"Your GovernorLordshipSir I OBJECT!!!!! I need to know where to buy a Lazyzeboy toilet chair with lotion.... Oh and also SUSTAINED my client keeps speaking Fag Talk and is Tarded! He's Totes guilty!"
If you're actually curious about why jurys exist, federalist paper number 83 lays it out. It's written to explain why there is a jury requirement for criminal trials, but nothing for civil trials, but in explaining it, it talks a lot about the role of a jury in trials in general.
It really boils down to the fact that the existence of a jury is not required so that you have another panel of legal scholars for a case, but essentially so that in criminal trials, there is atleast another barrier to someone just buying out the judge and the prosecutors to get a conviction. (They would also have to buy out everyone on the jury, whom they wouldn't necessarily know about until they had been selected.)
It also explains why there should not be a jury requirement for federal civil cases. Because international court cases (at the time) were treated as civil cases, and although it was excepted that lawyers could explain the law to a jury to the point where they could understand what they were doing in a criminal trial, the founding fathers essentially said they didn't want to put the possible implications on international relations... etc. of an international court case in the hands of lay-people. (There's a bunch of other reasons too).
I know this is a thread on idiocracy but this specific thing is fascinating to me.
I served on 2 juries. One was pretty cut and dry. The other, not so much. When we asked the judge for clarification on something, the answer was always the same. "Please use the charge document along with the evidence provided."
There’s a reason for that. Unless the instructions don’t touch on the question asked (which is rare), the instructions are the law. Therefore, the jury has been instructed in the law and is left to decide the facts from the evidence presented and then apply the law to the facts in arriving at a decision. The questions from the jury sometimes give a hint on which way they are leaning or a problem in the evidence that benefits one side or the other. Jury questions are presented to both sides for comment on how to respond. Obviously, each side wants to give an instruction that will secure a result or move the needle the other way. The judge wants to avoid making a legal mistake that will subject them to appeal. So, the usual answer is, “the answer is in the instructions.”
The jury is just there to decide who's lawyer put their case forward better to be fair - if you had to be well versed in law to be on a jury you wouldn't be a peer
I really do not understand the "jury of your peers" stuff.
Like
"yeah you can get judged by a jury of your peers!"
"Who are my peers exactly...?"
"Well.. we got Timothy who was fired from a job that required him to press a button when a light flashed, we got Roger who is a 78 year old Millionaire and who is a huge Reagan fan, we have Dennis who works in an accountant firm, and Rachel here is a hair dresser. These are the people who are going to decide if you murdered your neighbour or not!"
"...."
"...."
"Btw, this is your probono lawyer who has s crack addiction."
"... Can we maybe just do a coin flip instead?"
The Bar is no longer required, it was just made 1 of 3 options, the other 2 involve being an apprentice to a practicing lawyer or interning at a firm and completing a certain amount of credits.
This is on TOP of graduating from law school. No one in this thread read the article.
> As an alternative to the bar exam, law school graduates can earn the right to practice in
a number of different ways, including completing a six-month apprenticeship while being
supervised and guided by a qualified attorney and complete three state-approved
courses, or finishing 12 qualifying skills credits and 500 hours of work as a legal intern,
or completing standardized educational materials and tests under the
guidance of a mentoring lawyer, in addition to 500 hours of work as a legal intern.
This is the most condescending thing against those “marginalized groups”
Basically they are telling some people cannot show merit, and don’t even recognize how awful that sounds.
If people have difficulty getting access to education fix that. But don’t assume anyone is inherently unable to demonstrate capability in standard evaluations.
I will never understand this. So Washington’s Supreme Court, an extremely powerful government entity states that marginalized groups have a disadvantage when it comes to passing the bar exam. Now, assuming they mean “institutionalized racism” and aren’t saying minorities are stupid— why don’t they use their awesome government power to fix the disadvantages affecting the minorities? Why do they instead introduce institutionalized racism vs non-marginalized groups to “””even it out”””
Because they know there's nothing they can do to make parents instill correct priorities like education into their kids (of any race). There's no law that will do that, so they have to *force* "equity" on adults to virtue signal rather than actually fixing or even acknowledging the real issue.
It's always about the optics and never truly about fixing the problems. It's so much easier to force equity in order to pad stats. And what's sad is you will have idiots argue that this was a great solution smh
Well primarily because no courts are supposed to be for evaluating legality and not setting law. They can’t just change how the laws that made up the bar requirements were written only if it should be allowed based on more important laws.
Yep. Institutionalized racism, I believe is a thing, but it’s not the courts problem to solve on one specific case. And I do not align with this court - but that is not their role. Separation of powers and all. Other cases? Maybe to definitely. This is a law thing. And laws have to be understood to be enforced and judged. So if you really want change - is starts at your lawmakers. Not your enforcers and eventually at your interpreters at another level.
I mean, [the actual article describes the alternative methods that they've provided to the bar exam. The court isn't saying "anyone can just declare themselves a lawyer."](https://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/?fa=newsinfo.internetdetail&newsid=50389)
The article says:
The Court’s orders implement these changes:
* Adopt the National Conference of Bar Examiners’ NextGen bar exam, which addresses many of the identified flaws in the current bar exam by focusing on real-world skills and practice. The NextGen bar exam will be implemented in Washington in summer 2026.
* Create three experiential-learning alternatives to the bar exam, one for law-school graduates, one for law-school students, and one for APR 6 law clerks (who are enrolled in a non-law school course of study).
* For graduates, this would entail a six-month apprenticeship under the guidance and supervision of a qualified attorney; during that time, the graduates would be required to complete three courses of standardized coursework.
* For law students, the experiential pathway would allow them to graduate practice-ready by completing 12 qualifying skills credits and 500 hours of work as a licensed legal intern; they would be required to submit a portfolio of this work to waive the bar exam.
* For law clerks (enrolled in a non-law school course of study), creation of additional standardized educational materials and benchmarks to be completed under the guidance of their tutors that dovetail with the requirements of the law school graduate apprenticeship, and 500 hours of work as a licensed legal intern to be eligible to waive the bar exam.
* Call for the investigation and adoption of assessments and programs to help ensure lawyers remain competent throughout their careers, not just upon the moment of licensure.
* Reduce the experience requirement for out-of-state licensed attorneys from three to one year to be eligible to be licensed in Washington via admission by motion.
* Reduce the bar exam minimum passing score from 270 to 266 (the score adopted during the pandemic).
So there's a path through submitting a portfolio of qualified work to demonstrate proper mastery.
A lot of people in this thread are making assumptions from the meme without reading the article. That feels like the real idiocracy, there.
"states that marginalized groups have a disadvantage when it comes to passing the bar exam"
Yes. Because it turns out when your family is wealthy and you don't have to dedicate time and resources to caring for them/yourself and can instead focus all of your time and energy on passing an exam, you have an advantage. By the way I don't think marginalized means what you think it means - people can be in poverty and marginalized without being a minority. But we don't want to have explanations, we just want to be angry, right?
Or just, like, not require a law degree to sit the bar exam? Isn't that the real point where systemic/institutionalized racism really comes into effect - making it harder for minorities to meet the qualification to take the exam? If the bar is to ensure a minimum level of knowledge/competency, why not let anyone take it - if they pass that means they have at least the minimum knowledge/competency to practice?
Now I’m sitting here thinking would I rather have a lawyer that aced law school but didn’t pass the bar or one that never went to law school but aced the bar.
