Become American Lawyer Without JD or LSAT!!! Forum

[Cade McNown]

OP here. First, I am personally satisfied with a 166, it is good enough to get me into schools from which American billionaires have graduated from.

Second, I never said the LSAT is stupid, I only implied that it is smart to end up in the same place as you otherwise would WITHOUT taking the LSAT, just like it would be sweet to get into Harvard College without taking the SAT.

Third, for all the people who don't know what they want after high school, the existence of the LLB would not stop them from pursuing law in graduate studies if they did not study law as a UG major, because it is likely that the JD would continue to exist as well (Hong Kong and Singapore serve as prime examples).

Fourth, why is law different from becoming a accountant or engineer, both of which have UG degrees? It is not, a profession is a profession is a profession, and there is no reason some should have UG degrees but other should not, medical doctor included.

Fifth, it is not fair to limit those who are sure out of high school that they want to be lawyers because other people have no idea.

That leads to Six, which is that in our free market economy, commodities should be allowed to compete, and law degrees are certainly commodities, but they are not allowed to compete, because the state (i.e., state bars) grant a monopoly to the JD, and that is unfair and non-competitive.

Seventh and finally, the introduction of the LLB would require no major changes to any institutions. Just let LLBs become qualified as lawyers, and the students, professors and educational institutions would adapt in no time. We are Americans, should we be scared of more freedom, more choice??I Come on, give me a break!

OP Outed as Brian McKnight
--ImageRemoved--

[bk1]

Is it not common consensus in this thread that introducing the LLB would create a flood of law grads? I believe it is. So, the JD controls that, i.e., limits the quantity of law grads. A lot of people here assume that limiting quantity increases quality. When I say the JD has nothing to do with quality, I mean with respect to the LLB, since both offer the same education. The only difference between the two is the the JD limits the quantity of law grads, because it is a bigger pain in the ass than the LLB.

Why have legal degrees at all? Why not make it a free for all where anybody can sign up to take the bar and anybody who passes can work as a lawyer? That would make it so there are no limits on who can be a lawyer. But wait, the bar is still limiting the number of people who can be lawyers. So why not just eliminate the bar? Voila, anybody who wants to be a lawyer is a lawyer. No limits!

[RUM]

After wasting an hour at work reading this whole thread (thank you everyone for the entertainment) I think this thread boils down to one's perception of the value of a liberal arts education, and like NYC Law said pages back, its a fundemental part of the american education system. I for one, find a bachelors degree to be an invaluable four years of a persons life, and i especially find a liberal arts education to be more enlightening than a professional degree despite the current popular view that is a waste of time, which is why we require doctors and lawyers to have a BA and JD/MD.

Also, could the system change to some LLB system or whatever the rest of the world is doing? Yeah it could, but probably not unless it becomes advantageous to do so.

Here's an article that debates the value of college, it's very long but interesting. It also discusses the change in america of requireing bachelors degrees for doctors and lawyers.
http://m.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atl ... ntPage=all

[athenian]

As for the JD, it is really just a quantitative barrier to entry, it has nothing to do with quality directly. In terms of quality, the LLB should attain the same outcome. After all, they materially identical, it is just that one comes after a irrelevant BA/BS, while the other does not.

This is just laughably stupid.

Is it not common consensus in this thread that introducing the LLB would create a flood of law grads? I believe it is. So, the JD controls that, i.e., limits the quantity of law grads. A lot of people here assume that limiting quantity increases quality. When I say the JD has nothing to do with quality, I mean with respect to the LLB, since both offer the same education. The only difference between the two is the the JD limits the quantity of law grads, because it is a bigger pain in the ass than the LLB.

If a student is deterred from pursuing a J.D. because it's a "bigger pain in the ass" than an LLB, how is that individual going to deal with the "pain in the ass" situations that lawyers often find themselves in?

[firemed]

I can't believe I just wasted 20 minutes skimming through the three new pages added to this abortion of a thread.

[Verity]

I just think the lack of progressive thinking ITT is a shame. The assumptions that law firms would automatically be opposed to LLB/LLM in America (unlike the rest of the world) or vastly favor the JD, and that law schools would shut down (there's nothing illogical about going straight from high school to law school for a five-year LLB/LLM, which would increase enrollment for law schools) I think are ill-conceived. It doesn't happen overnight, but why such a backlash against it?

It's just weird that this kind of American exceptionalism/protectionism is being defended by complacent law students who are eventually paying the bills. The "well-roundedness" argument is laughable, since law schools could add a basic curriculum to their LLB/LLMs. It's also arrogant, considering the fact that nobody else in the world does it this way. Often, a UG student's idea of "well-roundedness" is getting stoned and/or drunk, while the parents foot the bill.

