Thanks to Prof. Robert Barrett for this article. Prof. Fellmeth is responding to the article by the two Pepperdine professors, When bar exam scores go low, discipline rates go high. You can access the LA Daily Journal Article by Prof. Fellmeth here. The Pepperdine professors argue that the bulk of the state bar disciplinary actions are against attorneys who take the bar exam more than once. Therefore they say, reducing the pass level will increase the number of disciplinary actions in the future.
That’s not right says Prof. Fellmeth for the following reasons:
- “Bar discipline is not directed at incompetence itself.” Incompetence is resolved typically through malpractice actions, i.e., the client sues his lawyer and seeks damages. Of course lowering the pass rate could increase the number of malpractice actions in the future.
- Bar discipline is minimal in any event. Professor Fellmeth says that the bar files a Notice of Disciplinary Charge against about 3 lawyers per 1,000 each year. He says if the Pepperdine study is right, the number of NDCs might increase to 4 per 1,000.
- He says the high passing score tends to reduce the number of attorneys in active practice which he calls “supply constriction.” That tends to keep prices high which tends to affect attorney supply for the poor and middle class. I’m sure that’s right but I have a tough time saying that we should reduce the minimum passing score so that there will be more attorneys, thus more reasonable pricing?
- He seems to argue that passing a higher percentage of those who take the bar will not lower the overall quality of practicing attorneys in California today. If he is right about that, I am for reducing the raw pass score. As I said in my last post, if everyone who scores between 1400 and 1440 eventually passes, then the higher raw score is simply forcing those who fall between those numbers to take the exam more than once. It does not “weed out” those who are not competent.