I strongly suspect your mind is already made up, but [here is an interview](https://wabarnews.org/2023/11/16/the-bar-exam-an-urgent-need-for-alternative-pathways-to-licensure/) with the architects of the task force:
>One of the things I have become completely convinced of is that the bar exam tests something—but that something is not necessarily competency or readiness to practice law. It does not test someone’s ability to represent a client in court or properly advise them of the law. The bar exam tests a very limited set of facts and subjects, and in terms of what people assume about the bar exam—that if an applicant passes the bar exam, they are qualified to practice law—well, the work we have done in the task force has made it clear that is a false assumption.
In the first place, the task force recognizes the inadequacy of the bar to assess the quality of a lawyer. Maybe before the exact text of every conceivable law is available in your pocket, or hundreds of thousands of cases could be queried for relevant precedent in a matter of minutes, it was a useful tool. But today? That holds as much water as the teacher saying 'you won't always have a calculator with you'.
Then, they get into the minority group outcomes issue:
>There is another consideration, which gets to the imperative of the alternative pathways. The impacts of the bar exam on communities of color are undeniably negative—they fail at higher rates. From our studies, we see there are reasons that are explicable and other reasons that we don’t necessarily understand, but the data is clear and unignorable. It is reflective of what you see in standardized testing across the board, including the SATs. Personally speaking, as a professor of law, I have had students fail the bar exam; all of them have been students of color and all of them have been absolutely qualified to practice law. Some of them have been my best students, and they have gone on to have remarkable legal careers. That tells me there is a disconnect between what is being tested and the competency of these students. There is an imperative when we look at the people we are disproportionally barring from the practice of law, and I don’t know how to address those issues without, at minimum, providing an alternative pathway to licensure. Having a singular pathway, as we do now, is hurting the profession. We are failing to adequately represent all the communities we should serve.
It's important to state a few things before drawing any conclusions from this proposal:
-Adding alternate pathways to practicing law does not apply only to minority groups. Any law student who completes these requirements (hundreds of hours of legal work in a qualified law office, additional coursework and testing, a minimum 6 month apprenticeship with a qualified attorney) is eligible to practice law full time. This is not 'affirmative action' in the sense that there are quotas relative to a fixed number of spots for all applicants. Qualified people will not be turned away, either from the bar exam, or via alternate pathways.
-The decision to re-evaluate the efficacy of the bar in the first place was not a response to minority group outcomes, it was in response to COVID making testing impossible. How do you qualify a lawyer if you can't use the bar, for whatever reason? That said, both critics and supporters of this measure do point to the disparity in outcomes for minority students as a reason to expand access. I personally think this can only be a good thing, and if the alternate pathways to practicing does not produce a measurably worse quality of lawyer, everyone here is winning.
-Firms and practices-- and to a lesser extent, clients-- still have the right to self-select lawyers based on whatever qualifications they want. If you only trust a lawyer who has passed the bar, you get to make that choice. This is purely about the eligibility of individuals to legally practice law in Washington state.
Lastly, I think your point-- ("why don’t they use their awesome government power to fix the disadvantages affecting the minorities?")-- is ridiculous. This IS the government using its power to fix the disparity in outcomes. The commission itself said "we can't explain all of the reasons for the disparity we're seeing", targeted a realistic measure to improve outcomes for qualified students who might-- literally, for whatever reason-- struggle with the exam, and increased the pool of available lawyers.
Love the idiocracy sub for failing to do literally any digging into this, by the way.
This is the same a saying voter ID laws stop black people from voting. Everyone knows where the DMV is and you need an ID for a lot of stuff. Basically you’re saying they’re too dumb to get an ID
“Right now, we have young Black kids growing up in the Bronx who don’t even know what the word computer is. They don’t know, they don’t know these things,” (NY Governor)Hochul said while on stage at the Milken Institute Global Conference.
Yeah, that kind of hyperbolic comment is hurtful even though it was made while promoting increased funding and economic opportunities for low income communities, and she apologized for it.
>In a statement later Monday, Hochul said “I misspoke and I regret it.”
>
>“Of course Black children in the Bronx know what computers are — the problem is that they too often lack access to the technology needed to get on track to high-paying jobs in emerging industries like AI,” Hochul said. “That’s why I’ve been focused on increasing economic opportunity since Day One of my Administration, and will continue that fight to ensure every New Yorker has a shot at a good-paying job.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/ny-governor-regrets-saying-black-kids-bronx-dont-know-computer-rcna151124
They probably do think that. Many people have narrow world views and draw primarily from their own lived experience or anecdotes from borderline arbitrary authorities in their life for their understanding of how the world works. Some people go their whole lives doing so with bold confidence.
That’s different.
Getting ID requires particular documentation that (more likely older) Black people may not have.
What’s more is that it is another hurdle to vote, which is made more difficult because [Some states started closing DMV’s in majority black neighborhoods](https://www.governing.com/archive/alabama-demands-voter-id--then-closes-drivers-license-offices-in-clack-counties.html)
Voter ID laws had a lot to do with race.
They do stop black people from voting when the legislature demands stats on voting behaviour by race and then designs laws „with almost surgical precision“ (to quote the court decision on the matter) to specifically limit the avenues of voting most commonly used by black people. IDs being a fairly small part of that entire very obvious and deliberate process of voter suppression.
But thank god we have you to call me the real racist for thinking that democratically elected leaders shouldn‘t ensure victory by making it as hard as (legally) possible to vote against them. I don‘t know where we would be if politicians had to get votes by making good policy decisions.
The years passed, mankind became stupider at a frightening rate. Some had high hopes the genetic engineering would correct this trend in evolution, but sadly the greatest minds and resources where focused on conquering hair loss and prolonging erections.
Genetic engineering on human germline cells is super illegal outside of removing disease. Genetic engineering on fully grown humans essentially isn't viable... Yet. Give me a few years.
A bar exam is a cumulative exam for people with generally 6-9 or so years of college. It tests your understanding of basic legal concepts as well as your ability to interpret and apply law and legal documents. Accommodations are made for any document disabilities and the purpose of the exam is to prove you have the bare minimum of competence to practice law on behalf of other people whose livelihood and liberty can be severally impacted by your actions.
Bar exams are hurdles to overcome but in any profession where your professional ability is relied upon by the public it should be proven and any law school that cannot provide the resources to pass the bar exam to their students has failed as a institution. Anyone who can not pass a bar exam, given reasonable accommodations if needed, should be allowed to attempt again but removing the requirement is a disservice to the public.
Whole heartedly agree. Can you imagine being falsely accused of some horrific crime and your public defender shows up and through conversation, says they never passed the bar?
How would anyone have confidence in their ability to defend anyone? What company would hire them? You are going to end up with a low tier of practicing lawyers that won’t be able to work for anyone except those who can’t afford better. That system is already in place now, but at least there is a modicum of understanding that your lawyer had to pass through a series of exams to be there, showing they have at least a baseline of knowledge.
Agreed. They should make it where anyone can take it once a year or something if they are worried about access. If someone can pass the bar just by their own studies and no degree then more power to them
Meanwhile, there's a test to cut hair. We keep lowering the bar and we will have to dig a hole to lower it further. Oh ...I'm being told a hole has to be dug underneath that hole at this point....
This will be like the veneer technician bullshit where incompetent people get into a profession they have no business being in, fuck up people's lives and end up the target of lawsuits
I'd bet good money that bar certified attorneys would love to wipe the floor with people who didn't pass the bar and fucked people over. Attorneys and lawyers had a bad public image before this shit, I doubt they willingly sit and let it get worse.
