{"id":4485,"date":"2003-06-17T16:46:25","date_gmt":"2003-06-17T20:46:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2003\/06\/17\/easier-to-stay-in-than-get-in"},"modified":"2011-08-05T15:00:54","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T19:00:54","slug":"easier-to-stay-in-than-get-in-the-club","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2003\/06\/17\/easier-to-stay-in-than-get-in-the-club\/","title":{"rendered":"Easier to Stay In Than Get In the Club"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

A visitor asked an intriguing question today — why are the standards for staying in<\/EM> so much more lenient than for getting into <\/EM>the Bar?   We would both like “Suggestions” on this topic, especially cites to any studies or reform proposals.   Here’s what VirginBound<\/STRONG> had to say:<\/FONT><\/P>
\n


\n

I am looking for resources\/discussion on the double standard applied to aspiring lawyers versus practicing ones via the “character and fitness” evaluation required in all U.S. jurisdictions. A couple of recent cases reversing a character and fitness denial in the jurisdiction where I used to practice (In re Vanderperren<\/EM>, 661 N.W.2d 27 (Wis. 2003); In re Rippl<\/EM>, 639 N.W.2d 553 (Wis. 2002)), when contrasted with news reports of attorney ethics violations (both practice-related, e.g., embezzlement of client funds, and non-practice related, e.g., vehicular manslaughter), highlight how anachronistic and untenable this practice has become. <\/FONT><\/P>
\n

It seems that if an act or behavior pattern is not deemed egregious or relevant enough to warrant disbarrment (e.g., <\/FONT>http:\/\/www.madison.com\/archives\/read.php?ref=tct:2003:03:01:214290:LOCAL\/STATE<\/FONT><\/STRONG><\/A>; NB: although this attorney’s license is suspended, it is for failure to meet state CLE requirements, not the accumulation of five DUIs, see: <\/FONT>http:\/\/www.wisbar.org\/lawyersearch\/resdetails.asp?ID=1000402<\/FONT><\/STRONG><\/A>), that same act should not be sufficient to warrant licensure denial (e.g., In Vanderperren, the BBE’s primary concern was the applicant’s “history” of alcohol problems). <\/FONT>
\n

Can you point me to anything referencing either efforts to reform this practice and bring the two standards into concert or explanations justifing it’s continued existence? <\/FONT>
\n

Many thanks, VB <\/FONT><\/P><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

Of course, a similar phenomenom happens at a lot of law schools.  Scott Turow’s Prof. Kingsley in One L<\/EM> tried to scare his first year law students into believing one in three of them would flunk out of the School.  But even a couple of years later, the Harvard Law Class of ’76 was already talking about the “infallibility of the Admissions Office” — if you still had a pulse and would hand in a bluebook for each final exam, you could return, no matter what was in the bluebook.  <\/FONT><\/P>
\n


\n

A skeptic like my sidekick Jack Cliente<\/STRONG> might think that the “character and fitness” committees thin out the herd to reduce the competition entering the arena.  Once you’re in the club, however, ranks are closed and self-preservation for each member becomes minimal, non-judgmental self-regulation of all members.  <\/FONT><\/P><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

On the onehand, it might be difficult to explain to the public, after clients are severely harmed, why an attorney with a prior substance abuse problem or criminal record was given a license to practice law and “prey” on clients.   On the other hand, the public might be very surprised to find out that there are any character reviews done before entry to the bar.  With my consumer protection hat<\/STRONG> on, relaxing entry requirements makes little sense to me without increasing oversight and levels of discipline.  But, the competition advocate<\/STRONG> in me likes entry to be as free as possible (once minimum competency is shown) in order to provide consumers with more options and competitors.<\/FONT><\/P>
\n

Economic or empirical studies<\/STRONG> on the effects of entry barriers to the legal profession might give a clue as to the direction policy should be heading.   Click on the Access & Affordability<\/EM> link in our Navigation menu to find descriptions of two studies that might prove useful:  <\/FONT>Regulation of the Legal Profession<\/FONT><\/STRONG><\/A>, by Frank H. Stevens and James H. Love (1999), which includes a full bibliography; and Economic Impact of Regulating Professions<\/FONT><\/STRONG><\/A> an extensive EU report (2003) produced for the Competition Directorate-General of the European Commission, which compares the various levels of regulation and their effects in the highly diverse European nations.<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/P><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A visitor asked an intriguing question today — why are the standards for staying in so much more lenient than for getting into the Bar?   We would both like “Suggestions” on this topic, especially cites to any studies or reform proposals.   Here’s what VirginBound had to say: I am looking for resources\/discussion on the double […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[2926],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4485","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pre-06-2006"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-1al","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4485","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4485"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4485\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14267,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4485\/revisions\/14267"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4485"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4485"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4485"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}