of time necessary to spend in law school;(2) provide greater internship opportunities; or (3) explores ways in which the cost of law school can be reduced. The New York Times Editorial page took this one step further, publishing an editorial piece which went so far as to question the need for law schools and the bar exam. We at Kaplan certainly do not endorse this position, but in the interest of objectivity, wanted to bring its position to the table.
Written by Clifford Winston, an economist and fellow at the Brookings Institute, the argument is made that the current system of requiring graduation from an accredited law school prior to admission to the bar serves to mislead the general public “about the quality of licensed lawyers and the potential for non-lawyers to provide able assistance”.
Winston is concerned that the current system prevents competition and serves to keep legal costs high. He argues that if “legal barriers to entry were done away with” non-lawyers, who do not have large law school loans to repay, would be able to provide legal services at a lower rate; the public would be charged lower legal fees for non-JDs, but additionally, competition would force lower legal fees to be charged by law school graduate-attorneys. Further, Winston predicts that if non-lawyers were able to provide services, the poor would have greater access to representation in non-criminal matters, and those who do receive representation in criminal cases would have better representation.
Finally, looking at the issue from a consumer prospective, Winston says that allowing non-law school graduates to provide representation and legal services would lead to better oversight, accessibility and choice. Winston sees a system in which those providing legal services would be rated by organizations much in the same way Consumer Reports and Zagats offer ratings. With increased competition, lower law school costs would follow. Winston even sees greater job opportunities for those who do follow a traditional law school career. Citing the experiences of Abraham Lincoln, who did not attend law school and Clarence Darrow, who attended but did not graduate from the University of Michigan Law School, Winston points out these two men would not be allowed to practice law today and thus the current system keeps great talent out of the legal profession. While Winston does not say law schools should be abolished, his ultimate argument is that there should be alternatives to entry to the legal profession.
To see the full editorial, follow this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/opinion/are-law-schools-and-bar-exams-necessary.html?_r=1&