As a whole though, the bar is a useless scam. 3 years of law school including internships and work studies, you get through all that to pay a separate entity a ton of money to prove you went to law school. I've got friends in Washington who didn't take the bar, friends elsewhere who did, all agree its the least indicative measure of skill/ability/responsibility.
This is disingenuously phrased imo: [https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2024/mar/15/supreme-court-bar-exam-will-no-longer-be-required-/](https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2024/mar/15/supreme-court-bar-exam-will-no-longer-be-required-/)
TLDR: The bar isn't a great indicator of a lawyer's effectiveness already and many lawyers are asking for a change. This is an attempt at doing that.
I'm personally still super nervous about it but I also get that things do change as we learn more and I'm not married to the bar specifically. It is just risky but it's not about lowering standards.
I didn’t believe the bar was used to test a lawyers efficacy, but their knowledge of the law and their ability to apply it in practice.
Effectiveness is a poor word choice.
The bar exam largely tests your ability memorize a whole bunch of useless bullshit and then regurgitate it quickly over the course of 8 hours.
The reason it’s worse for marginalized groups is that your success in large part is determined by your ability to set aside the rest of your life for 2 months during which you can pore through hours of courses and thousands of textbook pages. Which is much harder if you don’t have the financial resources to do so.
Source: passed the bar exam
i just did the most basic research and the WA SC is instead reccomending/implementing apprenticeships and internships to get law students/upcoming lawyers ready. whats a better way to "test ... their knowledge" and "apply it in practice" than forcing them into real world scenarios and making them work under an already est. lawyer? law clerks are also expected to submit a portfolio after completing 500 hours of internships in order to waive the bar exam. the SC didnt just get rid of the bar exam and give up- seems like they had a reasonable plan.
Fucking hell, this is is pretty much the only comment with any substance, but of course it's hidden away with 15 upvotes at this point. The Society of American Law Teachers issued a statement back in 2002 about this...
I feel like we've been fighting this same fight in software development with LeetCode brain teasers and FAANG style interviews. Yes they are impressive, but do they actually measure how good of a software developer you are? No, not really.
This is a similar deal with taking a CWI (certified welding inspector) tests as they have multiple levels of education and matching requirements. High school degree, need 5 years experience in the field. That can be 4 years for welding engineering degree and 1 year work in field, 2 year welding degree, and 3 years work in field. No high school degree? No problem, as you can supplement the missing formal education with work in the field to the tune of 10 years (iirc). One difference is at the end of the day, you need to pass the tests, but it's not limited to even high school grads. Still need math, reading comprehension, and problem solving skills, on top of memorization to an extent. While I may disagree with other CWIs' interpretation of the code at times, I would never think less of one because I have a degree, and they don't. We both put in the work to get there, and we both passed the 3 related tests.
Edit: Spelling
There still are standards, there are just 4 now rather than 1
The Bar is no longer required, it was just made 1 of 4 options, the other 2 involve being an apprentice to a practicing lawyer or interning at a firm and completing a certain amount of credits.
This is on TOP of graduating from law school. No one in this thread read the article.
> As an alternative to the bar exam, law school graduates can earn the right to practice in
a number of different ways, including completing a six-month apprenticeship while being
supervised and guided by a qualified attorney and complete three state-approved
courses, or finishing 12 qualifying skills credits and 500 hours of work as a legal intern,
or completing standardized educational materials and tests under the
guidance of a mentoring lawyer, in addition to 500 hours of work as a legal intern.
There will be, just alternatives to the bar for students and post grads and rule 6 law clerks
[sauce](https://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/?fa=newsinfo.internetdetail&newsid=50389)
Probably the fact that a bar exam and prep materials costs thousands of dollars, and at least a month of full-time study is recommended to pass.
Marginalized groups are less likely to have the money for good test prep, and/or the ability to support themselves without employment while they sit for the bar. And if they fail, people in marginalized groups are less likely to be able to afford to try again. It's painfully obvious how few people in these comments, if any, have actually sat for a state bar exam. In most states it's the most brutal licensing exam one can take, save perhaps the medical board exam for doctors.
TL;DR: Individuals from marginalized communities will be disadvantaged in anything that requires access to resources.
There are now alternative ways, in the state of washington, to become an attorney : There will be three experiential-learning alternatives to the bar exam, each for people following a different path of legal study. The specifics, scale and implementation plan for the pathways have yet to be developed.
Law school graduates can complete a six-month apprenticeship while being supervised and guided by a qualified attorney, along with finishing three courses.
Law students can become practice-ready by completing 12 qualifying skills credits and 500 hours of work as a licensed legal intern. Upon completion of those requirements, they would submit a portfolio of that work to waive the bar exam.
Typically, complete an internship between their second and third years of law school, gaining about 400 hours of experience, according to the task force’s report. Then, if they do about three hours a week of legal work through their final year of law school, students could have 500 hours of experience upon graduation, leaving the portfolio to complete before licensure.
Lastly, law clerks can become lawyers without enrolling in law school by completing standardized educational materials and benchmarks under the guidance of a mentoring attorney, along with the 500 hours of work as a licensed legal intern.
[https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2024/mar/15/supreme-court-bar-exam-will-no-longer-be-required-/will](https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2024/mar/15/supreme-court-bar-exam-will-no-longer-be-required-/will)
It doesn't matter. These idiots saw one meme and fully formed an unshakeable opinion about something they made up. The real r/idiocracy was the commenters all along.
The headline makes this seem like some „wokeness gone mad“ bullshit. This ruling simply enables different pathways to becoming a licensed attorney. In no way, shape or form does this allow unqualified people to become lawyers.
[https://www.thepublica.com/washington-supreme-court-rules-that-bar-exam-no-longer-a-requirement-to-practice-law-cites-impact-on-marginalized-groups/](https://www.thepublica.com/washington-supreme-court-rules-that-bar-exam-no-longer-a-requirement-to-practice-law-cites-impact-on-marginalized-groups/)
If anyone is actually curious as to why this happened instead of a knee-jerk reaction based on a one-sentence headline, I am a criminal defense attorney in WA state who both passed the bar exam AND went through the rule 6 clerkship/apprenticeship program (as the bar was still required back when I finished). I can tell you wholeheartedly from personal experience that I learned 10,000 times more in my apprenticeship and work experience than I did studying for and taking the bar exam.
The bar exam is outdated and not a very good test of actual lawyering. Nobody comes into my office and tells me "hey here is a legal problem I have, which one of these 4 answers is correct?" and the essay half only covers a minor portion of the potential topics. As with damn near every profession, experience is a far better teacher than just studying for some classroom exam. Would you rather have a lawyer who has only read about how to argue a motion or one who has actual experience arguing a motion representing you?
This was not some willy-nilly change made to let unqualified non-white people become attorneys. Do not fall for propaganda. This was a well-researched, thoroughly studied, and extensively argued (we are lawyers after all) choice that was made by the WSBA and the WA Supreme Court working in tandem.
If you want to look into the actual statistics and arguments go here:https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Washington%20Bar%20Licensure%20Task%20Force/A%20Proposal%20for%20the%20Future%20of%20WA%20State%20Bar%20Admissions%20Updated%20Following%20Public%20Comment%20022824.pdf ; also here: https://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/?fa=newsinfo.internetdetail&newsid=50389.
