LockBox wrote:esq wrote:21157015576609 wrote:https://www.dailyjournal.com/articles/342590
I honestly think this judge has a fair point. Those seeking representation usually face high stakes situations and should be able to count on their attorney to properly understand how to obtain a default judgment, lay a foundation for evidence, argue and write effectively.
However, the big question I have is whether this is achieved by a higher bar passage score or whether law schools are failing students by not training them for the every day ins and outs of what they will experience in a courtroom. Because the bar tests on the same rules and theoretical applications that are taught in a law school, an attorney could very well (in my opinion) pass the bar with a score above 1500 and still not be familiar with the practical steps needed to, for e.g., lay a foundation in a courtroom, though they might understand the evidence code inside and out. Public arguments and writing formalities used in court motions, and presiding judge preferences, are also learned through practical experience and not through passing the bar exam.
To me this indicates that the issues this judge nitpicks on are due to a failure in legal training. There really isn't any way to really understand how the practical application of all the rules, theories, and laws work inside a courtroom until you are required to apply them in mock trials or in an actual courtroom. Until then, everything is just a concept.
The prevailing thinking has never been that law school prepares you for practice. Only to think like a lawyer. You learn about practice during your first few years. To this extent, the bar isn't meant to only allow those qualified to practice - many members who passed the bar become disbarred every month. What the bar is meant to do is weed out those individuals who may or may not clearly be suited to practice insofar as the bar has decided that the current cut score eliminates most who might make mistakes that would adversely impact their clients.
I can't disagree with you on that point, so you won't get an argument from me. My question is related to the problems that the LA Supreme Court judge raises in the linked Daily Journal article. The majority, if not all of his concerns, focus on advocacy traits that a lawyer learns from application of his/her conceptual knowledge in a courtroom. He then uses these concerns to state that, rather than lowering the CA Bar cut score, the inquiry should be into whether it should be raised--if anything. Since the bar exam tests conceptual, memorized, knowledge and not practical in-court application, I'm wondering if there is a logical connection to keeping the bar at its current level, or higher, and the gripes this judge has which are largely about mistakes observed in his courtroom. These mistakes involve the practical application of learned concepts, rules, etc.