In most States, like Arizona, it is unlawful for a someone to become a licensed lawyer without first receiving a Juris Doctor at a law school approved by the American Bar Association. This creates a very serious barrier to access for individuals wishing to practice law. The barrier is that one must first get admitted to one of the 201 ABA accredited law schools. This is sometimes a near impossibility for those with family or economic responsibilities, not to mention those with existing work obligations.
Arizona Representative John Allen
(R-Scottsdale) has proposed legislation to allow individuals who complete an
online law school program to take the state bar exam and become a lawyer
(assuming they satisfy all the other requirements.) I have read the
legislation. It is straightforward, and I support it.
An article in the Cronkite News illustrates how
online education is the only reasonably accessible opportunity for some lawyer
aspirants to enter the profession. It tells the story of one woman who had
always dreamed of going to law school but couldn't due to career and family
obligations. She did then locate and complete an online law school program
based on California (the only state to currently allow graduates of online
schools to sit for the bar exam), but since moving to California is not an
option for her family, she is effectively prohibited from practicing her chosen
profession.
Opponents of online legal education rightly complain that an online
school cannot provide the same interactive spirit that facilitates learning
law. Furthermore, law is not solely a technical trade, but is a civic art, and
thus is most relevant in the context of a community where it can be discussed
and evaluated in contemplative discourse.
There are two problems with this argument against on-line legal
education. First, in-person law schools these days don't seem very directed at
contemplative discourse anyway. For the most part, law school students are
graded on their ability to mechanically manipulate the informative provided.
They are not judged on their creativity. Even though law professors often
love to offer fascinating courses that encourage creative thinking, from what I
observed, law students are either self driven or outright encouraged by their
law school advisers to focus in on classes relevant to bar
examination and career options.
The second problem, often stemming from the first, is that from
the student's perspective, law schools often function as if they were trade
schools, not ivory towers where students consider the legal theory, history,
and alternative approaches to legal and community issues.
This may be because there are very few other options for individuals to
learn about the legal system other than going to law school, and no mechanisms
to become a lawyer than to successfully attend law school.
I believe if there were educational alternatives and alternate means
for individuals to secure the mechanical education needed for becoming a
lawyer, law schools might have the leisure to engage in and encourage the
contemplative aspect of the law. I for one believe that I spent a certain
portion of my law school career learning information that should be made
available to all citizens, not just law students.
There is also another factor to be considered. There are no
States in the country that permit one to sit for the bar exam without first
attending a law school. There are only 201 law schools in the country.
These 201 law schools train 143,000 students, meaning each law school
houses, on average, over 700 students. These ratios make it impossible
for class sizes to be small enough to encourage deep conversation. And in
a country of a population of 314 million, a smaller number of law students is
not practical.
No comments:
Post a Comment