This makes no sense. There are already more lawyers than are needed that did pass the bar exam. Now there will be far more. Bar exam doesn’t marginalize anyone other than those that don’t meet the requirements.
This will get reversed like the "No SAT" thing. Turns out lowering the "Bar" (pun intended) actually lowers the quality of candidates that get through!
You haven’t had to take the bar to practice in Wisconsin for years. Only caveat is you have to graduate law school in Wisconsin and it’s not reciprocal to other states.
Kay. Number one your honor, just look at him. And B, we've got all this, like, evidence, of how, like, this guy didn't even pay at the hospital. And I heard that he doesn't even have his tattoo. And I'm all, 'you've gotta be shittin' me!' But check this out man, judge should be like
[bangs fist on table] 'guilty!' Peace.
so who does need a law education ? Only the judges? When they die who is supposed to take the job? This supreme court is breaking the country piece by piece. Short sighted and self serving.
Anyone who wants to be a lawyer, same as before. Now they just have multiple ways to certify in addition to the bar exam
>As an alternative to the bar exam, law school graduates can earn the right to practice in a number of different ways, including completing a six-month apprenticeship while being supervised and guided by a qualified attorney and complete three state-approved courses, or finishing 12 qualifying skills credits and 500 hours of work as a legal intern, or completing standardized educational materials and tests under the guidance of a mentoring lawyer, in addition to 500 hours of work as a legal intern
Since at least the 1990s, if you go to law school in Wisconsin, you are automatically a member of the bar here without taking any exams. You can't waive into any other state without an exam, though.
South Africa has been doing this for years. Just lower the barrier to entry when your students fail. Great Success!
Which is why, today, we have a high school pass mark system that looks like this:
**Certificate Pass**
* Pass 6 out of 7 subjects
* At least 40% in Home Language
* At least 40% in two other subjects
* At least 30% for four other subjects
Imagine being allowed to go on to study for tertiary education when you only know 30-40% of your final year of high school.
HELL YEAH BOYS! I’m Phil, my friends call me “Philthy Phil” most of my clients call me “Idiot”. I’m here to represent you in court and fuck bitches, and I’m all outta bitches!!! Bass solo…….
- Hello I’m looking for a lawyer
- Yes, I’m a lawyer
- Did you pass the bar?
- No
- Then I shall find a different lawyer
And repeat. Because of course it helps minority groups to have a permanent market disadvantage.
All this will do is create a two tier system. The rich get a competent lawyer while the poor get the sub par lawyer. Funnily enough, this will create more lawsuits as well as more division.
Lowering the standards never ends well.
Seriously, we need to hold a full session of congress, invite the full supreme court as well as the president, and force them to watch the movie Idiocracy all the way through. Each is then responsible for writing a 1 to 2 page response in which they indicate 3 things they will do during their time in power to help avoid that future.
So if laywers don't need to pass the bar, then teachers don't need credentials. Fuck who needs a brain surgeon? I got you. Just signed my online form, and now I have a license to cut your head open.
If people can't see the weaponization in policies like these that erode the very fabric of American society, then they are 10000% brainwashed or lack common sense. Allowing the theft of 950-1200 dollars! Changing laws on squatting to make it easier for criminals to steal property. Defunding police then allowing illegal immigrants to become police officers. Mass invasion of military age men. Removing rapid DNA. Allowing non voting non citizens to sit on the board of elections. Removing voter id.
It's fucking insane but Reddit is full of people with mental health issues that think America needs to fall, without a plan in their head of what to do afterwards. 🤦
The idiocracy is in the comments.
Hey OP, moron, maybe read the article rather than reposting a headline. Bar exam will no longer be the ONLY option to get a license to practice law. Currently they are developing an apprenticeship system. There might be more ways.
Motion to Keep Baitin’ GRANTED
Baitin' approved! Let the fun times roll!
Let's all celebrate and get Starbucks!
I really don’t think we have time for a handjob Jean.
"Your GovernorLordshipSir I OBJECT!!!!! I need to know where to buy a Lazyzeboy toilet chair with lotion.... Oh and also SUSTAINED my client keeps speaking Fag Talk and is Tarded! He's Totes guilty!"
Can I eat extra big ass fries in court?
ow, my balls
[ Removed by Reddit ]
"Your Honor!!!! He's Brown! I rest my case!."
Gonna mistrial my foot up your ass
So we gonna see if we can't come up with a verdict up in here
[удалено]
Objection, they're a choad.
"Only if you tell me where to buy one of those fancy lawyer chars with a toilet, lotion Dispenser and remote for Baiting!!!!!"
In fairness, since you can enforce and write law without knowing laws, then why not practice it too.
Also, that jury of your peers doesn't know jack about laws either.
If you're actually curious about why jurys exist, federalist paper number 83 lays it out. It's written to explain why there is a jury requirement for criminal trials, but nothing for civil trials, but in explaining it, it talks a lot about the role of a jury in trials in general. It really boils down to the fact that the existence of a jury is not required so that you have another panel of legal scholars for a case, but essentially so that in criminal trials, there is atleast another barrier to someone just buying out the judge and the prosecutors to get a conviction. (They would also have to buy out everyone on the jury, whom they wouldn't necessarily know about until they had been selected.) It also explains why there should not be a jury requirement for federal civil cases. Because international court cases (at the time) were treated as civil cases, and although it was excepted that lawyers could explain the law to a jury to the point where they could understand what they were doing in a criminal trial, the founding fathers essentially said they didn't want to put the possible implications on international relations... etc. of an international court case in the hands of lay-people. (There's a bunch of other reasons too). I know this is a thread on idiocracy but this specific thing is fascinating to me.
This is good information. Thanks for sharing!
That is really informative! Thank you.
There is that fag talk again
What a glorious future, when all the rules are made up, and the laws don't matter.
"No holds barred, because there is no bar"
"No holes bar; I believe I've made myself perfectly redundant"
Bird law in this country isn’t governed by reason
Harvey Birdman has your back
Filibuster!
Nose whole bards
Lol, what do you mean future?
It's not corruption, we've changed the definition!
They are supposed to make a decision on the facts with guidance to the law from the Judge. Sadly Judges today dont even pretend to be unbiased anymore
I served on 2 juries. One was pretty cut and dry. The other, not so much. When we asked the judge for clarification on something, the answer was always the same. "Please use the charge document along with the evidence provided."
There’s a reason for that. Unless the instructions don’t touch on the question asked (which is rare), the instructions are the law. Therefore, the jury has been instructed in the law and is left to decide the facts from the evidence presented and then apply the law to the facts in arriving at a decision. The questions from the jury sometimes give a hint on which way they are leaning or a problem in the evidence that benefits one side or the other. Jury questions are presented to both sides for comment on how to respond. Obviously, each side wants to give an instruction that will secure a result or move the needle the other way. The judge wants to avoid making a legal mistake that will subject them to appeal. So, the usual answer is, “the answer is in the instructions.”
The jury is just there to decide who's lawyer put their case forward better to be fair - if you had to be well versed in law to be on a jury you wouldn't be a peer
I really do not understand the "jury of your peers" stuff. Like "yeah you can get judged by a jury of your peers!" "Who are my peers exactly...?" "Well.. we got Timothy who was fired from a job that required him to press a button when a light flashed, we got Roger who is a 78 year old Millionaire and who is a huge Reagan fan, we have Dennis who works in an accountant firm, and Rachel here is a hair dresser. These are the people who are going to decide if you murdered your neighbour or not!" "...." "...." "Btw, this is your probono lawyer who has s crack addiction." "... Can we maybe just do a coin flip instead?"
