While states are debating whether to extend the #DiplomaPrivilege to 2020 law school graduates, here are a few thoughts on the broader debate over what barriers should be in place to practice law. (Thread.)
In most states, I gather there are two major limits. 1st, everyone has to pass the bar exam to practice. And 2nd, everyone need to get into and graduate from an ABA-accredited school -- a process that requires schools to have a certain bar passage rate. americanbar.org/news/abanews/a…
Proposals to have a Diploma Privilege raise really interesting questions about whether these barriers should exist, and if they shouldn't, what if anything should replace them.
One argument I have heard from students is that the bar exam should be abolished, as it's not clear it separates out the qualified from unqualified. I'm sympathetic to that: I took the CA bar exam recently, and it was weirdly out of step with lawyering. reason.com/2018/07/12/tak…
But let's assume you abolish the bar exam. What do you do with ABA accreditation, which requires a certain bar passage rate? Those accreditation standards assume a bar exam. How should they change if there is no bar exam?
Another Q is how law schools should change if there is no bar exam. Under the current system, most schools can more or less ignore admission to practice. They can make the JD program mostly electives, w/students free to take what courses they want and everyone passing.
If there's no bar exam, should that change? Should law schools limit electives and have more of a core curriculum to ensure that students are exposed to important areas? Should they tighten grading standards?
I don't have any answers, to be clear. (Sorry!) But there are really interesting questions, as the curriculum and grading in law schools, and the accreditation process, is premised on there being a bar exam. If you remove the exam, other parts parts have to be rethought.
FWIW, my own sense is that the best way forward with the Class of 2020 is to have some kind provisional licensing until the pandemic is over. And I would probably change the permanent bar exam so it tests legal skills and not memorization.
If those changes are made, it might make sense to require more of a core curriculum requirement on law schools. I was also intrigued by @LidskyLidsky's idea of having an initial bar exam relating to 1L topics after 1L year, not after 3L year.
Maybe you could do that after 1L year, and then have a legal skills exam after 3L year like the CA bar exam's performance test (writing a memo based on materials they give you, not requiring memorization of endless rules from 18 subjects).
There are lots of ways to rethink the process, I think. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
DC Circuit denies the motion for an emergency stay in the Boasberg case 2-1, with a brief order and 92 pages of concurrences (one by Henderson, one by Millett) and a dissent (Walker).
I'm going to scan through the opinions and select out key parts. 🧵
Magistrate judge in the 5th Circuit, asked to sign off on warrants for routine "tower dumps," declines to do, writing an opinion concluding that all tower dumps are likewise unconstitutional in light of the 5th Circuit's recent geofencing opinion. 🧵
#N storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Other courts have broadly ruled that tower dumps are not searches at all. I think this is wrong, as it's based on the erroneous mosaic theory. I explain why that's wrong in my new book. So I don't have a problem with the search holding, holding that a search will occur.
As for the idea that a warrant can't be used in this setting, I think it's bananas. But then it's based on the 5th Circuit's bananas geofence warrant ruling, so hey, if bananas is Fifth Circuit law, you're going to get a lot of bananas.
The Acting US Attorney of the SDNY resigned today, and she sent this letter yesterday to the Attorney General explaining why she refused to drop the charges against NYC's mayor. Read the whole thing, but the last two pages are in the screenshots. static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/d…
The Deputy AG replies— among other things, putting all the AUSAs who were "principally responsible" for the Adams prosecution on administrative leave and referring them to OPR. nytimes.com/interactive/20…
Also, the SDNY is taken off the case, which is given to main Justice so the motion wanted will be filed.
Sorry if this is nitpicky, but headline writers, it's maybe worth noting: Smith's report argues that the evidence would have been *legally sufficient* to convict. It does not claim, as your headlines say, that a jury *would have convicted.* Smith is a lawyer, not a soothsayer.
et tu, WSJ? Sheesh.
ABC News is getting this headline right, at least.
A favorite in my collection: an original copy of William Lloyd Garrison's abolitionist newspaper, "The Liberator," from December 14, 1849. (Quick thread)
"The Liberator" was an abolitionist newspaper published on a weekly basis from 1831 to 1865. You can read about it here. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Liber…
The 1st page of the issue I have has some fascinating stories, such as this report of an argument in the Court of Common Pleas about a case trying to end school desegregation in Boston.
Classic @IJ case, and I'm a big fan of the result from a policy perspective. Constitutionally, though, this seems off to me (with the usual apologies for thinking that the Constitution does not enact my personal policy preferences).
#N ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/2…
If the State thinks that you can't practice veterinary medicine effectively without inspecting the animal in person, that may be a dumb judgment. But at least to me—admittedly a non-expert in this area—it doesn't sound intuitively like it's primarily a regulation of speech.
As I understand the opinion, the CA5 focuses on the fact that this particular veterinarian violated the physical-inspection requirement by putting his advice in writing—specifically, emails. And that's speech, the court says.