Legal Commentary

I've recently been puzzling over why legal education is done as an advanced degree in the US (and a handful of other countries). There's no prerequisite body of knowledge or prerequisite approach to knowledge for law school. Nor is any particular maturity level required (as if age were ever a good proxy for maturity). I'd be curious to know how we developed the BA/BS-JD sequence in the US. Was it always like this? I'm guessing not, but maybe some legal historians can chime in. How did we end up doing legal education as an advanced degree? And do those reasons still make sense? Would a college degree in law and an apprenticeship be a better approach?

Of course, perhaps the issue isn't whether the JD should be an advanced degree, but whether any degree should be required to practice law. California and Virginia and maybe some other states don't require a law degree at all to practice. And that might be quite sensible. I think there is little particular substantive knowledge or approach to knowledge gained by going to law school that is necessary for being a good corporate attorney. Common sense is much more valuable. For certain practices, like tax or bankruptcy, a particular course sequence in law school is an important foundation, but even then, a fast learn can pick up the necessary knowledge on the job pretty fast.

But perhaps the issue is really one of whether any particular education is necessary to practice law, and by that I include the education (including self-education) necessary to pass the bar exam. How many lawyers ever have to know the elements of common law burglary (entering a dwelling, at night, etc.) or larceny for their practice? I recognize that the skills necessary to pass the bar can serve as a proxy for other abilities and that requiring bar passage is an important form of consumer protection, but is any of this a very good proxy for attorney performance? Or is the bar passage and JD requirements a way of restricting supply in the legal services market and thereby raising the price lawyers can demand (if so, shouldn't we be even more restrictive? Do we really have a perfect oligopoly going?)