Like I said, most people don't have access to foreign lawyers the way they have access to foreign doctors, because the law isn't nearly as constant across borders as the human body. But we know that there are plenty of foreign-trained doctors here in America that are highly skilled and talented. Foreign-trained lawyers are just as good, and holding up the American paradigm as vastly superior is, IMO, ignorant.

If clients are looking for alternatives to cut costs, and law firms are getting stingy and not doing as much hiring, it makes sense for current and prospective law students to collectively search for reasonable change that will bring down their costs. Even if it weren't a matter of cost, I still think the BA/S + JD route is not the best possible setup.

[luthersloan]

Actually, it makes perfect sense that current law students would defend the current system, as they have already paid most of said costs and are unlikely to gain any advantage from increased low cost competition in the legal employment market (except to the extent they are consumers of legal services). I do not see any reason to maintain either the bar exam or the graduation requirement as a bar to practice. That being said, I doubt that either the LLB/LLM or doing away with graduation requirements would meaningfully alter the market for first year associates at big firms. Over a very long time it might, but law firms tend to be very conservative and risk adverse in their hiring, and the current system provides them with more students with the qualifications they are interested in then they need. Certainly lower down the totem poll it might change some things, but again given levels of supply already in the market it is unlikely to change much in the near term.

[Verity]

Actually, it makes perfect sense that current law students would defend the current system, as they have already paid most of said costs and are unlikely to gain any advantage from increased low cost competition in the legal employment market (except to the extent they are consumers of legal services). I do not see any reason to maintain either the bar exam or the graduation requirement as a bar to practice. That being said, I doubt that either the LLB/LLM or doing away with graduation requirements would meaningfully alter the market for first year associates at big firms. Over a very long time it might, but law firms tend to be very conservative and risk adverse in their hiring, and the current system provides them with more students with the qualifications they are interested in then they need. Certainly lower down the totem poll it might change some things, but again given levels of supply already in the market it is unlikely to change much in the near term.

I didn't say it would happen overnight. In fact I said the opposite. My main point is that it's shocking how dismissive students are to any change that might be beneficial. Really, I'm getting the gist that this forum is just for jaded, selfish trolls.

The bolded statement carries the same attitude as accountants and tax lawyers who don't acknowledge the benefits of a simplified tax code, because it would disrupt their business. And that makes economic sense...but it's still wrong, and you know it.

Now, this is your perception. This position is selfish based on that perception, even though the perception itself isn't given. Current students wouldn't necessarily be harmed if the change that might occur would take place in the long term. In the short term, there would be little if any effect; meanwhile, current law students would be busy gaining work experience. There are lots of partners out there with LLBs from back in the 50's & 60's, and they weren't hurt by the paradigm shift.

[luthersloan]

I thought I was fairly clear in supporting the idea, I said it makes sense for the current students to support the system as it exists, not that it is right for them to do so. Of course it is wrong, just like it is wrong for the tax lawyers and accountants to oppose simplifying the tax code. However, it is not at all surprising that tax lawyers would oppose such a change, people doing things that are in their short term interest is the norm.I really do not care if it "hurts" current law students (to spite the fact that I am one) the only relevant question is is there any economic reason to maintain the legal monopoly for JDs. The answer I think is fairly clearly no.

However, as to the LLB partner point it certainly is true that those partners were not negatively effected...they are partners. I.e they are the lawyers who did well even with greater competition. However, they wages are probably lower then they would be if the entry barrier were higher, then again their wages would be higher still if only people born on January 1 were allowed to practice law. Point is there is nothing surprising about current JDs and JD candidates opposing reforms that would lead to greater competition, even if it might lead to a better long term out come. Look at the way stories of legal outsourcing are generally treated on these boards for another example of this.

I do not know for certain if in the long term a LLB is a better approach or not, which is one very good reason in support of abolishing the monopoly.

[Danteshek]

Really, I'm getting the gist that this forum is just for jaded, selfish trolls.

Yep

[CaveatLector]

deleted post

[CaveatLector]

..............................

[shoeshine]

You try it and let me know how it works.

[bk1]

I never brought that up because I know people would jump down my throat, but idealy, I am actually in favor of that. While some association can exist that qualifies people as lawyers, and most intelligent clients will go with them, it should largely be left up to clients to decide who they choose to represent them, and the courts should not have the right to discriminate.