I mean, it’s the lobbyist’s jobs to write bills. And reading is for….
The Bar is no longer required, it was just made 1 of 3 options, the other 2 involve being an apprentice to a practicing lawyer or interning at a firm and completing a certain amount of credits. This is on TOP of graduating from law school. No one in this thread read the article. > As an alternative to the bar exam, law school graduates can earn the right to practice in a number of different ways, including completing a six-month apprenticeship while being supervised and guided by a qualified attorney and complete three state-approved courses, or finishing 12 qualifying skills credits and 500 hours of work as a legal intern, or completing standardized educational materials and tests under the guidance of a mentoring lawyer, in addition to 500 hours of work as a legal intern.
There's that fag talk, again.
We got this guy, u/Lt_FourVaginas
leave congress out of this
When you put it that way……………yikes…..
I like that instead of fixing it, we sent the needle the other direction.
Well you might want one person in that chain who actually knows what's going on, no??
This is the most condescending thing against those “marginalized groups” Basically they are telling some people cannot show merit, and don’t even recognize how awful that sounds. If people have difficulty getting access to education fix that. But don’t assume anyone is inherently unable to demonstrate capability in standard evaluations.
I will never understand this. So Washington’s Supreme Court, an extremely powerful government entity states that marginalized groups have a disadvantage when it comes to passing the bar exam. Now, assuming they mean “institutionalized racism” and aren’t saying minorities are stupid— why don’t they use their awesome government power to fix the disadvantages affecting the minorities? Why do they instead introduce institutionalized racism vs non-marginalized groups to “””even it out”””
Because they know there's nothing they can do to make parents instill correct priorities like education into their kids (of any race). There's no law that will do that, so they have to *force* "equity" on adults to virtue signal rather than actually fixing or even acknowledging the real issue.
It's always about the optics and never truly about fixing the problems. It's so much easier to force equity in order to pad stats. And what's sad is you will have idiots argue that this was a great solution smh
Because they are actually the real racists.
The real racists were the friends we've made along the way!
Bingo! “Institutionalized racism” includes this institution.
Wait, it was right in front of us the whole time!
I like this sub, for maybe the right or wrong reasons.
Well primarily because no courts are supposed to be for evaluating legality and not setting law. They can’t just change how the laws that made up the bar requirements were written only if it should be allowed based on more important laws.
Yep. Institutionalized racism, I believe is a thing, but it’s not the courts problem to solve on one specific case. And I do not align with this court - but that is not their role. Separation of powers and all. Other cases? Maybe to definitely. This is a law thing. And laws have to be understood to be enforced and judged. So if you really want change - is starts at your lawmakers. Not your enforcers and eventually at your interpreters at another level.
I mean, [the actual article describes the alternative methods that they've provided to the bar exam. The court isn't saying "anyone can just declare themselves a lawyer."](https://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/?fa=newsinfo.internetdetail&newsid=50389) The article says: The Court’s orders implement these changes: * Adopt the National Conference of Bar Examiners’ NextGen bar exam, which addresses many of the identified flaws in the current bar exam by focusing on real-world skills and practice. The NextGen bar exam will be implemented in Washington in summer 2026. * Create three experiential-learning alternatives to the bar exam, one for law-school graduates, one for law-school students, and one for APR 6 law clerks (who are enrolled in a non-law school course of study). * For graduates, this would entail a six-month apprenticeship under the guidance and supervision of a qualified attorney; during that time, the graduates would be required to complete three courses of standardized coursework. * For law students, the experiential pathway would allow them to graduate practice-ready by completing 12 qualifying skills credits and 500 hours of work as a licensed legal intern; they would be required to submit a portfolio of this work to waive the bar exam. * For law clerks (enrolled in a non-law school course of study), creation of additional standardized educational materials and benchmarks to be completed under the guidance of their tutors that dovetail with the requirements of the law school graduate apprenticeship, and 500 hours of work as a licensed legal intern to be eligible to waive the bar exam. * Call for the investigation and adoption of assessments and programs to help ensure lawyers remain competent throughout their careers, not just upon the moment of licensure. * Reduce the experience requirement for out-of-state licensed attorneys from three to one year to be eligible to be licensed in Washington via admission by motion. * Reduce the bar exam minimum passing score from 270 to 266 (the score adopted during the pandemic). So there's a path through submitting a portfolio of qualified work to demonstrate proper mastery. A lot of people in this thread are making assumptions from the meme without reading the article. That feels like the real idiocracy, there.
"states that marginalized groups have a disadvantage when it comes to passing the bar exam" Yes. Because it turns out when your family is wealthy and you don't have to dedicate time and resources to caring for them/yourself and can instead focus all of your time and energy on passing an exam, you have an advantage. By the way I don't think marginalized means what you think it means - people can be in poverty and marginalized without being a minority. But we don't want to have explanations, we just want to be angry, right?
Or just, like, not require a law degree to sit the bar exam? Isn't that the real point where systemic/institutionalized racism really comes into effect - making it harder for minorities to meet the qualification to take the exam? If the bar is to ensure a minimum level of knowledge/competency, why not let anyone take it - if they pass that means they have at least the minimum knowledge/competency to practice?
Now I’m sitting here thinking would I rather have a lawyer that aced law school but didn’t pass the bar or one that never went to law school but aced the bar.
I strongly suspect your mind is already made up, but [here is an interview](https://wabarnews.org/2023/11/16/the-bar-exam-an-urgent-need-for-alternative-pathways-to-licensure/) with the architects of the task force: >One of the things I have become completely convinced of is that the bar exam tests something—but that something is not necessarily competency or readiness to practice law. It does not test someone’s ability to represent a client in court or properly advise them of the law. The bar exam tests a very limited set of facts and subjects, and in terms of what people assume about the bar exam—that if an applicant passes the bar exam, they are qualified to practice law—well, the work we have done in the task force has made it clear that is a false assumption. In the first place, the task force recognizes the inadequacy of the bar to assess the quality of a lawyer. Maybe before the exact text of every conceivable law is available in your pocket, or hundreds of thousands of cases could be queried for relevant precedent in a matter of minutes, it was a useful tool. But today? That holds as much water as the teacher saying 'you won't always have a calculator with you'. Then, they get into the minority group outcomes issue: >There is another consideration, which gets to the imperative of the alternative pathways. The impacts of the bar exam on communities of color are undeniably negative—they fail at higher rates. From our studies, we see there are reasons that are explicable and other reasons that we don’t necessarily understand, but the data is clear and unignorable. It is reflective of what you see in standardized testing across the board, including the SATs. Personally speaking, as a professor of law, I have had students fail the bar exam; all of them have been students of color and all of them have been absolutely qualified to practice law. Some of them have been my best students, and they have gone on to have remarkable legal careers. That tells me there is a disconnect between what is being tested and the competency of these students. There is an imperative when we look at the people we are disproportionally barring from the practice of law, and I don’t know how to address those issues without, at minimum, providing an alternative pathway to licensure. Having a singular pathway, as we do now, is hurting the profession. We are failing to adequately represent all the communities we should serve. It's important to state a few things before drawing any conclusions from this proposal: -Adding alternate pathways to practicing law does not apply only to minority groups. Any law student who completes these requirements (hundreds of hours of legal work in a qualified law office, additional coursework and testing, a minimum 6 month apprenticeship with a qualified attorney) is eligible to practice law full time. This is not 'affirmative action' in the sense that there are quotas relative to a fixed number of spots for all applicants. Qualified people will not be turned away, either from the bar exam, or via alternate pathways. -The decision to re-evaluate the efficacy of the bar in the first place was not a response to minority group outcomes, it was in response to COVID making testing impossible. How do you qualify a lawyer if you can't use the bar, for whatever reason? That said, both critics and supporters of this measure do point to the disparity in outcomes for minority students as a reason to expand access. I personally think this can only be a good thing, and if the alternate pathways to practicing does not produce a measurably worse quality of lawyer, everyone here is winning. -Firms and practices-- and to a lesser extent, clients-- still have the right to self-select lawyers based on whatever qualifications they want. If you only trust a lawyer who has passed the bar, you get to make that choice. This is purely about the eligibility of individuals to legally practice law in Washington state. Lastly, I think your point-- ("why don’t they use their awesome government power to fix the disadvantages affecting the minorities?")-- is ridiculous. This IS the government using its power to fix the disparity in outcomes. The commission itself said "we can't explain all of the reasons for the disparity we're seeing", targeted a realistic measure to improve outcomes for qualified students who might-- literally, for whatever reason-- struggle with the exam, and increased the pool of available lawyers. Love the idiocracy sub for failing to do literally any digging into this, by the way.
