- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Louisiana Supreme Court waives bar exam for 2020 applicants
Posted on 7/22/20 at 4:56 pm to SammyTiger
Posted on 7/22/20 at 4:56 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
Unlike you, they never had a chance to take the bar. Your clearly have had decades to do it.
Well that's false and a meaningless distinction. I'll read the article I guess , but will they ever have to take it? Can't they take it now?
It's just happenstance that they went to law school when they did. Just as it would be happenstance that I decided to move home to take care of an ailing family member.
What's the principled difference?
I have to expose myself (as it were) to da Rona and sit for the exam just because my circumstances are distinct from this year's grads?
Why is that fair?
1
Posted on 7/22/20 at 5:34 pm to TigerAlumni2010
quote:
I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of these newly minted "lawyers" face retribution in the hiring process. As a CPA I wouldn't want to hire a "CPA" that didn't actually pass the exam.
Won't be hired by my firm.
Public defenders' offices finna eat...as are criminal appellate attorneys with their built in ineffective assistance of counsel.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 5:39 pm to Parmen
quote:
I just read the Crain dissent and he was spot on by why this is a horrible idea. Even California and New York have resisted going this far.
Shocked Weimer and Guidry went with this.
But I am also surprised Hughes and Genovese didn't.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 5:42 pm to udtiger
quote:
Shocked Weimer and Guidry went with this.
Guidry is now a federal judge.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 5:48 pm to udtiger
I'd never hire a diploma privilege attorney
Posted on 7/22/20 at 5:50 pm to brewhan davey
quote:
Guidry is now a federal judge
Forgot about that
Posted on 7/22/20 at 5:51 pm to brewhan davey
Maybe it's time for the legislature to regulate the practice of law.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 6:27 pm to AbitaFan08
Hope all the firms reject job applicants that never passed the bar. Situation is beyond outrageous
Posted on 7/22/20 at 6:29 pm to brewhan davey
The state is going to be inundated with Southern and Loyola lawyers.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 6:29 pm to MattA
Louisiana is an at will employment state. Firm can tell them to take a hike
Posted on 7/22/20 at 6:32 pm to Parmen
Neither
This post was edited on 7/22/20 at 6:33 pm
Posted on 7/22/20 at 6:36 pm to brewhan davey
No longer in Texas. As of last December, not only ethics but state essay test required
Posted on 7/22/20 at 6:43 pm to udtiger
How did this court reach a majority decision when there are only 6 sitting Justices?
Posted on 7/22/20 at 6:46 pm to Kategory 5
Horrible lawyers screwing people out of 1000’s of dollars
—-nothing new
—-nothing new
Posted on 7/22/20 at 6:49 pm to Eightballjacket
quote:
Maybe it's time for the legislature to regulate the practice of law.
That's probably one of the few ways to make it worse.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 6:53 pm to TheOcean
Stupid. You wouldn’t hire an LSU grad who was Coif and editor of law review, and who performed as expected during summer clerkship?
Posted on 7/22/20 at 6:57 pm to brewhan davey
The "gag" reflex is to be appalled. And, there is reason to be appalled.
However, with the passage rates of the recent testings as some measure, about 375 of the 500 would - in all likelihood - have passed the bar exam if they had taken it.
That leaves about 125 or so who could have taken it again and passed later. But, let's say that all 125 of them walk through only because of this Order.
Unfortunately, the other 375 who would have passed are stigmatized. They will always be connected to the 125 who would not have passed.
Who can now know for certain whether a perfectly viable candidate is among the 375 or the 125? They will have to explain this for the rest of their careers.
However, with the passage rates of the recent testings as some measure, about 375 of the 500 would - in all likelihood - have passed the bar exam if they had taken it.
That leaves about 125 or so who could have taken it again and passed later. But, let's say that all 125 of them walk through only because of this Order.
Unfortunately, the other 375 who would have passed are stigmatized. They will always be connected to the 125 who would not have passed.
Who can now know for certain whether a perfectly viable candidate is among the 375 or the 125? They will have to explain this for the rest of their careers.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 7:01 pm to Stevo
Nope, don't give a shite about law review
Posted on 7/22/20 at 7:06 pm to bbrownso
quote:
That's probably one of the few ways to make it worse.
Possibly, but the legislature is more likely to do something about the "win the lottery if you're in an accident" portrayals in TV commercials.
Posted on 7/22/20 at 7:12 pm to brewhan davey
Mmmm, didn't take the bar? Resume to the trash.
Page 8 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News