The appropriate answer is no! The bar exam does not ascertain that legal practitioners are competent. Instead, it merely creates a barrier that keeps most people from competing for legal services in the market.
What are the consequences?
The bar exam brings with it two main consequences. These are:
- It prevents individuals that could earn some good amount of money as lawyers from doing exactly that.
- Most people are unable to raise money for legal fees mainly because those that overcome the barrier to entry accept cases that do not pay them enough to cover for heavy costs.
Back to the competency dilemma
Special interest groups try their best to justify their restrictions order to stifle competition. This is exactly what the President of National Conference of Bar Examiner, Erica Moeser, told Elizabeth Olson, a writer with the New York Times. Erica said that a bar exam is simply a test of basics that have no justification other than protecting consumers.
Her sentiments were echoed by former dean and law professor Kristin Booth Glen. Glen was of the opinion that a bar exam only shores up the society’s mentality that barriers should exist to prevent flooding in the legal market, especially during times when few jobs are available. Glen was totally right. This was the main reason that led the legal profession to push for extremely high barriers back in the 1930s. At that time, the rhetoric was all about “raising standards.” However, the motive was to prevent competition in the legal field.
Expert opinion
According to one lawyer, Allen Mendehall, the bar exam hardly tests competence. Rather, it tests your ability to memorize an array of material. Allen is in the school of thought that believes it is a “hazing ritual.” He holds that the exam is a useful means of unraveling those who could turn out to be capable lawyers from those that couldn’t. He writes that the exam merely tests your ability to take tests and not your ability to practice law.
Allen believes that the best and most prudent way to learn and understand the legal profession is through practical training and experience. It is worth observing that a good number of capable individuals have miserably failed the bar exam. Actually, some have failed not once or twice, but several times. A relevant and perfect example of a bar exam failure is the incoming Stanford Law School dean, Kathleen Sullivan.
Sulllivan, just like the other bar exam failures, did not adequately memorize the vast material for her to pass the exam. However, this did not mean those who failed the exam could not offer remarkable legal services to an individual or company.
In conclusion, it is wrong to use the bar exam to judge an individual’s ability to practice law. Experience and not the exam matters the most. That is for sure.
Bio: Jeremy Black writes on an array of topics – law and finance being his favorites. He has written a lot of reviews on different things over the years. Click the link to read reviews related to debt relief.
