Next year’s bar exam may be more crowded.
In a decision Wednesday, the Minnesota Supreme Court significantly changed who can practice law in Minnesota. The court changed the admission rules and allowed licensed attorneys from other states to sit for the Minnesota bar exam. The ruling also covers attorneys who graduated from non-American Bar Association accredited law schools.
The Institute for Justice’s Minnesota Chapter fought for several years for the rule change and said the American Bar Association, the state Board of Law Examiners fought the changed in order to protect a “monopoly.”
In a release Lee McGrath, the executive director for the institute, celebrated the decision.
“[B]ecause of the court’s decision, Minnesota consumers will have a wider range of qualified attorneys, including those willing to compete by offering more affordable rates. A competitive marketplace is the best regulator and serves consumers far better than a handful of overseers appointed by the industry itself,” he said.
Minnesota’s new rule is similar to a rule that the Wisconsin Supreme Court adopted in 1998. Approximately 30 attorneys who graduated from non-ABA-accredited laws schools have become licensed to practice law in Wisconsin to date.
![[Print]](http://minnlawyer.com/minnlawyerblog/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/print.png)
![[Email]](http://minnlawyer.com/minnlawyerblog/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/email_2.png)
![[Facebook]](http://minnlawyer.com/minnlawyerblog/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/facebook.png)
![[Twitter]](http://minnlawyer.com/minnlawyerblog/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/twitter.png)
Right, because more unqualified attorneys is what we need.
Passing the bar doesn’t make you a competent attorney; knowing and understanding the law does that, which is likely the failure of any non-ABA accredited law school – like the many correspondence-by-mail law schools in California that began as the result of a similar state law there.
And while I agree that, sure, it it may drive down local attorney rates, it will also drive down the quality of the product purchased – that, in a market when determining the quality of the product is difficult enough. Listen, flooding the fruit market with rotten apples may drive down the cost of apples altogether, but the unsuspecting buyer unable to identify which apples are rotten prior to purchase is not going to be happy come snack time.
Right, because more unqualified attorneys is what we need.
Passing the bar doesn’t make you a competent attorney; knowing and understanding the law does that, which is likely the failure of any non-ABA accredited law school – like the many correspondence-by-mail law schools in California that began as the result of a similar state law there.
And while I agree that, sure, it may drive down local attorney rates, it will also drive down the quality of the product purchased – that, in a market when determining the quality of the product is difficult enough. Listen, flooding the fruit market with rotten apples may drive down the cost of apples altogether, but the unsuspecting buyer unable to identify which apples are rotten prior to purchase is not going to be happy come snack time.
Maybe we should open 3 or 4 more new law schools in the state, too.
Does this mean WM grads can’t take the MN bar?
So, ever taken the California Bar, Jesse? In fact, your glib assertion about what it takes to be a competent attorney is woefully thin. The California Bar is widely regarded as one of, if not the, hardest bar exams in the world, New York’s being probably second hardest. My law professor, graduate of a non-accredited distance learning school, is very competent and experienced and well-respected by his peers. Go sit for the Calbar, Jesse, before you express opinions upon which you have no basis in fact.
Keith, I’m qualified to practice in two states and federal districts, none of which include California.
Second, sitting for the Cali bar is unnecessary to know there are incompetent attorneys practicing law in both California and elsewhere. That’s a fact, not my opinion. My opinion is that such facts support my position for maintaining a higher standard for law schools. (Keep in mind, bases of fact are not contingent upon ones experience (e.g., taking the California bar exam); they simply exist regardless of ones experience.)
Third, as I see it, you’ve really only bolstered my point. If passing a state bar exam ensures competency, then obviously taking the hardest bar exam in the country would do the same. As you are undoubtedly aware, California (like most states) has attorneys who are incompetent yet nonetheless are active legal practitioners (unless sanctioned otherwise).
To be sure, I absolutely don’t doubt your professor is as you say. Curious, does he actually practice law though? Even if he does practice law, my point is simply that the percentage of qualified attorneys will dwindle the lower the standard is for their training and education. Of course the brightest and most legal savvy attorneys in the world could have attended a non-accredited law school, passed the bar exam, and been great. That’s irrelevant to the claim that many other lawyers (and more of them) who are not competent could also attend these same non-accredited law schools, pass the Minnesota bar exam, and then screw their clients (the citizens of Minnesota) by their lack of legal training.
I’ll give you the last word if you disagree with my opinion.