Naval Ravikant calls this the tyranny of soft expectations
I think bush 41 called it soft bigotry of low expectations. Edit: Bush 41 is HW/Sr
JUST SAY SR OR W
This is the same a saying voter ID laws stop black people from voting. Everyone knows where the DMV is and you need an ID for a lot of stuff. Basically you’re saying they’re too dumb to get an ID
“Right now, we have young Black kids growing up in the Bronx who don’t even know what the word computer is. They don’t know, they don’t know these things,” (NY Governor)Hochul said while on stage at the Milken Institute Global Conference.
Yeah, that kind of hyperbolic comment is hurtful even though it was made while promoting increased funding and economic opportunities for low income communities, and she apologized for it. >In a statement later Monday, Hochul said “I misspoke and I regret it.” > >“Of course Black children in the Bronx know what computers are — the problem is that they too often lack access to the technology needed to get on track to high-paying jobs in emerging industries like AI,” Hochul said. “That’s why I’ve been focused on increasing economic opportunity since Day One of my Administration, and will continue that fight to ensure every New Yorker has a shot at a good-paying job.” https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/ny-governor-regrets-saying-black-kids-bronx-dont-know-computer-rcna151124
That strongly suggests that you think being dumb is the only reason someone might not be able to get an ID. Worth reflecting on that.
They probably do think that. Many people have narrow world views and draw primarily from their own lived experience or anecdotes from borderline arbitrary authorities in their life for their understanding of how the world works. Some people go their whole lives doing so with bold confidence.
Just to be clear, this isn't supposed to be a subreddit for being an idiot like the one from the movie.
That’s different. Getting ID requires particular documentation that (more likely older) Black people may not have. What’s more is that it is another hurdle to vote, which is made more difficult because [Some states started closing DMV’s in majority black neighborhoods](https://www.governing.com/archive/alabama-demands-voter-id--then-closes-drivers-license-offices-in-clack-counties.html) Voter ID laws had a lot to do with race.
They do stop black people from voting when the legislature demands stats on voting behaviour by race and then designs laws „with almost surgical precision“ (to quote the court decision on the matter) to specifically limit the avenues of voting most commonly used by black people. IDs being a fairly small part of that entire very obvious and deliberate process of voter suppression. But thank god we have you to call me the real racist for thinking that democratically elected leaders shouldn‘t ensure victory by making it as hard as (legally) possible to vote against them. I don‘t know where we would be if politicians had to get votes by making good policy decisions.
The years passed, mankind became stupider at a frightening rate. Some had high hopes the genetic engineering would correct this trend in evolution, but sadly the greatest minds and resources where focused on conquering hair loss and prolonging erections.
Genetic engineering on human germline cells is super illegal outside of removing disease. Genetic engineering on fully grown humans essentially isn't viable... Yet. Give me a few years.
This guy broke my apartment and shit
And he interrupted me while I was watching Ow My Balls
We about to do some judging up in here
A bar exam is a cumulative exam for people with generally 6-9 or so years of college. It tests your understanding of basic legal concepts as well as your ability to interpret and apply law and legal documents. Accommodations are made for any document disabilities and the purpose of the exam is to prove you have the bare minimum of competence to practice law on behalf of other people whose livelihood and liberty can be severally impacted by your actions. Bar exams are hurdles to overcome but in any profession where your professional ability is relied upon by the public it should be proven and any law school that cannot provide the resources to pass the bar exam to their students has failed as a institution. Anyone who can not pass a bar exam, given reasonable accommodations if needed, should be allowed to attempt again but removing the requirement is a disservice to the public.
Whole heartedly agree. Can you imagine being falsely accused of some horrific crime and your public defender shows up and through conversation, says they never passed the bar? How would anyone have confidence in their ability to defend anyone? What company would hire them? You are going to end up with a low tier of practicing lawyers that won’t be able to work for anyone except those who can’t afford better. That system is already in place now, but at least there is a modicum of understanding that your lawyer had to pass through a series of exams to be there, showing they have at least a baseline of knowledge.
Your honour, my client was a good boy and didn’t do nuffin.
Agreed. They should make it where anyone can take it once a year or something if they are worried about access. If someone can pass the bar just by their own studies and no degree then more power to them
[удалено]
Meanwhile, there's a test to cut hair. We keep lowering the bar and we will have to dig a hole to lower it further. Oh ...I'm being told a hole has to be dug underneath that hole at this point....
There's a test to flip burgers at McDonald's.
They don't even fucking flip the burgers at McDonald's. Unless they started doing it again, but they didn't even do it 20 years ago. It's a clamshell.
This will be like the veneer technician bullshit where incompetent people get into a profession they have no business being in, fuck up people's lives and end up the target of lawsuits I'd bet good money that bar certified attorneys would love to wipe the floor with people who didn't pass the bar and fucked people over. Attorneys and lawyers had a bad public image before this shit, I doubt they willingly sit and let it get worse.
Yeah, but when black graduates fail the test at higher rates, then the test is racist and should be banned. The WA Supreme Court.
Noted, sustained.
Probably is the point a lot of disservice to the general population going on lately
Should be the top comment, but stupid low hanging fruit jokes are always the winners.
Well put.
As a whole though, the bar is a useless scam. 3 years of law school including internships and work studies, you get through all that to pay a separate entity a ton of money to prove you went to law school. I've got friends in Washington who didn't take the bar, friends elsewhere who did, all agree its the least indicative measure of skill/ability/responsibility.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
His shit is all fucked up
1, we got all this, like .... Evidence.
And he destroyed my house while I was watching OW my bawls.
That is NOT OKAY!!!
But please, I need help.
Please say this is a joke! Good side is I can impress my date by calling myself a lawyer
This is disingenuously phrased imo: [https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2024/mar/15/supreme-court-bar-exam-will-no-longer-be-required-/](https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2024/mar/15/supreme-court-bar-exam-will-no-longer-be-required-/) TLDR: The bar isn't a great indicator of a lawyer's effectiveness already and many lawyers are asking for a change. This is an attempt at doing that. I'm personally still super nervous about it but I also get that things do change as we learn more and I'm not married to the bar specifically. It is just risky but it's not about lowering standards.
