Zone1 Washington to no longer require Bar Exam

[Polishprince]

Bad doctors and Bad lawyers exist now. Cerification will still exist.

And how does eliminating the bar exam help out with the quality of lawyers out there?

Sure, there have been bad honky lawyers and crappy honky doctors.

But does that mean that we should eliminate all quality control efforts, just because the ones instituted haven't been 100% effective?

 

[Maxdeath]

So what's next? Doctor's don't have to pass the medical exam process for certification? How confident would that make you that your doctor knows anything?

A bad lawyer can cost you everything you have.

A bad doctor can cost you your life.

My question was that maybe more people felt that they wanted to go into some other profession instead of becoming a lawyer which would of course lower the percentage posted.
as far as an exam I feel that the if at first you do not succeed try try again applies. But I am also a big believer in you get what you pay for and states or cities have a right to decide their own fate.
is doing away with the bar exam a good thing? In my opinion no.
But I will allow any state or city to make their own choices. Just as I am not a fan of defund the police or soft on crime but I allow entities to make their own choice good or bad, right or wrong.

 

[Foxfyre]

My question was that maybe more people felt that they wanted to go into some other profession instead of becoming a lawyer which would of course lower the percentage posted.
as far as an exam I feel that the if at first you do not succeed try try again applies. But I am also a big believer in you get what you pay for and states or cities have a right to decide their own fate.
is doing away with the bar exam a good thing? In my opinion no.
But I will allow any state or city to make their own choices. Just as I am not a fan of defund the police or soft on crime but I allow entities to make their own choice good or bad, right or wrong.

Allowing others to make their own choices, good or bad, must not remove our right to not have to suffer fools.

 

[Maxdeath]

Allowing others to make their own choices, good or bad, must not remove our right to not have to suffer fools.

So you do not believe in allowing states or cities their right to determine what they feel is correct for them?
So you must feel a need for the federal government to determine every aspect of your life.

 

[Foxfyre]

So you do not believe in allowing states or cities their right to determine what they feel is correct for them?
So you must feel a need for the federal government to determine every aspect of your life.

I didn't say that.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Maxdeath's implication is that your statement does mean that.

 

[Maxdeath]

I didn't say that.

So what did you mean to imply?
since you claimed that we should not have to suffer fools.
Are you some how claiming that even though a city or state is allowed to choose what they wish then you have the right to not follow what rules they set? So if they claim that it is illegal to park in certain places and you feel that they are fools then you can ignore the law? Or are you claiming that the federal government should decide if a city or state can set its own rules or laws and if they want then they can overrule that law or rule? Explain yourself. English has a number of words you can use to tell us what your thoughts are.

 

[Foxfyre]

So what did you mean to imply?
since you claimed that we should not have to suffer fools.
Are you some how claiming that even though a city or state is allowed to choose what they wish then you have the right to not follow what rules they set? So if they claim that it is illegal to park in certain places and you feel that they are fools then you can ignore the law? Or are you claiming that the federal government should decide if a city or state can set its own rules or laws and if they want then they can overrule that law or rule? Explain yourself. English has a number of words you can use to tell us what your thoughts are.

I am claiming that when anybody makes really bad law that is harmful, unjust, or just plain stupid, we should have every right to protest and change that law if we can. When a leader violates the trust of his/her appointed or elected office, we should have every right to protest and legally remove that person if we can.

Our Founders in their wisdom put it clearly in the Constitution that the people have the right to assemble, to peacefully protest, to petition their government for redress of grievances whether or not they prevail or even should prevail.

THAT is what liberty and a government of, for and by the people looks like.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I am claiming that when anybody makes really bad law that is harmful, unjust, or just plain stupid, we should have every right to protest and change that law if we can. When a leader violates the trust of his/her appointed or elected office, we should have every right to protest and legally remove that person if we can.

Our Founders in their wisdom put it clearly in the Constitution that the people have the right to assemble, to peacefully protest, to petition their government for redress of grievances whether or not they prevail or even should prevail.

THAT is what liberty and a government of, for and by the people looks like.

Foxfyre has the right to express her view and work for it.

That is not yet either post-truth or post-legal.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Apparently , Affirmative Action graduates have been unable to pass the exam, so that's the end of that.

People will be able to get a law license, even if they don't know shit about the law because they only got their degree through racial quotas.

Would you want a lawyer without any legal brains representing you- so you could be hailed as an equal opportunity kind of guy? BTW, when will they get rid of licensing exams for proctologists?

Supreme Court: Bar exam will no longer be required to become attorney in Washington State

The bar exam will no longer be required to become a lawyer in Washington, the state Supreme Court ruled in a pair of orders Friday.

www.spokesman.com

Why did you post this in the Race Relations & Racism forum? And your link says nothing about graduates being unable to pass the bar, let alone that being the reason for "Affirmative Action" graduates. Maybe you can define what an affirmative action graduate is?

Also the LSAT is removing the logic games section of the exam which has traditionally been the most difficult. When I've asked various individuals why the LSAT seems to be falling out of disfavor I remember more than one person stating that it's because it doesn't have anything to do with the law or what you will be learning or need to know to become an attorney which doesn't make sense to me. It seems that it tests you EXACTLY on the things you need to be able to read, comprehend and apply.

A lot of people become attorneys so they can make a lot of money, not necessarily help people.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Extremely unfortunate and short sighted. And illustrates why standards should never be lowered so more people can meet them as this only produces mediocrity or worse, inadequacy. "Equality" should not mean that the lowest common denominator is the standard.

Smart people will demand certification that their attorney passed the bar exam before they hire them though.

Perhaps you would be surprised to find out that COVID that more to do with this than all of the supremacist theories being thrown around on this board.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Law licenses, like medical licenses are a way of people limiting competition. It’s the knowledge and ability that matter, not a piece of paper granted by a trade organization.

Don't forget the money, which is one of the major "barriers" to becoming an attorney that the WA Supreme Court referenced.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

It's was a good question. Another question what percentage of non-whites fail the bar compared to whites?

I'm sure those numbers are available online somewhere, you just have to look for them.

I do remember that John Kennedy Jr. failed the bar exam twice before he passed on his third attempt. I wonder if he is one of the affirmative action graduates that the OP is referring to?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

And how does eliminating the bar exam help out with the quality of lawyers out there?

Sure, there have been bad honky lawyers and crappy honky doctors.

But does that mean that we should eliminate all quality control efforts, just because the ones instituted haven't been 100% effective?

I heard that it's not just that they're eliminating the bar exam as a qualification but that they want to ensure on-going competency so that Washington State attorneys have to prove that they were not just competent at the outset of their legal career, but that they maintain competency, sort of like members of other professions have to.

 

[Foxfyre]

Perhaps you would be surprised to find out that COVID that more to do with this than all of the supremacist theories being thrown around on this board.

Whatever caused it, the effect is the same. We should be a people who reaches for excellence, the best instead of diminishing and weakening ourselves by accepting the lowest common denominator.

 

[Moonglow]

Apparently , Affirmative Action graduates have been unable to pass the exam, so that's the end of that.

People will be able to get a law license, even if they don't know shit about the law because they only got their degree through racial quotas.

Would you want a lawyer without any legal brains representing you- so you could be hailed as an equal opportunity kind of guy? BTW, when will they get rid of licensing exams for proctologists?

Supreme Court: Bar exam will no longer be required to become attorney in Washington State

The bar exam will no longer be required to become a lawyer in Washington, the state Supreme Court ruled in a pair of orders Friday.

www.spokesman.com

Good ots about time, after twelve grueling years on college one should know how to litigate or process pages of boring legalese.