I Failed The Bar 3 Times Before Passing - Ask Me Anything Forum

[amylawgrad]

Justify your practice of law. Three failures? How are you not malpracticinf the fuck out of the law.

I know a few people who failed the bar exam and subsequently passed and are not "malpracticing the fuck out of the law." On the contrary, plenty of well-seasoned attorneys commit malpractice sometimes, one of them having been my own lawyer!

Just so you know, it is possible to sit for the exam even if you are ill-prepared, and prepare better the next time or even the fourth time. I know someone who went to law school with me who failed the first time, after posting on Facebook that anyone who failed the previous exam was a dumbass. So what if you passed the first time...

My first time, I was ill-prepared but I went ahead and took it anyway for a variety of reasons. Sometimes life happens you know.

[Desert Fox]

Justify your practice of law. Three failures? How are you not malpracticinf the fuck out of the law.

I know a few people who failed the bar exam and subsequently passed and are not "malpracticing the fuck out of the law." On the contrary, plenty of well-seasoned attorneys commit malpractice sometimes, one of them having been my own lawyer!

Just so you know, it is possible to sit for the exam even if you are ill-prepared, and prepare better the next time or even the fourth time. I know someone who went to law school with me who failed the first time, after posting on Facebook that anyone who failed the previous exam was a dumbass. So what if you passed the first time...

My first time, I was ill-prepared but I went ahead and took it anyway for a variety of reasons. Sometimes life happens you know.

One time fail is okay. Shit happens. People panic. Life events get in the way.

Three failures is ridiculous.

[amylawgrad]

I guess that depends on your life situation. If I fail, I will not have any shame in sitting a 3rd, 4th or 5th time, hell I am going to keep at it until I pass. It doesn't bother me as much after some of the things I have been through personally in my life. Just to even say you have a law degree sounds good to some people! I'm 38 years old and I've seen more than enough drama in the past 5 years in my own life to overly satisfy anyone's drama quota for an entire life and life keeps throwing things at me. One thing I have learned is to roll with the punches and keep on going, and keep on trying no matter what. After all the struggles I've gone through, I wake up each day just thankful to have the life I do have and the loved ones I have, and thankful and grateful for what lies ahead. If I make it to bed without tears from my own face, it's a good day.

[Anonymous User]

Justify your practice of law. Three failures? How are you not malpracticinf the fuck out of the law.

I know a few people who failed the bar exam and subsequently passed and are not "malpracticing the fuck out of the law." On the contrary, plenty of well-seasoned attorneys commit malpractice sometimes, one of them having been my own lawyer!

Just so you know, it is possible to sit for the exam even if you are ill-prepared, and prepare better the next time or even the fourth time. I know someone who went to law school with me who failed the first time, after posting on Facebook that anyone who failed the previous exam was a dumbass. So what if you passed the first time...

My first time, I was ill-prepared but I went ahead and took it anyway for a variety of reasons. Sometimes life happens you know.

One time fail is okay. Shit happens. People panic. Life events get in the way.

Three failures is ridiculous.

Three failures might be ridiculous, but that one attempt that passes gets you your license to practice law.

Just because you failed 3 times doesn't mean you will commit malpractice on every case you touch, or any of them for that matter.

The practice of law is nothing like a MBE question or an MEE question. It is also very different than a full day of 200 multiple choice questions.

A licensed attorney may even practice in an area of the law that is not even a tested bar exam subject.

The bar exam determines whether or not you have the privilege of holding a license to practice law. It does not determine your success as a lawyer or the likelihood you commit malpractice.

[mvp99]

I mean I'm with you in that it does not "determine" but there has to be at least some slight but significant correlation.

[Desert Fox]

If it takes you like 2 full years to learn the basics of fucking criminal law, how do you learn the actual law during a case?

[Anonymous User]

If it takes you like 2 full years to learn the basics of fucking criminal law, how do you learn the actual law during a case?

You would probably read the statute and relevant cases, study them, and determine what the law is, how it applies to your case, and make the arguments. You may also even consider using secondary sources. Something you are unable to do on a multiple choice question during the bar exam.

[Arbinshire]

If it takes you like 2 full years to learn the basics of fucking criminal law, how do you learn the actual law during a case?

If you believe the bar exam has any relation to real practice, you're a poor attorney. The bar exam is a standardized test that doesn't test ability. Rather, it tests your ability to memorize broad rules and apply them to bizarre facts with multiple issues. If an attorney in real life were to answer a client's question in 45-90 seconds, or write a 500-1000 word answer to a fact pattern in 30 minutes with no legal research, they are headed towards malpractice claims.

