You might want to rethink what you wrote above as practicing lawyers are re-tested every time they are in a court of law, by the judge. Any lawyer that is actually practicing the profession stays current by virtue of the practice itself.

And how often are the judges re-tested? The higher you go in the system, the more likely a judgeship is a lifetime appointment.

You might want to rethink what you wrote above as practicing lawyers are re-tested every time they are in a court of law, by the judge. Any lawyer that is actually practicing the profession stays current by virtue of the practice itself.

Still wrong as usual, eh ken. The reason the above is wrong is that generally failing in front of a judge is not going to result in losing one's license.

Could we make the same credentialing complaint about medical doctors? I don’t think so. I believe we need and want certain professionals, lawyers included, to have a respected credentialing authority.

RJN,

The same complaint goes for doctors. If you want to make a "we test them so we know they are good" argument then re-test them every few years. Failure to do this and it very much becomes little more than a barrier to entry.

With the number of lawyers employed growing at about double the national rate it does not appear that the bar exam does much to restrict the number of lawyers.

Boy, coming from somebody who usually has pretty decent empirical content in his comments this one is pretty bad. The question isn't merely what is the growth rate, but also things like what is the demand. That is, noting a high growth rate does not negate the fact that it still provides a barrier to entry.

One could do lots of things to ensure that lawyers stay current, like annual testing. One could set no requirements at all and let the client beware. The present system is obviously a compromise, but that doesn’t make it worthless.

I didn't say it was worthless, but the idea that it is solely to promote quality is suspect. There are numerous "compromises" here. There could be periodic re-testing where the period between tests is 1 year to several years. Given that the test is a once-in-a-life-time test it strikes me more of a barrier to entry than anything else.

Imagine if Walmart could only tell you about dirty carpets and if you need someone to help you with dirty carpets, consider going to their store. But they couldn't advertise the price of the vacuum cleaners. Compare the qualities of the cleaners., etc.

I was a jury foreman on a case that should have been summarily dismissed. It actually had been dismissed, but the state supreme court sent it back for a trial by jury because two facts needed to be decided by a jury, not assumed by the judge. First if someone can contract and fall sick with the flu in 24 hours. Second, if having the flu can render you permanently disabled. We had one extreme liberal who openly admitted that he hated "evil" insurance companies and was already to find against them, but even he couldn't support this case. The jury uniformly thought that the plaintiff had committed perjury. But nothing was done to the plaintiff or the attorney.

I think one good legal reform would be to let juries in a trial act as a grand jury on perjury and as a ethical/competence review board for the bar. In addition to rendering their verdict, the jury should be able to forward an indictment for perjury or legal malpractice to the local district attorney. The winnowing process on trial attorneys and the perpetual plaintiff would likely be a good thing for our justice system.

One could do lots of things to ensure that lawyers stay current, like annual testing. One could set no requirements at all and let the client beware. The present system is obviously a compromise, but that doesn't make it worthless.

Besides, I thought there were too many lawyers.

There is less competition in the market for lawyers than there would be without the bar exam requirement. One could try to make the argument that the bar exam ensures that those who do practice law know what they are doing. I find this suspicious in that lawyers are not periodically retested to assure potential clients that a lawyer has stayed abreast of the latest events in his area of speciality.

Steve,

You might want to rethink what you wrote above as practicing lawyers are re-tested every time they are in a court of law, by the judge. Any lawyer that is actually practicing the profession stays current by virtue of the practice itself.

There are few radical new developments in law. Instead it is based mostly upon old law and old precedent. Most changes to laws are minor and evolutionary not revolutionary. Sarbanes, Oxley for corporate lawyers would be one example of a revolutionary change, but I can't think of any others.

There is something to be said for the party who is ultimately determined to be at fault paying all the attorney fees. There are other advantages to having the person who retains the lawyer paying the lawyer's fees. But we do not have a meaningful "loser pays" system in the U.S., unless it is the defendant who pays; and the upshot is that we get the worst of both systems.