The Bar Association has no right to exist.
Of course, having a group of professionals come together and discuss their craft is a good thing. Having them come together and establish standards and practices of what they believe makes for a good lawyer is a good thing. However, a group of people in a profession having the ability to exclude other people from their profession is immoral and unjust.
Mandatory licensing matters on their face are offensive. This is enough of an issue that I have the right to pursue a trade enshrined in Article the First, Section 14 in my Constitution. Trade associations would still exist even without licensing requirements. The only difference is that a consumer would be able to pick and choose amongst those he hired. The odds are a person would likely hang their certification by their trade association over their desk and use it to charge a higher rate. It would also open the door for less skilled or unlicensed people to enter the profession, allowing at least some representation for those with fewer resources. Instead, a person jumps through the required hoops, and the end result is that a person is compelled to charge an exorbitant rate for their services simply because the cost to meet the requirements of their trade association was so high.
But the point of this post isn’t about licensing in general, but rather licensing and the Bar Association. The Idaho Bar Association sets the requirements for what is required to be able to practice law in the state. Some of those requirements are:
Pass the Bar Exam
Pass the Multi-State Professional Responsibility Exam
Be a person of ethical moral character (as understood by the Idaho State Bar)
Graduate from an approved law school. (as approved by the Idaho State Bar)
Okay, why is this an issue? Let’s hit each one individually. This post will cover the Bar Exam with future posts to cover other factors. Passing the Bar Exam is a problem for a few reasons. Firstly, again, no group of people have the right to come together and place a requirement upon others to prevent them from entering the profession. Secondly, the Bar Association has an effective monopoly on who can practice law in Idaho. Therefore if I want to practice in the state I must accept their rules, even if I or potential clients find those same rules distasteful. Thirdly, the Bar Exam is costly. With the application is a fee of $500 to sit for the exam. There is an additional $125 to be paid if you’re taking the exam with a laptop, something that is nearly a requirement now. Additionally, in order to take the exam it is nearly mandatory to take a private Bar Exam Prep Course. These cost between $2000-$3000 on average. So after 3 years of law school and the costs involved, a student must spend several more thousand dollars to take a course to pass a test about THE LAW.
A student graduates in May. Then said student must study for this exam that he cannot take until July. Still, it is several months until a student gets his grades and license back following the exam and can begin to practice law on his own. These are all MONTHS of earning potential lost at time when student debt is at its highest. The end result, as with most other licensing requirements, is to help keep people out of the profession, protecting the limited market space for those already established.
The very same thing was recently done in Idaho about a year ago involving the licensing of midwives. Many established midwives supported licensing that would make it more difficult for more people to enter the profession. Perhaps the biggest supporters were OB/GYNs. By making it more difficult for midwives to enter the profession, options to consumers are limited and they are steered away from homebirth, and back into the hospital. No matter. I’m done. Video time!