Fuck it I guess we don't need medical schools either. If Joe Schmoe over there wants to pay me fifty bucks to cut into him then that's how it should be. FREEMARKETFREEMARKETFREEMARKET!!!!!1111!!!!oneoneone

[CaveatLector]

deleted post

[CaveatLector]

deleted post

[reepS]

So I went and talked to a shrink. He said noone cares, and that the OP is right and we should just leave It at that bc everytime anyone tries to argue a point the OP writes too much and everything is TL;DR


FREEMARKET, GO LLB , DOWN WITH THE JD, REVOLUTION!!!

[bk1]

It is this unfounded misconception that without state regulations, society would just fall apart. I hardly believe that rational human beings would enlist to undergo surgey by quack doctors, receive legal representation from people who can't write a letter, have their car fixed by some guy on the side of the road, or get meals from filthy dirty restaurants. Rational human beings, living in a pure market economy, and protected by a judicial system through which they can charge others with wrongs against them, could result in at least as much quality control as we currently think we enjoy. Give people a little more credit

To explain it better than I ever could:

This will come as a big surprise to you, but somebody had to get around to telling you one of these days. You might want to sit down though, because it's pretty big news:

People are stupid.

[Blessedassurance]

It is this unfounded misconception that without state regulations, society would just fall apart. I hardly believe that rational human beings would enlist to undergo surgey by quack doctors, receive legal representation from people who can't write a letter, have their car fixed by some guy on the side of the road, or get meals from filthy dirty restaurants. Rational human beings, living in a pure market economy, and protected by a judicial system through which they can charge others with wrongs against them, could result in at least as much quality control as we currently think we enjoy. Give people a little more credit

One of your finest points yet although Mr Barnum might have issues with your over-estimation of the capacity of people (as a group), to think rationally and act purposefully.

(See Charles Manson, Jim Jones, Sarah Palin, TTTT Law Schools et al)

[CaveatLector]

deleted post

[Blessedassurance]

In summary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYGRTfUTITo

[athenian]

I never brought that up because I know people would jump down my throat, but idealy, I am actually in favor of that. While some association can exist that qualifies people as lawyers, and most intelligent clients will go with them, it should largely be left up to clients to decide who they choose to represent them, and the courts should not have the right to discriminate.

Fuck it I guess we don't need medical schools either. If Joe Schmoe over there wants to pay me fifty bucks to cut into him then that's how it should be. FREEMARKETFREEMARKETFREEMARKET!!!!!1111!!!!oneoneone

It is this unfounded misconception that without state regulations, society would just fall apart. I hardly believe that rational human beings would enlist to undergo surgey by quack doctors, receive legal representation from people who can't write a letter, have their car fixed by some guy on the side of the road, or get meals from filthy dirty restaurants. Rational human beings, living in a pure market economy, and protected by a judicial system through which they can charge others with wrongs against them, could result in at least as much quality control as we currently think we enjoy. Give people a little more credit

You're working on a conception of the free market that is totally divorced from reality. It's not that people are stupid, it's that not everyone is a perfectly informed consumer (and underlying assumption of the free market). This is because consumers are cheap/lazy and sellers are willing to lie to make money. Even with the regulations we have today, people still visit quack doctors, still hire lawyers that don't know what they're doing, still eat at filthy restaurants, and still get screwed by piss-poor mechanics.

[luthersloan]

Not all arguments in favor of unregulated markets depend on the assumption of perfect information. It certainly is true that people make dumb choices, the question is weather the costs of regulating their decisions ex ante provides more benefits then it does costs, as compared to asystem where people are free to choose, but have legal remedies ex post. Given the extreme costs the current system imposes on prospective lawyers, and the fact that many of them end up doing work any high school graduate is qualified for (at least if people like areyouinsane are to be believed) it seems the costs of regulation exceed the benefits. More to the point, their are much cheaper ways to regulate the market for lawyers if that is what you are after. For example, one could require that lawyers carry malpractice insurance, in which case insurance companies would regulate lawyers through insurance costs, etc. All the Ayn Rand/Ron Paul stuff is really unnecessary to reach the result that this market would operate better without this monopoly in place.

[Verity]

I was somewhat with OP, but I'm starting to get that feeling I get when reading Ayn Rand.

[fingersxd]

If you really want to try an obtuse and ridiculous idea to circumvent the fact you suck at the LSAT just go to CA, VT, VA, or WA and take the bar after studying under a judge/lawyer, skipping law school altogether. At least you'll save money.

I seem to recall hearin that you can do this in NY too with only 1 year of law school?