Expert Opinions

Lawyer development is a single continuum that starts even before the first day of law school, and continues past the point when a lawyer has become an independent, confident, and proficient professional. Until we recognize this fact, we will continue to struggle to develop lawyers properly.

The goal of any licensure process should be to make sure the public is protected from incompetence without serving as an artificial barrier to people entering the legal profession. Indeed, this is precisely what the bar exam purports to do. But does the bar exam actually do those things?

We’re researchers who study legal services regulation and access to the civil justice system. We’ve been thrilled to watch groundbreaking announcements from the West ignite a wide-ranging national debate about how best to regulate legal training, services, and businesses—and we’ve been paying special attention to the role people who are not lawyers are playing in the process of legal re-regulation.

At Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell, we’ve been fortunate to have a front-row seat to the outcomes and transformation that IAALS has achieved through Foundations for Practice. We collaborated with IAALS to survey our partners on the characteristics that they viewed as most essential for new associates to be successful at WTO, and the outcomes for retention and diversity have been exciting and encouraging.

As I’ve learned from many years practicing and advocating for innovative design changes in legal education, teaching online does not and should not involve doing what professors have always done—lecturing, leading discussions, and delivering exams—just through internet-enabled platforms. Instead, law professors should implement design principles to their courses for delivery in any modality: classroom, online, or blended.

In a recent national survey asking about the importance of 12 characteristics of judges, survey respondents indicated that the public prizes a judge's professional qualities above all others, including political qualities—preferences that have obvious relevance for methods of judicial selection.

Throughout the past year, our courts have been engaged in informal pilot projects—they’ve tried out different technologies and processes, all in an effort to continue the administration of justice amid the pandemic. Now, we have the opportunity to learn from this experience and chart a path forward long term.

Civil jury trials have been few since the pandemic began. Cases stalled and slowed, phone conferences and Zoom replaced in-person hearings, and deadlines were extended. How did courts handle the tension between civil rules and procedure on the one hand, and the fundamental right to a jury trial on the other? And, what will stick?

Since 2018, the Colorado Bar Association Federal Pro Se Clinic has been helping people navigate the overwhelming process of filing and pursuing a lawsuit in federal court without a lawyer. Use of the clinic has increased substantially in the time it has been in operation, and all signs point to increasing demand for pro se assistance. 

The pandemic’s disruption to the status quo brought with it a critical view of the bar exam, how it is administered, and whether it actually tests what it purports to. The status quo—and tinkering around its edges—is not good enough. It is time we had the courage and will to look beyond the assumptions that underpin the current bar exam and towards outcomes and purpose for a new era.

Throughout the past ten months, our justice system has made giant strides in its use of technology, including video- and tele-conferencing, e-filing, remote jury trials, and online dispute resolution. The question now faced by many courts is: are these digital processes working like they’re supposed to?

The pandemic has affected our civil justice system in many ways, yet perhaps the most important role access to justice entities can play in the near future is to advocate for the retention of remote access systems for court appearances as well as for the delivery of legal and self-help services.

2020 revealed that most of us are swimming naked when it comes to our ability to meaningfully access our justice system. 2020 certainly exacerbated issues, but its true effect and power was revealing our society’s not-so-secret dirty secrets: systemic racism, growing income inequality, the failing U.S. healthcare system, and a justice system that only serves a small minority of Americans.

In the past few months, there have been encouraging updates in several states aimed at more effectively addressing the legal needs of disaster survivors. Two states—Louisiana and Texas—implemented various tools to help streamline litigation arising from these disasters.

On the whole, 2020 was a quiet time for state judicial elections, at least in comparison to recent years. Fewer sitting judges were directly targeted for removal, and most of the efforts to oust judges failed at the ballot box. But even quiet years have standout moments, and the recent election cycle brought several noteworthy developments.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, we have learned to operate almost wholly online—something that many thought was impossible. However, while this move has brought with it a number of positive effects, it has also exposed a digital divide that must be addressed in order for there to be equity in our justice system.

It’s time that the delivery of legal services reflected the reality of innovation and progress we see in every other field—medical, financial, engineering, and everything in between—giving everyone greater access to legal services.

In a groundbreaking report, IAALS, in partnership with Professor Deborah Merritt at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, has defined the minimum competence that new lawyers need to be qualified to practice law—and provides recommendations for how legal licensing processes like the bar exam must change to be more fair to bar applicants and to better protect the public.

Courts currently face a backlog of civil cases that have been placed on hold since mid-March, as well as a predicted wave of case filings stemming from the pandemic. Courts need a framework to adapt to their new reality—and they already have that framework and tools to make meaningful and mandatory changes.

Courts around the country are focused on staying open to ensure access to justice is available; however, with so many doing so much, we need to ensure cross-pollination of these varied ideas by sharing knowledge and combining our collective intellectual capacity across the various silos within our system.