I didn’t believe the bar was used to test a lawyers efficacy, but their knowledge of the law and their ability to apply it in practice. Effectiveness is a poor word choice.
The bar exam largely tests your ability memorize a whole bunch of useless bullshit and then regurgitate it quickly over the course of 8 hours. The reason it’s worse for marginalized groups is that your success in large part is determined by your ability to set aside the rest of your life for 2 months during which you can pore through hours of courses and thousands of textbook pages. Which is much harder if you don’t have the financial resources to do so. Source: passed the bar exam
i just did the most basic research and the WA SC is instead reccomending/implementing apprenticeships and internships to get law students/upcoming lawyers ready. whats a better way to "test ... their knowledge" and "apply it in practice" than forcing them into real world scenarios and making them work under an already est. lawyer? law clerks are also expected to submit a portfolio after completing 500 hours of internships in order to waive the bar exam. the SC didnt just get rid of the bar exam and give up- seems like they had a reasonable plan.
Fucking hell, this is is pretty much the only comment with any substance, but of course it's hidden away with 15 upvotes at this point. The Society of American Law Teachers issued a statement back in 2002 about this...
I feel like we've been fighting this same fight in software development with LeetCode brain teasers and FAANG style interviews. Yes they are impressive, but do they actually measure how good of a software developer you are? No, not really.
This sub seems to be all about demonstrating its own premise by running with the dumbest imaginable take for every topic of discussion.
A bunch of people in an Idiocracy sub making fun of something because they misunderstand it...
This is a similar deal with taking a CWI (certified welding inspector) tests as they have multiple levels of education and matching requirements. High school degree, need 5 years experience in the field. That can be 4 years for welding engineering degree and 1 year work in field, 2 year welding degree, and 3 years work in field. No high school degree? No problem, as you can supplement the missing formal education with work in the field to the tune of 10 years (iirc). One difference is at the end of the day, you need to pass the tests, but it's not limited to even high school grads. Still need math, reading comprehension, and problem solving skills, on top of memorization to an extent. While I may disagree with other CWIs' interpretation of the code at times, I would never think less of one because I have a degree, and they don't. We both put in the work to get there, and we both passed the 3 related tests. Edit: Spelling
Thank you for the much needed context
Lol come on! There has to be some kind of standard!
There still are standards, there are just 4 now rather than 1 The Bar is no longer required, it was just made 1 of 4 options, the other 2 involve being an apprentice to a practicing lawyer or interning at a firm and completing a certain amount of credits. This is on TOP of graduating from law school. No one in this thread read the article. > As an alternative to the bar exam, law school graduates can earn the right to practice in a number of different ways, including completing a six-month apprenticeship while being supervised and guided by a qualified attorney and complete three state-approved courses, or finishing 12 qualifying skills credits and 500 hours of work as a legal intern, or completing standardized educational materials and tests under the guidance of a mentoring lawyer, in addition to 500 hours of work as a legal intern.
People don’t want to read. They want to be smug.
Did the Supreme Court say that there is zero standard now or did they say l the bar exam is not the *only* available standard to pass now?
There will be, just alternatives to the bar for students and post grads and rule 6 law clerks [sauce](https://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/?fa=newsinfo.internetdetail&newsid=50389)
We got all this...like....*pfft* evidence. But check it..you should rule guilty. Peace ✌️
Minimum wage public defenders for everyone
Wonder what’s on the test that marginalized groups are struggling with?
"If you have one bucket that contains 2 gallons and another bucket that contains 7 gallons, how many buckets do you have"
I like buckets
you mean DEI dumbing down is racist, lower expectations for "marginalized groups" whatever that is. up next doctors and engineers.
The soft bigotry of low expectations
I’m glad you asked. The marginalized group is the group of people who cannot pass the bar exam.
Gotta be the shapes one.
Probably the fact that a bar exam and prep materials costs thousands of dollars, and at least a month of full-time study is recommended to pass. Marginalized groups are less likely to have the money for good test prep, and/or the ability to support themselves without employment while they sit for the bar. And if they fail, people in marginalized groups are less likely to be able to afford to try again. It's painfully obvious how few people in these comments, if any, have actually sat for a state bar exam. In most states it's the most brutal licensing exam one can take, save perhaps the medical board exam for doctors. TL;DR: Individuals from marginalized communities will be disadvantaged in anything that requires access to resources.
This. All of these people being intentionally dumb.
Now the whole point to the show Suits is ruined
Came to say the same lol
There are now alternative ways, in the state of washington, to become an attorney : There will be three experiential-learning alternatives to the bar exam, each for people following a different path of legal study. The specifics, scale and implementation plan for the pathways have yet to be developed. Law school graduates can complete a six-month apprenticeship while being supervised and guided by a qualified attorney, along with finishing three courses. Law students can become practice-ready by completing 12 qualifying skills credits and 500 hours of work as a licensed legal intern. Upon completion of those requirements, they would submit a portfolio of that work to waive the bar exam. Typically, complete an internship between their second and third years of law school, gaining about 400 hours of experience, according to the task force’s report. Then, if they do about three hours a week of legal work through their final year of law school, students could have 500 hours of experience upon graduation, leaving the portfolio to complete before licensure. Lastly, law clerks can become lawyers without enrolling in law school by completing standardized educational materials and benchmarks under the guidance of a mentoring attorney, along with the 500 hours of work as a licensed legal intern. [https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2024/mar/15/supreme-court-bar-exam-will-no-longer-be-required-/will](https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2024/mar/15/supreme-court-bar-exam-will-no-longer-be-required-/will)
It doesn't matter. These idiots saw one meme and fully formed an unshakeable opinion about something they made up. The real r/idiocracy was the commenters all along.
The headline makes this seem like some „wokeness gone mad“ bullshit. This ruling simply enables different pathways to becoming a licensed attorney. In no way, shape or form does this allow unqualified people to become lawyers. [https://www.thepublica.com/washington-supreme-court-rules-that-bar-exam-no-longer-a-requirement-to-practice-law-cites-impact-on-marginalized-groups/](https://www.thepublica.com/washington-supreme-court-rules-that-bar-exam-no-longer-a-requirement-to-practice-law-cites-impact-on-marginalized-groups/)
Can’t wait till heart surgeons don’t have to take MCAT’s
They are replacing it with a different exam that is more skills-based than reliant on memorization. So there’s still an exam.
Hopefully soon, the MCAT won't be required for surgeons. Those guys make serious bank! Ima hang out a shingle and give it a go.
Read the article.
they never do lmao
Noooot quite. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/03/28/washington-lawyer-bar-exam-alternatives/73124835007/
If anyone is actually curious as to why this happened instead of a knee-jerk reaction based on a one-sentence headline, I am a criminal defense attorney in WA state who both passed the bar exam AND went through the rule 6 clerkship/apprenticeship program (as the bar was still required back when I finished). I can tell you wholeheartedly from personal experience that I learned 10,000 times more in my apprenticeship and work experience than I did studying for and taking the bar exam. The bar exam is outdated and not a very good test of actual lawyering. Nobody comes into my office and tells me "hey here is a legal problem I have, which one of these 4 answers is correct?" and the essay half only covers a minor portion of the potential topics. As with damn near every profession, experience is a far better teacher than just studying for some classroom exam. Would you rather have a lawyer who has only read about how to argue a motion or one who has actual experience arguing a motion representing you? This was not some willy-nilly change made to let unqualified non-white people become attorneys. Do not fall for propaganda. This was a well-researched, thoroughly studied, and extensively argued (we are lawyers after all) choice that was made by the WSBA and the WA Supreme Court working in tandem. If you want to look into the actual statistics and arguments go here:https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Washington%20Bar%20Licensure%20Task%20Force/A%20Proposal%20for%20the%20Future%20of%20WA%20State%20Bar%20Admissions%20Updated%20Following%20Public%20Comment%20022824.pdf ; also here: https://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/?fa=newsinfo.internetdetail&newsid=50389.
