Back to the Future? Even Non-ABA Accredited Grads Can Sit for Minnesota Bar

The Minnesota Law Blog recently reported on the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision last week to change its admission rules. The new rules will allow licensed attorneys from other states to sit for the Minnesota bar exam. But that's not all.  The ruling also covers attorneys who graduated from non-American Bar Association accredited law schools. Will lawyers once again be able to "read the law" without going to law school as Abraham Lincoln did?

Some have celebrated the decision as a harbinger of more affordable attorney rates. And it is not the first decision of its kind: Minnesota's new rule mirrors one adopted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 1998.

Is this really a good idea? While access to legal assistance is certainly a need that goes unmet for many throughout our country, and should be addressed, was this truly the court's goal? If it was, this does not seem to be the best way to achieve it. As one commentator to the story observed, you can "flood the market" with rotten fruit and that will drive down the price of fruit, but will not improve the quality of fruit available to the consumer, especially when it is difficult for the consumer to determine who is qualified and who is not. In an era where many talk about the practice of law having been changed forever by market forces and technology, this is not the kind of change many were thinking about.

You do not have to look far to hear about law students suing their law schools claiming fraudulent inducement, Time Magazine writes about how prospective students are finally deciding that law school is overrated, and any number of commentators discussing the oversupply of lawyers. The bar exam itself is a minimal competency exam at best. Does it not make sense to increase competency standards, improve lawyer quality, avoid a glut of lawyers, and find other solutions to the under-served population? Will this decision lead to lesser qualified lawyers, increased ethics or even malpractice complaints?

To be fair, there may be some students who will benefit the practice and their communities who cannot win a spot at an ABA accredited school, but if they cannot even accomplish that first step, can we say a legal career is really their best calling? And especially in this market, is it even fair to tempt such individuals to gamble money and years just to try?

Beyond that, what does the court decision tell us about cross border practice? Multi-jurisdiction practice is a hot-button issue in many parts of the country, and is being pressed increasingly by large multi-national firms who would like to see their lawyers move seamlessly across borders to ply their trade.  Will Minnesota's decision loosen the resistance to the MJP movement? Will California, which has allowed graduates from non-accredited California (not other states') schools sit for the bar, be forced to change?  Will law schools move to the Internet and will we see some future lawyers claim "I am a Phoenix"?

David Sorenson writes the blog, "The Ethical Quandary" for Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.