Duggars vs. Bates

[moreorlessnu]

I think the pass rate for the CA bar from people who studied online is closer to 10-15%.

I don't know the actual statistics, but I don't doubt this for a moment. I've seen other states' bar pass rates where the students who attended non-ABA approved schools fare worse than students who attended ABA approved schools.

[lilwriter85]

Smuggar's law degree plans have been laughable. I remember a few years back right before the show premiered there was an article in which it was mentioned that he wanted to attend an online law school. I later asked my cousin who is lawyer in Colorado about online law schools and she laughed right away. She did mention the CA bar pass rates and how some online law school graduates end up feeling like fools. She said her firm once got an inquiry for a paralegal job from a woman who attended an online law school and didn't pass the bar in Cali and she had to move back to Colorado because she couldn't afford to live in California. I agree with others I think Smuggar wants a law degree for political aspirations.

I feel bad for the Duggars because they are easily duped by certain organizations and certain online education programs. But in the end if Smuggar or the others do get online degrees or even a law degree it will somehow end up biting them in the ass.

[tressea]

I have a B.A. and a M.A. from two well-known universities and I went to a Top 25 law school and I studied at least 8 hours a day every day for 2 months straight (okay, fine, I took one day off to celebrate July 4th) in order to pass a bar in a state with one of the higher passage rates in the country. Hearing about people who spend the money to attend unaccredited or online law school (or, heck, even third or fourth tier law schools) makes me so sad because it is such a profound waste of money. The chances of them passing the bar are slim to none (meaning they will never be able to practice) and their job prospects are exceedingly slim. Even if the attempted to open their own office (which they would have to pass the bar to do), the chances of failure are extremely high. It is virtually impossible to litugate as a solo practitioner these days and the costs of doing business are sky high.

Someone like Josh faces several additional obstacles, on my mind:

1. He likely doesn't have the type of well-honed study skills you need tobe able to pass the bar. He's been homeschooled his entire life which doesn't entail a lot of 12-hour study sessions like law school does. He also is unlikely to have much experience testing under extremely high-pressure and extremely time-sensitive conditions. These are not things that can be easily learned in a few months or even a year or two.

2. He has a wife, two kids, and a business. This makes it extremely difficult to invest the massive amounts of time in studying for the bar exam that you need in order to even have a shot at passing. I know NUMEROUS people who were razor sharp, Harvard-educated, summa cum lauds law scholars who have failed the bar because they only studied for 4 or 5 hours a day. Heck, the dean of Stanford Law School failed the California bar for that reason a few

years ago.

3. Even if he did pass the bar by some cosmic stroke of luck, what then? No law firm with any merit is going to hire him because he would be a HUGE liability. Lawyers who go to low-level law schools have extremely high rates of malpractice suits, disciplinary hearings, and disbarments solely because of competency issues. They are a disaster waiting to happen. Opening your own practice is even riskier. Even the number one graduate of the very best law school in the country isn't qualified to do ANYTHING. It takes years of practice under significantly more experienced attorneys to get to a point where you are even marginally competent enough to handle your own case or draft a legal document for someone.

It just baffles me that so many fundie young men think that law is even possibly an option for them and it is such a shame and HUUUUUUUGGGGE scam that they're spending money on these online law schools that give them virtually no chance if ever being able to practice.

[lilwriter85]

I have a B.A. and a M.A. from two well-known universities and I went to a Top 25 law school and I studied at least 8 hours a day every day for 2 months straight (okay, fine, I took one day off to celebrate July 4th) in order to pass a bar in a state with one of the higher passage rates in the country. Hearing about people who spend the money to attend unaccredited or online law school (or, heck, even third or fourth tier law schools) makes me so sad because it is such a profound waste of money. The chances of them passing the bar are slim to none (meaning they will never be able to practice) and their job prospects are exceedingly slim. Even if the attempted to open their own office (which they would have to pass the bar to do), the chances of failure are extremely high. It is virtually impossible to litugate as a solo practitioner these days and the costs of doing business are sky high.

Someone like Josh faces several additional obstacles, on my mind:

1. He likely doesn't have the type of well-honed study skills you need tobe able to pass the bar. He's been homeschooled his entire life which doesn't entail a lot of 12-hour study sessions like law school does. He also is unlikely to have much experience testing under extremely high-pressure and extremely time-sensitive conditions. These are not things that can be easily learned in a few months or even a year or two.

2. He has a wife, two kids, and a business. This makes it extremely difficult to invest the massive amounts of time in studying for the bar exam that you need in order to even have a shot at passing. I know NUMEROUS people who were razor sharp, Harvard-educated, summa cum lauds law scholars who have failed the bar because they only studied for 4 or 5 hours a day. Heck, the dean of Stanford Law School failed the California bar for that reason a few

years ago.