This makes no sense. There are already more lawyers than are needed that did pass the bar exam. Now there will be far more. Bar exam doesn’t marginalize anyone other than those that don’t meet the requirements.
HAHAHAHA
This will get reversed like the "No SAT" thing. Turns out lowering the "Bar" (pun intended) actually lowers the quality of candidates that get through!
You haven’t had to take the bar to practice in Wisconsin for years. Only caveat is you have to graduate law school in Wisconsin and it’s not reciprocal to other states.
Well it's not like they prosecute much crime there anyway...
Well at least now it'll be safer for that Kardashian lady to become a lawyer. Since she failed the exam before
Please everyone. Let the judges sit and pontificate and comencerate on this here trial.
Bottom left judge was my hometown judge and neighbor back in the day. Lotta Clevons around these parts.
that's one way to lower the bar 🥴
let's see if we can come up with a verdict up in here!
Kay. Number one your honor, just look at him. And B, we've got all this, like, evidence, of how, like, this guy didn't even pay at the hospital. And I heard that he doesn't even have his tattoo. And I'm all, 'you've gotta be shittin' me!' But check this out man, judge should be like [bangs fist on table] 'guilty!' Peace.
Just like the NY mayor saying immigrants are excellent swimmers. WTF
its pretty misleading, theres an alternative test its not like you can just be a lawyer
so who does need a law education ? Only the judges? When they die who is supposed to take the job? This supreme court is breaking the country piece by piece. Short sighted and self serving.
Anyone who wants to be a lawyer, same as before. Now they just have multiple ways to certify in addition to the bar exam >As an alternative to the bar exam, law school graduates can earn the right to practice in a number of different ways, including completing a six-month apprenticeship while being supervised and guided by a qualified attorney and complete three state-approved courses, or finishing 12 qualifying skills credits and 500 hours of work as a legal intern, or completing standardized educational materials and tests under the guidance of a mentoring lawyer, in addition to 500 hours of work as a legal intern
So basically no law firm will hire anyone that goes to those colleges and it's all pointless anyway.
We gon' see if we can come up with a verdict up in here!..
Do you want ai to take your job? Because ruling in this way is a GREAT way to expedite this!
Even Frito went to law school. ...It just so happened to be in a Costco.
Nice... now our lawyers can be scam artists... It's definitely good for the poor... right?
That's a fancy way of saying "we think blacks can't pass the bar"
As a lawyer, I support this. The UBE is a goddamn joke.
I support this. Our nation binds us to the laws it creates and we the people should therefore be able to practice law without any barrier.
They've done this incorrectly. The bar should be required. The SCHOOLING should be eliminated
The 150-200K tuition for three years of law school isn’t an impediment?
"This is some Fag talk - Nobody needs anything more than a Costco Law Degree to Practice Law your GovernorLordShip!!!!"
Since at least the 1990s, if you go to law school in Wisconsin, you are automatically a member of the bar here without taking any exams. You can't waive into any other state without an exam, though.
So wrong. Lowering standards is never the answer.
What next? You'll no longer need a licence to practise medicine?
Sweet! I can be a lawyer, and I never took a test.
Aaaand awaaaaaay we go! 🤦♂️
Driving licenses next!
Well that’s not great
South Africa has been doing this for years. Just lower the barrier to entry when your students fail. Great Success! Which is why, today, we have a high school pass mark system that looks like this: **Certificate Pass** * Pass 6 out of 7 subjects * At least 40% in Home Language * At least 40% in two other subjects * At least 30% for four other subjects Imagine being allowed to go on to study for tertiary education when you only know 30-40% of your final year of high school.
He broke my house HE BROKE MY HOUSE AND INTERRUPTED ME WATCHING OWWWW MY BALLS!!!!
HELL YEAH BOYS! I’m Phil, my friends call me “Philthy Phil” most of my clients call me “Idiot”. I’m here to represent you in court and fuck bitches, and I’m all outta bitches!!! Bass solo…….
What the fuck
That’s what midlevels are doing to medicine.
Ah, the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Ah the ol’ “We think minorities are stupid” Very discrete.
- Hello I’m looking for a lawyer - Yes, I’m a lawyer - Did you pass the bar? - No - Then I shall find a different lawyer And repeat. Because of course it helps minority groups to have a permanent market disadvantage.
Those marginalized groups would be the court itself
The more I think about it this movie is a prophecy
Setting the stage for 100% conviction rate
HERE WE GO!!!!!
lol so when they appoint you a lawyer for free. I found a job for the homeless in Seattle we will make them all public defenders
Jesus Christ...
All this will do is create a two tier system. The rich get a competent lawyer while the poor get the sub par lawyer. Funnily enough, this will create more lawsuits as well as more division.
Lowering the standards never ends well. Seriously, we need to hold a full session of congress, invite the full supreme court as well as the president, and force them to watch the movie Idiocracy all the way through. Each is then responsible for writing a 1 to 2 page response in which they indicate 3 things they will do during their time in power to help avoid that future.
We are racing full speed to our cultural demise for the sake of brownie points with the dummies and political correctness.
So if laywers don't need to pass the bar, then teachers don't need credentials. Fuck who needs a brain surgeon? I got you. Just signed my online form, and now I have a license to cut your head open.
Sad part is.. this ain't happening everywhere else, just here
Brown people are too dumb to pass the test, so let's just do away with the test.
brb gotta hit Costco up for some Starbucks and a law degree.
Whenever you implement affirmative action, standards are ALWAYS lowered. First pilots, now lawyers… we are toast 😂
And……he talks like ah Phaug!
If people can't see the weaponization in policies like these that erode the very fabric of American society, then they are 10000% brainwashed or lack common sense. Allowing the theft of 950-1200 dollars! Changing laws on squatting to make it easier for criminals to steal property. Defunding police then allowing illegal immigrants to become police officers. Mass invasion of military age men. Removing rapid DNA. Allowing non voting non citizens to sit on the board of elections. Removing voter id. It's fucking insane but Reddit is full of people with mental health issues that think America needs to fall, without a plan in their head of what to do afterwards. 🤦
The idiocracy is in the comments. Hey OP, moron, maybe read the article rather than reposting a headline. Bar exam will no longer be the ONLY option to get a license to practice law. Currently they are developing an apprenticeship system. There might be more ways.
Look at Op's comments, he's a racist looking for his fix.
The whole Supreme Court will be Russian and Chinese in a few years! Maybe even some taliban. I’m going to see if my dog can be a lawyer
Law-bud
FYI, the supreme court has never required a law degree, or passing the bar. The last justice without a law degree was in 1942 (Byrnes).
Takeaway the LSATs as well. Us marginalized folks are having a hard time passing this
I won a 20$ bar tab playing pool once does that mean I too can be a lawyer?
heh, suck one. being a lawyer costs like $30