A partial reply to Mr. Gillette's partial defense of licensing requirements

 I try never to be cynical -- just skeptical. But it seems hard to deny that at least part of the reason we have bar exams and boards of legal examiners is to distort the market for legal services in favor of lawyers (over clients) by artificially reducing the supply of available lawyers. In fact, I’ve read a few interesting blog posts recently – see here and here, for example – about whether there should even be a bar exam. But I will accept your premise that there is also some other justification that actually serves the public good. Your “bulwark” against the “machinations of unscrupulous lawyers” suffices for the sake of argument. (After all, who ever heard of such a thing as an unscrupulous lawyer? Thank goodness we have the bar exam to protect us from such hypothetical monsters!)

A partial defense of licensing requirements

Thanks for getting us started on the internet Bart. Had I been the one to post first, it would have been about whether the Twins' other starting pitchers should follow Carl Pavano's lead and grow lucky mustaches. However, your thoughts on the potential roadblocks to becoming an attorney in illinois (like Lincoln!) are a better start.

As for the issue of allowing out-of-state lawyers to practice in-state, the cynical will suggest these rules are simply anti-competitive practices designed to protect homegrown attorneys. The undoubting will see them as a bulwark necessary to protect an unspecting public from the machinations of unscrupulous lawyers from other jurisdictions.

I don't know why a federal clerkship wouldn't count towards 5 years of practice. It is certainly legal work and probably more substantive work than some associates do in their first year or two of practice. The only explanation I can think of is that what the state really wants is 5 years of competence as measured by not being sued for malpractice or discipline by the lawyer's board. Since law clerks are not going to be sued or disciplined, the state doesn't think the time should count. The problem with this explanation is that, apparently, the second year of the clerkship can count while second-year clerks are still not subject to suit or discipline.

Rule 705(h) requires that the "plan" meet the "satisfaction of the Board." Is there any guidance as to what factors the Board considers in order to be satisfied that the applicant has a plan? In the board's defense, I can see where it might think it needs more concrete information than a plan to move and pay the licensing fee. Most would not say that moving to Hollywood and getting a Screen Actors' Guild card was a "plan" to be a movie actor.

My only thought as to the confusion caused by the commentary to Rule 5.5 is that the people drafting the commentary must have been different than those who drafted the Rule.

Becoming Licensed in Illinois

I recently moved from Minnesota to Illinois. As part of this move, I had to endure the process of becoming licensed to practice law in Illinois, which culminated in my being sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court on June 29, 2010. During this process, however, I ran into three potential roadblocks that I’d like to discuss.