Convict want to sit for the Indiana Bar without going to law school

[LawSchoolGuy]

Ridic.

Clarence K. Carter is a former Indiana prisoner and aspiring lawyer who wants to become a lawyer without going to law school, which is required by Indiana law.

So Carter is doing what you might imagine: he’s suing Indiana, claiming the law requiring law-school graduation is unconstitutional. Click here for the story, from the Indianapolis Star. Click here for Carter’s complaint.

“All I’m asking for is the opportunity to prove I’m competent to practice law,” Carter said during a recent interview with the paper.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/07/06/who-needs-law-school-one-mans-different-route-to-the-bar-exam/

So, what he's saying is: I harmed society, society had to pay to have me incarcerated, I can't get into law school, but I'd like to sue the people that paid for my crimes and incarceration to have to put up with me as an attorney. I vote NO.

[LSAT Eliminator]

I don't know if I totally agree. Why is law school so necessary? If you can pass the bar, which is a multi-day comprehensive test, maybe you should be certified to practice law. Or maybe they could create a non-law school class of lawyers (just like there is a non-ABA class of schools).

Him being a convict aside, if the Bar is so tough that people who have gone to law school can't pass it, who says that a non-law school educated guy who does pass it shouldn't be given a credential?

[lawdog]

...Interesting that the article closes by presenting something of a false dilemma: who is more qualified to practice, someone who didn't go to law school, or someone who didn't pass the bar?  Perhaps the question is irrelevant, since there appears to be a long-standing concensus that both (school and bar passage) should be required.

[LSAT Eliminator]

...Interesting that the article closes by presenting something of a false dilemma: who is more qualified to practice, someone who didn't go to law school, or someone who didn't pass the bar?  Perhaps the question is irrelevant, since there appears to be a long-standing concensus that both (school and bar passage) should be required.

If they simply want to establish that both parts are pieces of a complete set, I get that. On the other hand, if they want to make the Bar the final be-all, end-all hurdle, then maybe it makes sense to open it up (and then make the Bar even harder).

I just wonder if legally they have a right to stipulate that law school is required.