3. Even if he did pass the bar by some cosmic stroke of luck, what then? No law firm with any merit is going to hire him because he would be a HUGE liability. Lawyers who go to low-level law schools have extremely high rates of malpractice suits, disciplinary hearings, and disbarments solely because of competency issues. They are a disaster waiting to happen. Opening your own practice is even riskier. Even the number one graduate of the very best law school in the country isn't qualified to do ANYTHING. It takes years of practice under significantly more experienced attorneys to get to a point where you are even marginally competent enough to handle your own case or draft a legal document for someone.

It just baffles me that so many fundie young men think that law is even possibly an option for them and it is such a shame and HUUUUUUUGGGGE scam that they're spending money on these online law schools that give them virtually no chance if ever being able to practice.

Good post tressea. My cousin mentioned some of the same things you mentioned too. I think some fundies basically believe that online/distance education is a some kind of God send for them. I remember the Duggars said somewhere that the reason they were getting involved with CollegePlus and distance learning was so the family could vacation together or something. I thought that excuse was pretty weak, because in life you can't always do everything when you want to with your family.

[liltwinstar]

I've been pondering the whole law school thing; it seemed to me when I was homeschooled, it was one of only two "acceptable" academic aspirations for homeschooled boys - the other being a pastor.

It baffled me for a while, but I think that fundies really believe that they can reform our legal system by becoming lawyers and working from within. There's a lot of emphasis on Constitutional Law and the founding fathers - and I think fundies/reconstructionists/homeschoolers think that if they can somehow "decode" the system, they can change the law. Also, there is a *ton* of misinformation about laws and such out there- for example, I was told as a fundie child that there's something called "jury nullification" which basically means that a jury can find someone not guilty of a crime because the jury believes that the law the defendent transgressed is an unjust law. The example that we were given was that if we served on a jury that was involved in a pro-life case (such as the murder of a doctor, the blocking of an abortion clinic, a hate crime against a homosexual person, etc), we (as a member of the jury) could find that the defendent was not guilty because we believed that the law against, say, hate crimes was a bad/unjust law. I'm pretty sure most judges in this country wouldn't go for that, yet it was something that we talked about in our fundie church, as if it was a legitimate option if one was called to serve on a jury.

Also, I'm guessing that most fundie boys who go to law school (or who want to go to law school) want to do politics or constitutional law, not boring stuff like employment law or contract law or whatever. The leaders of the movement seem to put these ideas in young men's (and young women's) heads - that they, too, can change the world with the on-line law degree. Doesn't Bill Gothard have one? Oak Brook or something? Anyway, in the real law world, that just doesn't work. But a lot of homeschoolers seem to think they can make an end-run around the normal process of education (see: College Plus). So, when Josh says he wants to go to law school, he probably doesn't have any sense of what actual law school entails - he just wants to do it as a means to an end.

[IReallyAmHopewell]

But then they would still have to invent something new.. because we already saw Smuggar getting fatter with nearly each episode. And we already know that Anna will have a new blessing every year, so no big surprise with that. They really need to move out of that tiny house, but I can't really see a moving-special because "2 kids and moving in" doesn't sound a bit as interesting as "16 kids and moving in". An interesting turning point of the show could be, if Smuggar really went to college to get a Law Degree. They could make that out.. but honestly.. we all know Smuggar would probably never make it through college and before J'chelle s little baby boy fails he never tries..

Something new: Let one of the girls go to a REAL college. Let the 4 big girls move into one of the "rent" houses. They could go home and work 8--5 then go "home" to their own place. Let at least one of them get a normal job--like at the grocery store or somewhere. Let Josiah go to Christian High School. Anything different.

Instead we'll get: More packing, stopped up toilets, nose picking, gross table manners, being told how "sweet" or "precious" everyone is and, of course, a yearly blessing for Mr and Mrs Smuggar. We'll see him sweating away at the car lot while Anna gives thanks that she does not have to be the breadwinner, because that wouldn't be neat. The girls will go to ATI things. Jim-Bob and Michelle will go on more speaking tours and write another "encouraging" book. Maybe we'll see Joseph set up a septic tank service or Josiah a pool service, but that's about it.

[O Latin]

OT question: Do you only get one shot at passing the bar and if you fail, too bad, or are you allowed to come back and try again?

[moreorlessnu]

There's a lot of emphasis on Constitutional Law and the founding fathers - and I think fundies/reconstructionists/homeschoolers think that if they can somehow "decode" the system, they can change the law.

To make it even more difficult for them, they would have to understand enough about Constitutional Law and stare decisis to make it through law school, yet they would have to reconcile that information w/ their beliefs. Then, many law schools require some sort of legal internship where they would actually work w/ lawyers doing legal work. Even if they could avoid this, and they were still able to pass a bar exam, that would leave them as a licensed attorney with absolutely no experience in practicing law. They would have trouble getting a job at a law firm. But, they could hang out their own shingle...and they might as well tattoo the word 'malpractice' on their foreheads.

