Oregon considers dropping bar exam requirement for new lawyers — a rare move among states

The Oregonian released a piece today, outlining mostly proponent statements about dropping the bar exam requirement. A link to the original article is here.

I am quoted at the very end of the article. I sent my full statement in opposition to the Oregonian, and hoped they would provide more context for my position. Rather than repeating it here, I’m providing my full, unredacted statement as given to the Oregon Supreme Court here:

Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2021 4:00 PM
To: Martha L. Walters <Martha.L.Walters@ojd.state.or.us>
Subject: Alternatives for Bar admission under consideration (June 30, 2021 deadline)

Chief Justice Walters,

I may be a lonely voice in opposition to several recommendations proposed by the OSB task force directed to review alternatives to Bar admission. Luckily, we live in an open-minded system where my points of view are protected from threats of reprise.

I disagree with the three alternatives proposed by the OSB task force.

Here is my understanding of what the Bar wants to promote: inclusion. It turns out, this aligns with my goal as well. We need more competent attorneys representing those in need. Especially, those in rural, underserved, and impoverished communities. I live and serve rural eastern Oregon. We need more competent attorneys. Please.

The way to do that is by increasing the number of competent attorneys practicing in the state. The way to ensure competence is by maintaining the Bar exam.

So how then do we increase the pool of candidates which should thereby increase the number of practicing attorneys? I would suggest two systemic failings: 1) An outrageously expensive  university system, that between undergraduate and grad school typically saddles those lucky enough to earn a diploma with significant student loan debt, and 2) A Bar application process that unnecessarily limits candidates based on outdated criteria.

RE: Point one. I would posit this systemic failing is the primary reason we are currently facing representation problems in the aforementioned rural, underserved and impoverished communities. It takes money to make money, as they say. Being poor is not an insurmountable obstacle to attending law school, but it certainly creates a barrier to entry. RE: Point two. Allowing applicants that have attended a school, even other than an ABA accredited school, or have gone to a year of law school at an ABA accredited school, followed by 3 years of apprenticeship with a member of the bar having 5 or more years experience, to sit for the Bar, would increase the applicant pool.

There are other ways to increase the pool of candidates, these are just a couple ideas. These are not even necessarily the best ideas. The bar exam is the great equalizer. The bias to adding qualified, competent attorneys to the Oregon Bar system, if such bias in the system exists, is at the university level, not at the Bar exam level. Do not lower the standard by removing the bar or providing alternatives to the bar. Increase the candidate pool and expand the pie.

It is my humble opinion that any decision other than maintaining the Bar exam as a minimum standard for entry will be seen as a legacy of regret in the decades to come.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,

Blaine Clooten

OSB 133294