More on Law Profs Taking Bar Exams

Back in July, Orin Kerr shared his experiences about taking the California Bar Exam as a 46 year old law professor (here's the  Volokh Conspiracy link ). I was so happy to read his post because I realized I was not the only law professor taking a bar exam later in life: for me, it was the NY Bar and it was my first U.S. Bar Exam because I initially qualified and practiced in Australia. So in a sense, I was taking the exam as a "foreign lawyer", at least that's how the NY BOLE classified my status. 

I echo a lot of what Orin said in his blog post. I'm also getting a little jaded and grumpy about this stuff, but, at the same time I was fascinated because I've never taken an exam quite like the Bar before. Back in the day in Aus, we had an "articles of clerkship" system where you basically interned with a partner of a law firm for a year and the partner certified you as qualified at the end of the clerkship.

I took the exam in Buffalo and was immensely grateful for the proctors, most of whom had been working there for 10+ years and were very sympathetic and comforting to those of us with nerves (yes, even law profs get nerves in a highly charged exam situation). I have to also agree with Orin that I found the "wearing of the school sweatshirts" a little obnoxious, although I also understand why people do it because it helps them find their group during break time. I mean, I had NO ONE from Melbourne University to hang out with over lunch! I did manage to find some other "foreign lawyers" to chat with, though.

One thing I've realized in the subsequent months since taking the exam is that, while it's obviously cramming a huge amount of pretty basic material into a confined space of time, it did re-awaken my interest in certain topics that I haven't thought much about since law school. Obviously, not the rule against perpetuities. Like, I'm never going to think fondly of that one! (Sorry, law profs who teach it.) But I've found myself thinking a lot more about the ins and outs of principles of contract, tort, and property law that I've really just taken for granted in recent years. The experience has in a way rekindled my interest in a number of topics, and their relationships with each other, that I haven't thought much about lately. Despite the stress, in the aftermath, I guess I'm saying that I really did learn something, although I'm sure I'll forget more than I learned! And bear in mind that, as a foreign lawyer, I was fascinated by different emphases in familiar subjects between the anglo-Australian approach and the U.S. approach. I've been teaching in the U.S. for many years now, but there are a bunch of subjects I haven't taught or really thought about much since my days in practice.

In any event, it was both a frustrating and enlightening experience for me and, now that I've passed, I guess I can say I'm glad for the experience.

And, like Orin, I did what y'all do and took a Bar Prep course. I can definitely recommend Themis for anyone taking the NY Bar. (No, they didn't pay me to say that. I just found that following a clear guideline and actually DOING all the practice questions was what got me through. I suspect the other Bar Prep courses work pretty much the same way.)

 

 

Comments

[Litowitz]

My book The Destruction of Young Lawyers has a chapter on the "The Pointless Ritual of the Bar Exam."

The entire system of licensing and practice in the US is retarded. A 30 year Supreme Court justice cannot practice in Florida while a newly minted graduate of Barry University can practice there just because of the bar exam. I can practice in Chicago (Northern District), but if I go downstate to Springfield, I have to qualify in a different federal court. In the federal systems, some courts will let you waive in, others require sponsors even to go pro hac vice. There is no logic whatsoever. The whole purpose of the exam is make people submissive sheep, and to slow down the flow of lawyers into certain states. I go through this analysis step by step and show that the bar exam has no benefits. It would be far better to have applicants go through a few months of training about where to file, how to serve, how to run a law office, and other nuts and bolts. Only lawyers could come up something so dumb as a MULTISTATE exam from the NATIONAL conference of bar examiners, given on the same day to everyone in America, yet it cannot be moved to each state. The whole thing is so silly, so dumb, so ridiculous, and wrapped in such bogus and laughable solemnity that I just have to be ashamed of my profession.

[anon]

Litowitz

whatever its shortcomings, the bar exam is designed in every state to test "minimal competency" to practice law. Do you believe law schools should disregard the ability of their faculty members to pass a bar exam? If so, in your view, how should law schools determine if a law professor has the "minimum competency" to practice law? Or, should this ability matter at all for those teaching students to be lawyers?

[anon]

Further to the last comment, a law professor states: "never taken an exam quite like the Bar before."

Litowitz, would you agree that, in the US, a fair and reliable way to determine those who may practice law would described as follows:

"Back in the day in Aus, we had an "articles of clerkship" system where you basically interned with a partner of a law firm for a year and the partner certified you as qualified at the end of the clerkship."

[Scott Pruitt Edndowed Chair in Environmental Justice]

Litowitz,

Crack open any old Popular Mechanics magazine from the 50s-70s typically found at an "antique" mall in an economically depressed rural community and check out the pages and pages of ads and classifieds. The internet of the day. One will find, next to the ads for toilets that flush up, ads for LaSalle Extension University and Blackstone College of Law. "Be a Law Trained Man!" pictured with a guy smoking a pipe with his family next to his new Olds 98 in the driveway of a Brady Bunch looking house. So, do you want any aimless putz practicing law? Advising clients to take jail rather than trial?

[Scott Pruitt Edndowed Chair in Environmental Justice]

A truck driver trainer must possess a valid CDL. A pilot trainer must have a valid FAA Instructor Certificate. So, a professor who teaches law students to become lawyers need not be barred? What is wrong this picture?

All professors should see the inside of a courtroom and have actual practice experience. Creates empathy and allows them to walk in the moccasins of clients and their prospective lawyers. Maybe just maybe, criminal procedure professors will finally really understand the erosion of our 4th Amendment protections and start teaching to that.

[Jacqui Lipton]

Yeah, they don't let us Aussie lawyers anywhere near a courtroom, but we sure drive a mean semi!

[anon]

With limited exceptions, Aussie lawyers can't practice in the US, unless they PASS THE BAR!

Nor can they drive a semi without a CDL.

See, the US is funny like that.

Perhaps, another reason to be "fascinated by different emphases in familiar subjects between the anglo-Australian approach and the U.S. approach"?

[Scott Pruitt Edndowed Chair in Environmental Justice]

^^^^^Would you guys take me in and give me breakfast?

[Jacqui Lipton]

Sounds like you speak-a my language...
Would you like a vegemite sandwich?