OLYMPIA—The Washington Supreme Court ordered on Friday, March 15, that attorneys now have “alternative pathways” in lieu the bar exam to become licensed to practice law in Washington State.
The Washington State Bar Licensure Task Force (WBLTF) cited that the bar exam “disproportionately and unnecessarily blocks marginalized groups from practicing law” while escalating a “law dessert” across the state.
“In addition to the racism and classism written into the test itself, the time and financial costs of the test reinforce historical inequities in our profession,” Supreme Court documents state. “Despite these issues, data indicates that the bar exam is at best minimally effective for ensuring competent lawyers. Among the deficiencies and common complaints about the bar exam is that it bears little resemblance to actual practice and tends to simply restate the same results already provided by law school grades.”
The task force was created by the Washington State Supreme Court on November 20, 2020, to assess the efficacy of the Washington state bar requirements for licensing lawyers, according to Supreme Court documents, as well as to consider alternatives to the current licensing requirements and to analyze potential alternatives.
On October 11, 2023, the WBLTF presented its proposals for the future of Washington State Bar Admissions. Those proposals were then updated on February 28, 2024, following a round of public comment.
Those proposals included seven recommendations to the court to modify requirements needed to practice law in Washington, of those the court accepted recommendations two through six which relate to graduating from an apprenticeship program, law school experiential pathway, APR 6 apprenticeships (Law Clerk program), alternative assessments and interventions, and reciprocity.
The entire list of proposed recommendations include:
- maintain the bar exam in its current form for those who choose to take it while advancing the cause of improvement to the bar exam;
- create an experiential pathway to practice for law school graduates;
- create an experiential pathway to practice for law school students;
- create an experiential pathway to practice for APR 6 clerks;
- recommend that WSBA research, with the goal of implementation, assessments that identify strengths and growth areas for lawyers and specific training programs that can be implemented throughout the course of a lawyer’s career;
- reduce the time requirement for admission by motion to one year; and
- lower the cut score for bar exam passage back to 266. These proposed reforms relate only to the bar exam.
Participants in each proposal are still expected to complete all WA licensure requirements other than the bar exam.
“These recommendations come from a diverse body of lawyers in private and public practice, academics, and researchers who contributed immense insight, counterpoints and research to get us where we are today,” Washington Supreme Court Justice Raquel Montoya-Lewis issued in a statement. “With these alternative pathways, we recognize that there are multiple ways to ensure a competent, licensed body of new attorneys who are so desperately needed around the state.”
What this means, essentially, is that law students can now complete a six-month apprenticeship program while being supervised and guided by a practicing attorney. Also, by completing three different courses, law students can become certified after completing 500 hours of relevant work practicing as a legal intern, and law clerks can become attorneys without entering law school by completing standardized educational materials, while also fulfilling the 500-hour legal intern requirements.
Washington State Chief Justice Steven González signed the order on March 15.
Washington now becomes the fourth state in the nation to offer alternative options to practice law following Oregon which adopted a similar change in requirement earlier this year—Wisconsin and New Hampshire are the previous two. Other states that are considering alternatives to the bar exam requirement include Minnesota, Nevada, South Dakota, and Utah.
23 Responses
A “law dessert”? I hope Washington’s new experiential lawyers are better at lawyering than the Times’ writers and editors are at writing and editing!
I am glad I am not the only one who saw that glaring error. Maybe we should institute some standards for journalists and editors. Perhaps 3rd grade spelling?
Washington has had the law clerk program for a decade+… it’s treated like a club where nobody is admitted
Here we go…..liberal Washington state trying to make everything fair. What about the people who actually earned and scraped their way to pay for their education and weren’t given a pass. Think of all of their future clients getting sub par legal representation. Well if they are going to give this a pass, why not give a pass to a physician or a surgeon. I mean yeah, let’s make it fair and give them a pass too. Then they can go on to make a huge mistake and someone dies from their lack of knowledge and experience. What a joke this state has become. We are the joke of the US handing out everything free and making everything fair. What’s next?
Well, you don’t need to be able to read or add 2+2 correctly to graduate highschool in WA, so why bother making anyone go to college….
Liberalism is a cancer. What is worse is that people intentionally vote them in.
Everything you say is definitely true
Agree
“These recommendations come from a diverse body of lawyers in private and public practice, academics, and researchers who contributed immense insight, counterpoints and research to get us where we are today,”
People put their personal and political bias before science. What’s funny is that these people criticize using devices created from science. They believe they’re more intelligent than the people who literally give them a voice to criticize. The same devices they themselves do not have the intelligence to create.
If you’re going to give criticism, do so in a constructive way. Don’t just say it’s not fair for people who went to law school. Don’t just point to politics. Use actual facts and give a valid counter argument for why this is not positive. Honestly, you look stupid. I don’t be mean.. but you do.
“law dessert”
sounds delicious!
What’s next…medical licensing?
It’s done already. They’re called nurse practitioners and CRNA’s. They’re not physicians, but they sometimes advertise themselves as such and often have equal Independence in practice to physicians. Buyer beware.
Exactly. Can it get any worse
It is degrading the noble profession. How about do without education?
no more k-12. Let students go out to get internship in the society.
What about NASA programs?
I agree! Degrade the lawyers and no graduation requirement for jobs!
First, you forgot California on your list of states that have an alternate path to licensure. Next, allowing it to be too easy to get into what currently is one of the fields with the highest level of education worldwide-will demean it and certainly reduce the salaries along with it.
I want some ‘law dessert’ with a scoop of justice, but only after a main course of civil litigation.
There was a statistic floating around a while back, reporting that the failure rate of the bar exam for black students was 5X the national rate. Couldn’t it be that there are a ton of black kids who were admitted to law school that didn’t belong there? Is it really more likely that the tests are all racists? So now, we will have bunch of people practicing law who were not able to pass that bar. Is it so hard to believe that this group of lawyers are going to get their a$$e$ handed to them in adversarial situations by better qualified, better versed attorneys who DID pass the bar? And, what do we say to the clients of those losing lawyers?
Malpractice will be high
Ah, but not if those same incompetent lawyers become judges — as many already have.
In a nutshell, the American era is winding down. A new Dark Age is dawning.
This assumes that the bar exam is relevant to the actual practice of law. Lawyers view the bar exam as a hazing practice, where afterwords they can largely forget what they learned in bar prep. For a small percent of attorneys, parts of what’s tested on the bar will be applicable to their practice. The bar tests if you had enough time and money to take a bar review course, are you comfortable sitting inside alone for long periods of time, and doing what you’re told without question. Bosses who love squeezing profit out of new associates love this. Does it help actually win cases or complete better transactions? In general, no.
I think the message is you will still need to know your stuff, however, for individuals who cannot attend law school there are other ways of obtaining a law degree. I believe that law school is the best path, however, there are other ways to learn the same information in a private setting at your own pace. CLE is an excellent way of learning what lawyers need to know. CLE shapes you into a lawyer although there is much more hard work to be accomplished. I think that the selfishness of the BAR has finally been exposed and I love the idea of learning the same thing a law school student knows, but without the pressure of deadlines and formalities. The practice of law should be governed by a practicing attorney, some people are hands on, the theory of the law is voluminous and you will have to learn the same principles and theory that every attorney has grasped. It takes years to become a lawyer, Thank goodness for the Washington State Supreme Court.
“law dessert” – hehe