I understand that in the 19th century (before the advent of law schools), the way you became a lawyer was by apprenticing yourself to an established attorney. For 3-5 years, you basically worked as an office assistant , writing letters, briefs, etc., and at night, you would read the law books. No other than our famous president (Calvin Coolidge) became a lawyer in this way-when you were sufficiently prepared, you took the bar examination, and were then a practicing lawyer.
What I want to know is-can you still do this today? or do you need a JD degree from a recognized law school, to begin your crusade on behalf of human rights?
Not just the nineteenth century, but well up into the 20th. When my dad began practicing in the 70’s, he was in a courtroom with a judge, a DA, and a defense attorney who were all old-schoolers who went the apprentice route. Someone told him “take a good look, this is one of the last times you’ll ever see this”.
Which it probably was. Today, you need a JD from an ABA to sit for the bar in all states but California (there, you need a JD from an ABA or CBA school. CBA is the California Bar Association).
Sorry, that should have read “you need a JD from an ABA accredited school to sit for the bar”.
You could read the law in Virginia well up into the 20th Century. I don’t know if the law has since been changed so as to require a degree from an accredited school.
Are you sure pravnik? I thought that people who graduated from Western State, Whittier, etc, still get to sit for the Bar exam!
A school must not allow first-years to work, among other things, in order to receive ABA accreditation. Therefore, most of these “you can do it at night in your spare time” law schools aren’t accredited.
Hubby went to a “real” law school, so… 
Additional info for California: while most states require ABA accreditation, California has its own committee of bar examiners, who will not only accredit schools in California, but will register schools that are not accredited; they inspect them regularly, and permit their students to take the First Year Law Students’s Examination. A student passing this exam can finish law school and sit for the Bar, even if the school is online or a correspondence course.
It doesn’t say which six states those are.
Western State and Whittier are, I think, CBA accredited schools like Nametag describes (actually I think I just read Western State got ABA accreditation). An ABA school graduate can sit for the bar pretty much anywhere; CBA grads can sit for the California bar.
I’m pretty sure that every other state requires a JD from an ABA school. Texas sure does.
Curse your superior research skills, bibliophage!
I was very surprised to hear this one. I was starting to rethink as to whether or not some states might let unaccredited school JD’s take their bar under certain circumstances, but I was truly surprised to hear that apprenticeships still existed.
Nope – I went part-time four years to law school (graduated May '01) to Georgetown, a school which is in no danger of losing its accreditation.
–Cliffy
Virginia, where I sat for the bar last summer, still accepts apprenticeships, although IIRC it’s a pretty long period – 3-5 years I think. So in at least a few states it is still possible to become an attorney by reading the law, but I’m sure it’s quite rare. (At my induction ceremony in Virginia, we all got our names and law schools read, and I don’t remember hearing any names read without a school attached.)
–Cliffy
In New York you can, sort of.
New York allows for lawyers to be admitted who have passed one year of law school and then served as a law clerk under the instruction of a lawyer for four years. I don’t know how many people are admitted under this provision, though.
What is the purpose for insisting on attending an accredited law school? Frankly it seems an apprenticeship might even be more useful than sitting in a class. If you can pass the Bar Exam then what’s the big deal? Presumably the Bar Exam is tough enough to guarantee at least some minimal scholarship in law.
Sorry for the hijack…
She may be half-right, though. In Texas, you’re not (ahem) supposed to work outside of school during your first year if you’re going full time. I don’t know that this is an ABA rule, though, I’d just always thought it was a rule of the Board of Law Examiners.
Why do it for free when you can rack up $50 to $100 grand in student loans? 
Seriously, at least part of it is how it looks to an employer. They like to see schools, and they like to see really good schools even better.
Arguably a bright high school kid with no law experience at all could take the bar prep courses and have a fair chance of passing the bar, but ideally law school does more than just teach you what you need to know to pass the bar. It should teach you, for lack of a better term, “how to think like a lawyer”.
Law office experience is imporatant, and a lot of professors will recommend that you clerk in the summer to get practical experience rather than attend summer school. Surprisingly less than what most people would expect about practical day-to-day lawyering is taught at most law schools: a lot of it has to do with learning to think and approach a problem differently, parse information, and frame a creative argument, stuff that hands on experience doesn’t always lend itself to. Lots of history’s best lawyers never graduated from law school (Lincoln, Darrow, Cicero I guess), but it can be a useful experience. And it’s a hell of a lot easier to get a job.
Georgia changed its laws in this regard circa 1990. There were some issues about this in the paper regarding people from a couple of night schools in Atlanta, one just a recently started night only school and another part of Morehouse College with a night school component. I can’t recall how it all got sorted out. (The legislature routinely makes special case amendments to laws to satisify certain interests.)
pravnik is exactly right- law school teaches critical and creative thinking (among other things), which you will need to both pass the Bar and practice law. My husband found that an undergraduate degree in philosophy really helped.
Your score on the Bar exam, however, has little to do with how good a lawyer you will be. Just as the law school you attended may only really matter to your first employer.
And…
Sorry EJsGirl but it doesn’t seem like what you say is entirely true. In addition a law degree is no guarantee of being a good lawyer either.
I’m not saying school is worthless, it isn’t. But if someone can get the equivalent of a good education as an apprentice and study hard on their own and pass the Bar Exam I don’t see why they shouldn’t be allowed to do so. Mandating a $100,000+ education seems elitist and keeps people who simply can’t afford tuition from attempting to better themselves.
Whack-a-Mole, I can see your point. Perhaps I should have said “practice law well”!
The law today is incredibly complex. I think that someone without a law degree would be at a distinct disadvantage. Among other things, law school teaches legal writing (not the same as regular or business writing), research skills (both library and Internet) and other handy stuff. My guess would be that an apprentice might gain a lot of practical knowledge in a narrow specialty, but might be less equipped to practice in another area of law. Law school will give a student a more well-rounded exposure to law concepts and federal guidelines (plus some state-specific law).
And a law degree needn’t cost $100,000. My husband’s didn’t. I believe the total tuition for the School of Law at the University of Colorado, Boulder (a top 75 school at the time) was about $25,000 or less, because after your first year you qualify for in-state tuition. Of course, that doesn’t count room, board or books. So we have some loans to pay off- it’s worth it.
It is hardly elitist to want the best lawyers possible practicing, with the highest level of training practical. Lazy, incompetant or sloppy lawyers wreck it for the good ones, not to mention for their unfortunate clients.
Of course law school doesn’t guarantee a good lawyer. But your chances are probably better, IMO.