Not with a bang but a whimper.

I am officially done with my classes. No more class meetings. No more assignments. In fact, I only have one last take home final exam, with an 8 page limit.

Eight pages left between me and the end of law school!!!
^*With sincerest apologies to T.S. Eliot.

The quote tonight comes from Constitutional Law:
“Stupid is not unconstitutional. Stupid is stupid.”

There’s an interesting article in the W$J today: Raising the Bar: Even Top Lawyers Fail California Exam. I guess it’s news because Kathleen Sullivan (Constitutional Law Superstar and former Dean at Stanford) failed the California Bar Exam.

Over at Concurring Opinions, Prof. Solove has a good response, Abolish the Bar, in which he raises some very good points about why the bar exam is a poor means for ensuring quality lawyers.

However, given that for the time being the bar exam is a reality of practicing law, this post by Prof. Horwitz at PrawfsBlawg caught my eye. Prof. Horowitz mentions that he hasn’t taken the California Bar Exam, in spite of having moved to California. Which leads me to my question: shouldn’t he?

I’m not singling out Prof. Horowitz; there are many faculty members at many schools who haven’t taken the bar in the state where they teach. Many are very fine members of the faculty. There are good reasons for not taking the bar for academics–career mobility, the nature of specialization in legal scholarship, etc.

However, part of the roll of an educator at any law school is to prepare students for the practice of law. In the current reality, that practice includes the bar exam. Therefore, don’t they have a responsibility to take and pass the bar exam in the state where they teach?

Obviously, it’s possible to know the material on the bar exam without having taken it or passed it; I would guess most professors have taken the exam somewhere. There is a valid argument that a professor teaching at a top 10 school, where most students will leave the state to practice anyway, would not be in a better position to train students for the bar exam in some remote state. There’s also an argument to be made for reciprocity; if a state is willing to grant reciprocity, why should a faculty member re-take the bar exam for a career move? Perhaps they shouldn’t. But I think there is an argument that they should.

I do not think schools should “teach to the exam”. I’m sure that lowers quality on many levels. However, the reality is that the vast majority of faculty teach at Tier 2-4 schools which means the average student is less likely to become a constitutional scholar and much more likely to practice divorce or bankruptcy in the same state in which they are being educated. To this majority of law students, the bar exam is a very important aspect of their legal training and career. In order to get the best possible education shouldn’t the faculty who are teaching them have first hand knowledge (i.e. take) of the exam for themselves?

Two amusing things about some of my fellow classmates:

1. Imagine your professor has just given a hypo and asked a question about a case you’re discussing. As they glance around the room, not a single volunteer, they peer over the students, looking for the next cold call victim. Suddenly, a cell phone rings… and clear as a bell, vocals and all, the ringtone is “Wake Me up Before You Go Go”. Can you guess who is called? And then it rang again.

2. A seatmate in a class got up at our break to ask the professor a question. He left his composition book closed but in plain view. You know, the one’s with the black-and-white mottled covers? Only this one has a different label on it… instead of reading “Civ Pro” or “Torts” it says, “Name: Snoopy, Hobbies: Supertime!” with a picture of Snoopy, doing his Peanuts dance.

I want one of those composition books now! I sincerely hope I get to practice law with people like these two classmates. Too many lawyers (hell, people) are just too stuffy!