[Desert Fox]

If it takes you like 2 full years to learn the basics of fucking criminal law, how do you learn the actual law during a case?

If you believe the bar exam has any relation to real practice, you're a poor attorney. The bar exam is a standardized test that doesn't test ability. Rather, it tests your ability to memorize broad rules and apply them to bizarre facts with multiple issues. If an attorney in real life were to answer a client's question in 45-90 seconds, or write a 500-1000 word answer to a fact pattern in 30 minutes with no legal research, they are headed towards malpractice claims.

I don't think it's related, I just think anyone too dumb to pass the bar is too dumb to be a lawyer.

That said, some degree of long-term knowledge of law is necessary to practice law. You can't spot issues if you don't know the basics of what you are practicing.

[A. Nony Mouse]

If it takes you like 2 full years to learn the basics of fucking criminal law, how do you learn the actual law during a case?

It doesn't take you 2 years to learn criminal law. It takes you two years to learn how to pass an exam that addresses a whole bunch of stuff unrelated to criminal law.

You can have a great basic knowledge of the law in your practice area and still fail the bar exam.

[Arbinshire]

I don't think it's related, I just think anyone too dumb to pass the bar is too dumb to be a lawyer.

As one who worked with standardized tests prior to law school, this is incorrect. These sorts of tests don't reflect ability. Moreover, they're a poor indicator of actual knowledge. What a standardized test is, is a barometer to assess slightly more than 70% of the test-population. The other 30 struggle because of the nature of the test and a different intelligence. (See Gardner).

That said, some degree of long-term knowledge of law is necessary to practice law. You can't spot issues if you don't know the basics of what you are practicing.

I know less law now one year after the bar than I did prior to it. Before taking the bar exam I was dreaming of MBE questions, elements, fact patterns. Now, I have to pull up lexis to remember elements of accomplice liability or elements of fraud. Current law school graduates know more black letter law than I can remember.

The reality is that the bar exam is an infinitely poor metric of how good an attorney you will be. It is, as one justice said to me, a hazing ritual. We did it, so too now you will.

[kellyfrost]

If you believe the bar exam has any relation to real practice, you're a poor attorney. The bar exam is a standardized test that doesn't test ability. Rather, it tests your ability to memorize broad rules and apply them to bizarre facts with multiple issues. If an attorney in real life were to answer a client's question in 45-90 seconds, or write a 500-1000 word answer to a fact pattern in 30 minutes with no legal research, they are headed towards malpractice claims.[/quote]

I tend to agree with this poster.

[Desert Fox]

I'm not arguing that bar black letter law is important, I mean the ability to learn, understand, apply, and maintain knowledge of some subset of laws is important. I frankly don't use any bar knowledge. But I do need to understand general points of law without book assistance. In order to know the right questions to research, you have to know enough to ask the question yourself.

Plus the bar is heavily application based too. It's not just pure memorization.

[Arbinshire]

I'm not arguing that bar black letter law is important, I mean the ability to learn, understand, apply, and maintain knowledge of some subset of laws is important. I frankly don't use any bar knowledge. But I do need to understand general points of law without book assistance. In order to know the right questions to research, you have to know enough to ask the question yourself.

Plus the bar is heavily application based too. It's not just pure memorization.

While that is the intent, that is not all that is necessary to pass. Due to the nature of standardized testing, other factors come in to play. There's significant academic research that has been published detailing these facts. Race, age, socio-economic, and even gender factors come in to play. Its like the LSAT. You learn the test first, then you apply what you know.

While you may know the law, you obviously don't understand education. There are numerous papers detailing the failings, and positives, of standardized testing. The one universal truth relating to this research and the bar exam is that you cannot predict the ability of an attorney based upon bar score.

[Desert Fox]

I'm not arguing that bar black letter law is important, I mean the ability to learn, understand, apply, and maintain knowledge of some subset of laws is important. I frankly don't use any bar knowledge. But I do need to understand general points of law without book assistance. In order to know the right questions to research, you have to know enough to ask the question yourself.

Plus the bar is heavily application based too. It's not just pure memorization.

While that is the intent, that is not all that is necessary to pass. Due to the nature of standardized testing, other factors come in to play. There's significant academic research that has been published detailing these facts. Race, age, socio-economic, and even gender factors come in to play. Its like the LSAT. You learn the test first, then you apply what you know.

