State Bar of California California Bar Journal
Home Page Official Publication of the State Bar of California May2006
Top Headlines
From the President
MCLE Self-Study
Discipline
You Need to Know
Trials Digest
Contact CBJ
PastIssues

An unjust attack

Sen. Dunn's comments about unaccredited law schools (April) are outrageous, offensive and unjust. His remarks demonstrate that he shares the snobbery and "old boys' club" attitude which is so prevalent in the legal profession.

I am a graduate of Fullerton's Western State University College of Law. Non-ABA schools allow persons, such as myself, to study law at night, while working during the day. I believe WSU offered a quality education, evidenced by the fact that I passed the bar exam the first time I took it.

I am outraged at the suggestion that I am more likely to "push ethical issues" than a graduate of an accredited school. Most importantly, I would like to know the names of the judges who have stated that the quality of lawyering is substantially less from graduates of unaccredited schools. It is deeply disturbing to read that judges form such biases regarding attorneys.

Doris A. Faust
Santa Ana

Is it like brain surgery?

It is about time someone took a serious look at instituting a requirement that only people who graduate from an ABA approved law school be permitted to sit for the California bar examination. If California is ever seriously going to consider reciprocity with any of the other 49 states, it is going to have to require that lawyers be graduates of ABA approved schools.

Oh, I know, some people who did not graduate from an ABA approved school have made very fine lawyers. Consider this: Would you want a brain surgeon who did not graduate from an accredited medical school to operate on you no matter how good that person was thought to be?

The continued risk to the public, as well as the impact on California lawyers who favor seeking some sort of reciprocity, is just too great to justify the odd chance that the requirement of ABA accreditation will prevent someone who would otherwise turn out to be a good lawyer from become licensed in California.

Peter M. Appleton
Salem, Ore.

A priceless experience

How could the Department of Consumer Affairs regulate a law school properly? A legal education is a priceless process to experience, not a produced-for-profit product to consume. If Sen. Dunn wants to protect the integrity of a legal education in California, he should introduce a bill that prevents tax dollars from going to for-profit law schools in the form of student loans. Providing an education to students should not be primarily a moneymaking enterprise.

Kenneth Michael White
Upland

Look at discipline records

I hope Sen. Dunn reads your April publication, particularly taking into account the names and law schools attended of the individuals disbarred, suspended, placed on probation, etc. Mentioned in these punishments are graduates from Yale, Hastings, Stanford, Loyola, McGeorge, University of San Diego, Southwestern and various other schools for whom the State Bar has oversight duties. I could not find a single unaccredited school graduate in this most recent list of offenders. I have yet to hear a judge ask a lawyer which school he attended.

Leonard Padilla
Chairman, Board of Trustees
Lorenzo Patino School of Law

Unwarranted insult

I am a third year law student at the Southern California Institute of Law in Ventura, accredited by the Committee of Bar Examiners. Our class sizes are smaller than most ABA schools, usually our graduating class is less than 25 students between the Ventura and Santa Barbara campuses.

The big difference between law schools is that full-time 22-year-olds have a distinct advantage over the part-time adults who attend non-ABA schools. We have a large culturally diverse student body, including a number of students who are from non-English speaking countries. These students work three times harder to not only read and write complex legal briefs, but also learn the difficult task of English spelling and grammar. They also achieve high grades on all the exams.

As working adults, we don't have time to emerge (sic) ourselves 110 percent in the textbook study of law while being an unpaid intern in some law firm while mommy and daddy foot the bill. To assume that graduates of a non-ABA law school are any less qualified to practice law is an unwarranted insult to excellent attorneys such as Michael Grennier, SCIL class of 1995 who passed the bar exam on the first try.

Sen. Dunn's bio did not indicate he was an attorney, nor that he attended any ABA law school. I challenge him to take our constitutional law final before he wastes his time and our taxpayers' money casting aspersions on law schools and the very hard- working adults who attend them.

Robin C. Westmiller
Southern California Institute of Law
Class of 2007

How about reciprocity?

Since "90 percent of graduates of ABA approved law schools eventually pass" the California bar exam, shouldn't California grant reciprocity to attorneys from other states who have: 1. graduated from an ABA approved law school; 2. passed their state's bar examination, 3. been admitted for at least five years and the attorney/applicant's state would grant reciprocity to California attorneys with the same criteria?

Allan J. Mayer
San Luis Obispo

Paralegals as lawyers

While doing some pro bono work a few months ago, I saw how at least one paralegal manages to practice law without being a lawyer. The paralegal had the client sign a Power of Attorney authorizing the paralegal to do all things necessary to probate an estate.

Perhaps Judicial Council forms should be revised to require any person or entity acting under a Power of Attorney to state whether the person or entity has acted under a Power of Attorney in any other court matters within the last 12 months, to state the name and case number of each matter, and to prohibit any person or entity from acting under a Power of Attorney in court after a certain number of matters (say five), without prior court approval.

Brian Sheppard
Encino

Whistleblower questions

The first question I asked myself when I read the whistleblower article (April) is: "Who is the client?" Is the "client" the public official or the public? Whose privilege is it? Who is being represented? Who pays the government-lawyer's salary? Who deserves the protection? Gee, I can't help but think the "public" is the correct and best answer to each of these questions.

The State Bar Board of Governors supposedly represents the interests of fellow attorneys. So, if this is true, how dare they oppose a whistleblower bill that protects the government attorney who seeks to do no more than protect the public? How does opposing this bill foster the interests of attorneys? Who is the board protecting by opposing the whistleblower protection? Public officials?

How does whistleblower protection for government attorneys hurt attorneys? How does it hurt the public? It doesn't. It only strives to make public officials accountable. I would be afraid of this legislation if I were a public official. So, why are our representatives on the board of governors opposing this legislation?

Marc Debbaudt
Deputy District Attorney,
San Fernando

Contact Us Site Map Notices Privacy Policy
© 2024 The State Bar of California