|
Leave the bar exam alone
The bar examination need not be made easier: 78.6
percent of ABA-grad first-time applicants pass, making the exam about
average nationally and much easier than, say, Arkan-sas (58 percent).
Instead, the committee should eliminate the lag-time between
graduation and exam and use only the performance test format, which
evaluates the skills lawyers actually use. This also would end the
lengthy idling of law graduates and eliminate the parasitic bar review
industry.
Robert Little
Memphis, Tenn.
Study harder to pass
It seems to me that the "grueling" experience
of the exam is not so much about the exam itself, but, like the
successful practice of law, more about the level of preparation going
into it. I was lucky enough to have people who warned me of the
three-day marathon, and that it was not to be taken lightly on either
an intellectual or physical basis.
Any lawyer I've ever asked has agreed the
practice of law is dramatically more difficult than attending law
school, so why shouldn't the bar exam be measurably more onerous
than finals week?
If the test is to be shortened, surely there
should be definitive reasons related to the needs of the public or the
profession, not merely to reduce the stress and costs of taking the
test. I say keep it as it is, and let the takers know what they're
in for. Whether they become future litigators or corporate attorneys,
they may just look back and realize that it wasn't so bad after all.
Brian J. Purtill
Santa Rosa
Make the bar exam harder
The fact that there are so many repeat takers is
not a reflection on the test. Applicants take and fail the exam
repeatedly because they can.
The fact that the exam is reputed to be difficult
adds to the value of passing it. What the committee should do is not
make the exam easier to pass, but harder. They should limit both the
number and frequency of times an applicant can take it. Takers should
not be permitted to fail over and over and over again. There should be
a waiting period and a cut-off period.
Julia Briscoe
Los Angeles
Sleight of hand
The latest membership fee statement lists the
membership fee as $390 but then provides a laundry list of matters
that can increase or decrease the cost. However, while the Keller
lobbying deduction (#19) and bias/bar relations deduction (#20) are
discussed in detail in the "Adjust-ments" section, the conference
of delegates (#17) and State Bar Foundation (#18) "add ons" are
not. Instead, the bar has inserted what appear to be mandatory fees
for these two items into the fee statement. Only a careful reading of
the left side of the statement shows that these items are, in fact,
suggested donations, not mandatory fees.
No matter how you slice and dice it, by inserting
a sum into the cost column, the bar hoped bar members would just add
up the numbers and pay the numbers. They have lost any donation from
me to either of these endeavors, and I hope many other bar members
will zero them out as well.
Dan Doogan
Detroit
Dishonest fee statement
The bar's entire attitude about the fee
statement is disingenous. A "negative checkoff" is inherently
dishonest since it essentially invites persons to pay the base fee.
In other contexts (e.g. college registration fees
benefiting various causes), the beneficiaries of negative checkoffs
have fought hard against the abolishment of this practice because they
know very well that without a negative checkoff system, people will
often decide to pay less. The "study" that the bar paid our dues
money to conduct appears to be a ploy to justify this practice. I
cannot say that I appreciate the bar spending dues money to provide a
smoke screen for an inherently bad practice.
Roger J. Buffington
Irvine
Solos are just as good
Justice Rylaarsdam's implication (December)
that sole practitioners are generally less qualified than attorneys in
large firms is offensive. His proposal that the profession might
benefit if new attorneys were required to participate in an
apprenticeship program might have merit. However, his assumption that
the best and brightest law graduates gravitate to large firms, leaving
only the desperate dregs to hang out their own shingles, does a
disservice to a great number of highly qualified attorneys who choose
to practice on their own or in small groups.
The disproportionately low number of disciplinary
actions against members of large firms might just as well be explained
by those firms' greater ability to conceal ineptitude, their
diffusion of responsibility or their capacity to mollify disgruntled
clients.
Michael R. Berger
Oakland
Success led to this shingle
I believe that an apprenticeship is something all
should be required to do as law students in the last year of
schooling. However, I take grave offense to the implication that those
who hang out their own shingle did not do well in school. Quite the
contrary. Those who hang out their own shingle have a myriad of
reasons for doing so, the least of which was poor academic
performance.
I speak from my own experience. I chose to avoid
the large firms and commensurate salary because my priorities were
other than a marriage to my job. We single-shinglers have the freedom
to create our own work and exercise schedules, take vacations on our
own calendar, spend time with our families when they need it and not
when it's convenient for the firm, and generally lead a more normal,
natural and enjoyable life. And, in no small way does this have
anything to do with academic failure. It has to do with academic
success.
Sandra Locke
San Diego
Homophobia creates fear
The recent California Bar Journal survey produced
a surprising number of complaints about the question on sexual
orientation. I believe that many of those who objected to the question
did so out of personal prejudice. Frankly, it is ironic that
professionals who make their living by asking and answering questions
would object to a simple question about sexual orientation. Your
responses alone tell us a great deal about a profession with great
privilege and responsibility not yet grasping that such open hostility
or basic ignorance of their gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender
colleagues and clients compromises their ability to fulfill
their obligations as licensed officers of the court.
What are you afraid of? What harm is done in
asking this question? Can you possibly imagine limiting discovery or
questioning because you didn't like the subject matter of the
question? Silencing us, ignoring us or denying us our rights is not
the way to resolve your fears. Getting to know us and at least
tolerating us will make this a stronger profession for all attorneys
and their clients.
Bob Doyle
Committee on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
Discrimination
Flawed numbers of disabled
The Committee of Legal Professionals with
Disabilities found the November article, "Survey finds bar makeup is
shifting, but slowly," to misrepresent the facts as to disabled
attorneys. The statement, "The number of gay or disabled lawyers in
California is about the same as 10 years ago" is based only on a
survey of those who consider themselves physically disabled and
exclusive of all other non-physical disabilities, such as mental,
emotional or developmental.
A preferable alternative to the question asked
would be, "do you have (1) a physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more life activities; (2) have a record of
such an impairment; or (3) are regarded as having such an
impairment?"
The survey findings also tend to conflict with
more reliable or established surveys such as the U.S. Census Bureau
which states that in 1997, 19.7 percent of the total U.S. population
had some "type of disability," 12.3 percent have a "severe
disability" and 3.8 percent need "personal assistance."
Patric Weddle
Committee on Legal Professionals with Disabilities |
