The State of Washington is about to make history, expanding access the practice of law in a dramatic way. The state Supreme Court has approved alternative pathways to lawyer licensure which would no longer include the traditional requirement of passing the bar exam. This move, unprecedented in the state's legal history, reflects a growing trend among many U.S. states and legal experts to explore alternatives to the bar exam.
After more than three years of study, the “Bar Licensure Task Force” concluded that the traditional bar exam disproportionately hinders marginalized groups from entering the legal profession and is minimally effective in ensuring competent lawyers. The court's goal was to shift admissions standards to focus on practical skills and real-world practice while dismantling historical barriers to the legal profession, while still ensuring protection for the public and the consumers of legal services. The new ways to become licensed without the bar exam include apprenticeships, internships, and classroom work combined with real workplace experience with a qualified lawyer. The bar exam will still exist to become licensed, but alternate paths to admission to practice will also be available.
The most common argument in favor a traditional bar exam has been that it provides a guarantee that all lawyers have reached a base level of knowledge about common areas of the law; it should provide that the consumer can have confidence that their lawyer has achieved a certain level of expertise. However, the reality is that most lawyers only practice a few (if any) of the areas that are covered on the bar. The ability to study for and pass a general knowledge bar exam at the beginning of a career is hardly the best indicator of a lawyer’s competence years later, likely in a practice area that wasn’t even on the test at the time it was taken.
The new system adopted by the Supreme Court will ensure not only base level competence, but also practical experience in the area in which they will practice. Too many lawyers have the ‘we’ve always done it this way’ mentality, or ‘I had to go through that process so the next generation should too’. This strikes me as gatekeeping for the sake of gatekeeping, and not a genuine concern for the future of the bar or the skill of incoming practitioners. This new process allows an alternative access to the profession for qualified people who can contribute to the practice of law, help their clients, and do good work in their communities. There are better ways to determine the worth of a potential lawyer than a standardized exam, and I hope that this new pathway brings new life and diversity to the profession.