That said, I do think there is a category of people who don't understand what it means to actually be able to call yourself an attorney. I know of several people who others would refer to with the phrase "he went to law school, and became an attorney", and when I looked into it, I all I could find was that the person either attended a law school, or finished law school, but was not listed in any directory as a licensed, practicing attorney. There's a difference.

You or I might approach an attorney asking questions such as "in which state are you licensed" and "what areas of practice do you specialize in". Others might simply think that someone who attended a law school (any law school) is an attorney, and can practice in any area of law. Not so.

[Charliemae]

It baffled me for a while, but I think that fundies really believe that they can reform our legal system by becoming lawyers and working from within. There's a lot of emphasis on Constitutional Law and the founding fathers - and I think fundies/reconstructionists/homeschoolers think that if they can somehow "decode" the system, they can change the law. Also, there is a *ton* of misinformation about laws and such out there- for example, I was told as a fundie child that there's something called "jury nullification" which basically means that a jury can find someone not guilty of a crime because the jury believes that the law the defendent transgressed is an unjust law. The example that we were given was that if we served on a jury that was involved in a pro-life case (such as the murder of a doctor, the blocking of an abortion clinic, a hate crime against a homosexual person, etc), we (as a member of the jury) could find that the defendent was not guilty because we believed that the law against, say, hate crimes was a bad/unjust law. I'm pretty sure most judges in this country wouldn't go for that, yet it was something that we talked about in our fundie church, as if it was a legitimate option if one was called to serve on a jury.

*emphasis added

Though the idea of the funides teaching jury nullification that way squeeks me out a bit it is a real, and important, part of our legal system in America. Your post explains my understanding of it so I wont try again. Typically people who would nullify are weeded out during jury selection and so it is a rarity. I've heard of it in reference to marijuana related crimes before.

[starfish]

O Latin, you can re-take a state's bar exam. You can take it as many times as you like. However, you have to pay fees to take it, and it's typically only offered one or two times a year.

I know the fundies think "constitutional" law is some big field of law, but typically constitutional questions arise within the context of a particular field of law. In criminal law, you have certain constitutional questions arise within certain scenarious; same thing with administrative, employment, and school law. I think if they were under the impression they are going to open up a law firm specializing in "constitutional law", well, they would soon starve to death.

There is the "Liberty Institute" I think it's called, that challenges the ACLU on school issues such as prayer in school, etc. I guess they could work for the homeschool legal defense fund, also.

[IReallyAmHopewell]

You can take it as many times as you like.

Not in all states. And usually an employer will be very skeptical if you fail more than once unless, of course, your uncle is the Governor or a Fortune 500 CEO or other excellent connection!

Today there are folks who passed with flying colors from excellent law schools stuck working as paralegals.

[starfish]

Well, sure if it takes you ten tries to pass the bar, I think big law firms would not give you a second glance. But then again, they don't give most folks a second glance.

I'm not speaking to employability, I'm just talking about the way to pass the bar. I've heard of people taking the Tx bar in excess of 3x, and California 5x. Not sure about anywhere else. The state bar examiners are usually happy to take the bar exam fees. But, heck, they have possibly capped the number of times you can take it. And each state is different, O Latin.

One route people take to getting licensed in a certain state is to pass the bar in a given state, and then practice in that state for a certain amount of time (usually five years) and then you can "waive" into select states. I'd heard of an elected official here in TX that was not allowed to practice in Tx (perhaps take the bar) b/c of a felony conviction. He got licensed in Alaska and stayed up there and practiced for five years. TX let him waive in under their reciprocity policy. Again, that's a state-by-state deal.

[tressea]

You can take the bar an unlimited number of times. However, your chances of passing the bar actually DECREASE each time you take it. The passage rate for first-time test takers that graduated from accredited law schools and have English as their first language is usually somewhere between 50% - 80% depending on the state. The passage rate for SECOND-time takers, though, is usually around 35%. By your third time, the passage rate is lower than 10%. Everyone holds JFK Jr. up as the exception, but he only passed after hiring someone to tutor him full-time for several months.

So, the bar is really unlike other professional certification tests. Your chances don't go up the more you take it. In fact, most professional bar exam prep teachers would probably say that if you don't pass on your second try you're probably better off finding another line of work.

Additionally, as some if the previous posters have pointed out, the fee to sit for the bar is pretty high in most states and you don't want to have to invest in three months of full-time study more than once.

[liltwinstar]

I know the fundies think "constitutional" law is some big field of law, but typically constitutional questions arise within the context of a particular field of law. In criminal law, you have certain constitutional questions arise within certain scenarious; same thing with administrative, employment, and school law. I think if they were under the impression they are going to open up a law firm specializing in "constitutional law", well, they would soon starve to death.

