A friend of mine has completed law school, but has not yet passed the bar, he still insists that he’s a lawyer. Is this true? If so, that seems a bit misleading, since he can’t practice law. Right?
The title should finish with …after passing the bar?
In case that wasn’t obvious, of course.
I’m not a lawyer, but I tend to think that if you have a Juris Doctorate and haven’t passed the bar, you’re just some lazy slob with a JD, not a lawyer.
He can call himself a lawyer, but no real attorney will take him seriously until he passes the bar.
The distinction in Australia is generally between those who have successfully completed law degrees (an LLB) and those who have then gone on to do the necessary practical exams and work experience to be admitted as barristers or solicitors of the appropriate state Supreme Court. The latter are generically “lawyers”. The former merely have law degrees.
There were three steps, at least for me, in becoming authorized to practice law:
-
Gain a J.D. from an accredited law school (a few jurisdictions in the U.S., I believe, allow for limited exceptions to this).
-
Take the bar, and pass it. I did not start working for a law firm until after I took the bar. When I started work, I had to have the caveat ‘Awaiting Admission’ after my name in any professional correspondence, so as not to give the impression that I was an admitted attorney. The only practical effect this had on my work was that I couldn’t be listed on court papers or appear in court (not that you get a lot of opportunities for court appearances your first few months at a big firm).
-
Fill out a lot of paperwork, pay a fee, and go for a character interview. Once the interviewer gave me the thumbs-up, I went to the courtroom, got sworn in, and was officially admitted to practice in New York State. The only immediate changes were: (i) I got to take that ‘Awaiting Admission’ off my correspondence; (ii) I got my business cards; (iii) my name went on the signature block for court papers I worked on (below the partner, of course); and (iv) the firm put my name up on the website.
AmyG’s got it, but to sum up:
You’re not a lawyer, that is not permitted to practice law in any state, until you have been admitted to its bar association. Most states, with the notable exception of California, require a degree from an accredited law school as well as a character review before letting you take their bar exam.
I’m a lowly first year law student. Which means I’m about as close to being a lawyer as your common garden slug.
No. AmyG’s experience is similar to my own. A person isn’t a lawyer until she is admitted to a state Bar. Typically that requires 1) a law degree fron an accredited law school, 2) passage of the state’s Bar Examination, 3) passage of some sort of good character test (in Virginia it’s all on paper but you need to get references; other states require interviews) and 4) an official swearing in by a judge or other state officer.
There are some exceptions (Virginia and other states allow people who have apprenticed in law offices to sit for the Bar Exam even without a degree; Wisconsin doesn’t require the Exam if you graduate from an accredited Wisconsin school) and in many cases once you’re admitted to one state Bar you can “waive in” to the Bars of other states, but without exception you’re not a lawyer until you’ve been sworn in, and in most cases you don’t get sworn in until you’ve met the other three requirements.
–Cliffy, Esq.
Yeah, for my money, you’re not a lawyer until you’re licensed. That means getting your JD, pasing the bar exam, getting a passing score on the multistate professional responsibility exam, doing anything else that’s required, paying your license fee and other associated taxes, getting your license, and taking the oath. Until that license is received and effective, you’re not a lawyer.
Related question: when did they start requiring JD degrees? Many lawyers used to not have have them, because passing the bar was considered enough. Why do they now require you to have a specific degree?
I’ve posted this before, and I’m sure I’ll post it again:
The American Bar Association has published a Comprehensive Guide to Bar Admission Requirements (2003). Chart III PDF File indicates the states which permit Bar admission based on “Law Office Study” rather than study at a law school (either ABA approved or not). Some of these states require some law school along with law office study.
According to the chart and accompanying notes, one can be admitted to the bar without attending any law school in Vemont, Virgina, and Washington. If you’re interested in this option, you should check the law and regulations of the particular jurisdiction.
After law school, but before you can say you’re a lawyer, your state bar folks get enough information on you to re-create your life from scratch.
The overwhelming breach of privacy is a humiliating and draining act of submission to the State.
Then again, in exchange for that, you get the ability to participate in and rely upon the violence and authority of the State .
It’s really odd when you think of it in its rawest terms
Not true, although it is onerous. But a "breach of privacy? Definitely not – it’s a perfectly voluntary act, and since one of the trade-offs is that we become governmental officers with certain vested state powers, not an unreasonable one IMO. YMMV.
–Cliffy
He should return his degree and ask for a refund. That a person could finish law school and not realize that he is not yet a lawyer is remarkable.
Finally… something half-conclusive.
I asked my girlfriend, who’s a duly licensed attorney here in Texas, and she said definitively, “Not licensed, not a lawyer.”
She added (by way of an astoundingly lawyerly answer) that to call yourself “attorney at law”, you have to be licensed, and calling yourself a “lawyer” is implying “attorney at law”, and is not right.
Not only is it not right, if you do it intending to be paid for something, it’s a serious crime under the Texas Penal Code:
Somebody who says they’re a lawyer before they’ve been admitted to the bar may end up never being one.
Since when are all lawyers “governmental officers”? This is new to me. Being licensed by the state doesn’t make you a governmental officer, any more than a licensed beautician is a governmental officer.
Beauticians don’t have ethical obligations to the judicial system, though. The State Bar of Texas, to which all licensed attorneys belong, is an administrative agency of the judicial branch in Texas. If you’re admitted to the bar, you’re an “officer of the court,” and when you’re sworn in you take an oath as such to uphold the law and the justice system.
Since forever. Yes, being licensed by the state generally doesn’t make you a governmental officer, but being licensed as a lawyer does – I’m an Officer of the Court, I have professional obligations to the Court that trump my personal feelings or even the interest of my clients, I have the power to issue subpoenas without recourse to a judge, and I had to take an oath to defend the Constitution. Obviously it’s not the main aspect of being a lawyer, but in the U.S. (well, I don’t know about Louisiana) lawyers are minor state officers.
–Cliffy
All solicitors and barristers are automatically officers of the Court under s5 of the Legal Profession Act (NSW) 1987: “a legal practitioner is, on and from admission, an officer of the Supreme Court”.
I imagine that similar legislation exists in the various US states.
What, no laywer jokes yet?!
Ahem …
“As soon as you finish signing your name in blood on the pact with Satan.”
Thank you. You may now return to your interesting and informative thread.