Combest this morning linked to a story in the Post-Dispatch about the decision by the Missouri Supreme Court to adopt a national standardized bar exam that will, in the future, make it easier for Missouri lawyers to practice in other states and vice versa. I think this is a great move, and I hope that a number of states follow it. Changes like this — which improve the ability of people to practice their chosen job where and how they would like — really have no downside.
The law is one field for which I support some level of licensure. In my opinion, though, that licensure should begin and end with the bar exam. If you can pass the bar exam without attending law school, I see no reason why you should not be allowed to ply your trade. I can’t imagine there would be any reputable firms, nor many clients, that would want to hire someone with that kind of limited background. Yes, I think people who want to be lawyers should go to law school, but that would be a perfectly reasonable decision for competitive legal markets, rather than a rationale for intervention by state laws.
(Also, the thought of someone just becoming a lawyer out of the blue could make for a whimsical “fish-out-of-water” story about a urban lawyer definding his cousin in a rural community. The possibilities are endless. …)
