The Washington State Supreme Court has delivered a landmark decision that will have reverberations throughout the legal education system and the practice of law in the state. In what could be seen as a seismic shift in the legal licensure landscape, the court has ruled that passing the bar exam—an entrenched rite of passage for attorneys dating back to 1783—is no longer a mandatory hurdle for those wishing to practice law. This ruling is a nod to changing perceptions of the bar exam’s efficacy and its disproportionate impact on marginalized groups.
The decision comes on the heels of extensive deliberations by The Bar Licensure Task Force, which was formed to address concerns about the bar exam’s impact on examinees of color and first-generation examinees. The task force’s findings were clear: the bar exam is “minimally effective for ensuring competency” and unjustifiably obstructs marginalized groups from entering the legal profession. In light of these findings, the Washington Supreme Court has approved “experiential-learning alternatives” to the traditional path of bar examination.
Under the innovative guidelines set by the task force, prospective lawyers can bypass the bar exam by participating in a six-month apprenticeship and completing three courses. The requirement also includes a minimum of three hours of legal work per week and 12 skills credits as licensed legal interns, culminating in up to 500 hours of legal experience before graduation. Furthermore, law clerks who haven’t completed law school can also become licensed practitioners by fulfilling the 500-hour work prerequisite and “completing standardized educational materials and benchmarks under the guidance of a mentoring attorney.”
These landmark changes are not exclusive to Washington. Oregon has also approved a similar alternate licensing program scheduled to take effect in May 2024, which replaces the bar exam with a Supervised Practice Portfolio Examination, requiring law school graduates to complete 675 hours of legal work and submit a work portfolio for grading by bar officials. This move is part of a broader national conversation questioning the fairness and effectiveness of standardized tests in legal education and other disciplines.
Washington Supreme Court Justice Raquel Montoya-Lewis, who chaired the task force, emphasized the significance of the court’s decision: “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.” She hailed the introduction of alternative pathways as a step toward ensuring a competent, licensed body of new attorneys.
The reaction to the court’s decision has been a mix of approval and caution. Gonzaga School of Law Dean Jacob Rooksby expressed support for the introduction of bar alternatives but urged for gradual implementation, with “guardrails” in place to ensure diversity goals and legal needs in marginalized communities are met.
The shift to experiential alternatives underscores a growing recognition that traditional forms of assessment may not be the best measure of a prospective lawyer’s competency. The changes also aim to facilitate a more equitable entry into the legal profession for those who may not have the resources or circumstances to commit to intensive bar exam preparation.
Relevant articles:
– Washington Supreme Court Rules That Bar Exam No Longer A Requirement To Practice Law, Cites Impact On “Marginalized Groups”
– Oregon Approves Alternative to Bar Exam, Inside Higher Ed, Thu, 09 Nov 2023 08:00:00 GMT
– Oregon is rolling out an alternative to the bar exam, Fortune, Fri, 10 Nov 2023 08:00:00 GMT
– Supreme Court guts affirmative action, effectively ending race-conscious admissions, NPR, Thu, 29 Jun 2023 07:00:00 GMT