You're totally right about that - I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that fundies want to drag up "constitutional law" at every opportunity, as if the laws and statutes that have been created in the 200+ years since then don't really matter. I remember when my mom still got the HSLDA "court report" magazine, and there was a whole big to-do about a young (homeschooled) soldier who enlisted and was sent to Serbia (I think) and refused to wear the NATO peacekeeping uniform. The HSLDA attorneys were *all over* that, claiming that his "constitutional rights" had been violated, trying to argue that any US involvement with peacekeeping missions was unconstitutional, etc etc.

I seriously think that most fundie lawyer-wanna-bes see themselves arguing for religious freedom in front of the Supreme Court, and winning and having this glorious moment of divine inspiration in their closing arguments, you know, just like on TV. And...yeah, it doesn't work that way.

[tressea]

I agree with all of the previous posts about constitutional law as an area of practice (and I am a lawyer). There are very, very few lawyers in this country that exclusively practice constitutional law, and most of them are actually law professors that get called in when one of the exceptionally few constitutional cases gets passed the motion to dismiss phase at the trial court level (lower court judges are EXTREMELY hesitant to hear constitutional claims because the risk of getting reversed is so high, so most try their hardest to dismiss any constitutional claims in a case before the case goes to trial). And, let's remember, the vast, vast majority of cases settle these days, anyway. So, really, in any given year, there are only a handful of constitutional cases that actually go anywhere.

Moreover, once those cases get past the trial stage, the number of lawyers who handle them gets even smaller. There are, for instance, really only a tiny, tiny handful of lawyers that argue constitutional cases before the Supreme Court. By the time a case gets to that point, the clients almost always hire one of those select few people because they are so much more qualified than anyone else to handle them.

So, the chances of ANY lawyer ever handling a constitutional case beyond the motion to dismiss phase are small. There are only a few constitutional cases that go anywhere and they are almost always handled by a small group of people. Even if you were one of the few people that DID handle a constitutional case that survived the motion to dismiss phase, you would almost always be replaced by a Supreme Court constitutional specialist IF your case was accepted by the Supreme Court (which, lets remember, CHOOSES to hear a very, very small number of cases per year).

And all of this, of course, is completely contingent on passing the bar first.

So, yeah... whenever I hear ANYONE say that they plan to practice constitutional law, I take it as a sign that they know exceedingly little about the American judicial system and the realities of how law is actually practiced in this country. It's such a first-year law student thing to say. Heck, I said it when I was a first-year law student, but then reality set in. The fact that this continues to a pervasive theme in the fundie community is just even more evidence that ignorance often rules the day in those circles.

[O Latin]

Thanks for the info, everyone. I was just curious because my dad is a lawyer, and while he loves to reminisce about how tough law school was, he's never mentioned studying for or taking the bar. This was 20+ years ago, though, so things might've changed since then. Maybe it's harder now. I'll have to ask him about it.

[moreorlessnu]

The intention is to maintain the same level of difficulty in the bar exam from year to year. But if you start poking around into bar exam pass/fail statistics*, you'll see there are some pass rate differences from year to year. As others have mentioned above, there is a difference in pass rates between first time takers and repeat takers. There is also a difference between those from ABA approved law schools and non-ABA approved law schools. I usually compare the 1st time takers from ABA approved schools from year to year to maintain a consistent benchmark. When I see a difference of more than a few points, it does occur to me that the exam may have been more difficult.

However, there are other factors that may factor into those statistics. Most people take the bar exam at the end of July, right after they graduate. They are used to the rigorous demands of law school, and they have planned to take off June and July to study full time. Those who take the exam in February might be further removed from the law school environment (if they graduated the previous May), and/or they might be working full/part time which can seriously impact their efforts to study.

*Just google your state's name with the phrase 'bar exam results' and you'll find the results.

[Kaylee]

One route people take to getting licensed in a certain state is to pass the bar in a given state, and then practice in that state for a certain amount of time (usually five years) and then you can "waive" into select states. ... Again, that's a state-by-state deal.

Does anyone know offhand if CA is one of the states that allows this?

I'm wondering because my aunt's ex-husband, who failed the CA bar exam 4 times before deciding to move to Georgia to practice law, moved back to CA a couple years ago to be with some girl he met online and I have been trying to figure out how he managed to pass it that time around. He practiced law in GA for at least 15 years in between, but still.

[moreorlessnu]

No, California does not allow people to waive in. They do not accept MBE scores from other states (that's the 6 hour, 200 multiple choice part of the bar exam). They do, however, allow attorneys (who have been licensed for 4 years in another state) to sit for the attorneys exam, which is the written part only.