While you may know the law, you obviously don't understand education. There are numerous papers detailing the failings, and positives, of standardized testing. The one universal truth relating to this research and the bar exam is that you cannot predict the ability of an attorney based upon bar score.

lol okay pal.

[Arbinshire]

Take the draw.

[elendinel]

If it takes you like 2 full years to learn the basics of fucking criminal law, how do you learn the actual law during a case?

It doesn't take you 2 years to learn criminal law. It takes you two years to learn how to pass an exam that addresses a whole bunch of stuff unrelated to criminal law.

You can have a great basic knowledge of the law in your practice area and still fail the bar exam.

Yes exactly. The bar is not testing your knowledge of the basics of only the law you plan to go into; this isn't the SAT II. It's testing you, in very inane ways, on how much you can memorize about various areas of law, most of which you will likely never have to think about after the bar exam. In some legal careers you may literally need none of the courses tested on the bar exam.

Let's also not pretend that the bar is a particularly good metric for determining how much you know about the law, either. This is a test where your making rules up for every single question could net you more points than someone else who spent 10 minutes per question trying to remember the right rule.

[Anonymous User]

OP, what was your class rank and school tier?

[Anonymous User]

OP, what was your class rank and school tier?

Tier 3 and rank was around 50%.

[zot1]

Even Sec. Clinton failed the DC Bar...

[zot1]

Justify your practice of law. Three failures? How are you not malpracticinf the fuck out of the law.

For one, I proofread and use spell check. (*malpractinf)

Secondly, the threshold of malpractice is pretty high. You have to royally screw up to meet that threshold. I haven't don't that in practice, only on the bar exam.

I practice exclusively in civil litigation and criminal trials. I think I have found my niche and I love the work. Not too many, if any, clients will sue you for malpractice when you win for them at trial.

How's this a niche?

[Anonymous User]

OP, what was your class rank and school tier?

Tier 3 and rank was around 50%.

How supportive was your school during all this. Did they ever try to stop you from taking the bar, give you extra bar prep, or just cut you off?

[Lacepiece23]

Justify your practice of law. Three failures? How are you not malpracticinf the fuck out of the law.

For one, I proofread and use spell check. (*malpractinf)

Secondly, the threshold of malpractice is pretty high. You have to royally screw up to meet that threshold. I haven't don't that in practice, only on the bar exam.

I practice exclusively in civil litigation and criminal trials. I think I have found my niche and I love the work. Not too many, if any, clients will sue you for malpractice when you win for them at trial.

How's this a niche?

Idk man, not a lot of people can try cases and most lawyers in biglaw are scared shitless of taking a deposition let alone taking a case to trial. I feel like OP is getting a lot of unnecessary shit.

[zot1]

Justify your practice of law. Three failures? How are you not malpracticinf the fuck out of the law.

For one, I proofread and use spell check. (*malpractinf)

Secondly, the threshold of malpractice is pretty high. You have to royally screw up to meet that threshold. I haven't don't that in practice, only on the bar exam.

I practice exclusively in civil litigation and criminal trials. I think I have found my niche and I love the work. Not too many, if any, clients will sue you for malpractice when you win for them at trial.

How's this a niche?

Idk man, not a lot of people can try cases and most lawyers in biglaw are scared shitless of taking a deposition let alone taking a case to trial. I feel like OP is getting a lot of unnecessary shit.

I wasn't trying to be adversarial. I was honestly curious.

[Anonymous User]

Justify your practice of law. Three failures? How are you not malpracticinf the fuck out of the law.

For one, I proofread and use spell check. (*malpractinf)

Secondly, the threshold of malpractice is pretty high. You have to royally screw up to meet that threshold. I haven't don't that in practice, only on the bar exam.

I practice exclusively in civil litigation and criminal trials. I think I have found my niche and I love the work. Not too many, if any, clients will sue you for malpractice when you win for them at trial.

How's this a niche?

Trial work has become my niche. I wish I could exclusively do only trials. In the past year I have been hired to do trials after all the discovery and motion work was completed, which was awesome. I've also been hired to do a few voir dires, and trial consulting work. Those gigs haven't paid a whole lot as they are short lived, but have been very interesting and eye opening.
I hope I didn't come off in my earlier post as saying I discovered a niche in the law. Far from it. I have found my own personal niche within the law.