On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:27 PM, David B. Shemano <[email protected]> wrote: > Lawyers are extremely adept at restricting their numbers. The pratice of law > by individuals who are not members of the bar is strictly prohibited in all > 50 states, and the "practice of law" is extremely broad. As a practical > matter, the ability to become a lawyer through an apprenticeship has been > eliminated, so to become a lawyer, you must go to and pay for law school for > three years. Almost all states require that the law schools be ABA approved, > and since the APA has a lot of expensive requirements for its approval, the > number of law schools is limited which artificially raises the price of law > school. If you graduate law school, you have to pass the bar, which is a > difficult test that winnows out a significant portion of the law school > graduates. And then if you pass the bar, you are only admitted to that > state, which protects in-state lawyers from competition from lawyers from > other states. Since I made it through the system, I now fully support it. > > David Shemano" > > Since many on this list might have humor deficiency syndrome, the last > sentence should not be taken literally. >
You seem to admit that you are the beneficiary of a lack of free market competition in law, yet you want to expose teachers to that brutal competition that you and your peers have worked so hard to shield yourself from. Whether you claim to support it or not is kind of beside the point because that system is no danger of imminent disruption. I don't recall the context of the earlier conversation you quote from, but it is true that the number of law school graduates is not restricted to the extent med school graduates are. I fail to see a contradiction between this observation and the lack of a free market in law practice. -raghu. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
