Wyoming Supreme Court in Cheyenne.
Students of legal minutia know that the phrase "to pass the bar", or "to be called to the bar", refers to an actual physical feature in an English courtroom. Indeed, it's a feature in American courtrooms today. Courtrooms have a "bar", basically a fence, that separates the gallery from where the litigants and their lawyers, and the judge and the jury, sit during a trial. When lawyers were admitted to practice, back in antiquity, they were "called to the bar" and allowed to "pass" it. That is, their admission to practice meant that they were part of the privileged few who were allowed to open the gate and walk through, if they did not as a litigant.
How a person "passes" the bar has differed over the years, but it's always involved some course of study, either through a law school or under the tutelage of a lawyer, and a species of examination by the court to which the applicant proposes to practice. In the United States, as we're a federated republic, each state has controlled that process since there was a country. Prior to that, each colony did. So, for example, a lawyer in 1700's Virginia could not freely practice in 1700's New York, which is equally true of Virginia and New York today. You have to pass the state's bar. The sole exception is probably found in patent law, which has its own bar, with that bar being a Federal one.
States have had different systems, as noted, for admitting new lawyers to practice, but starting in the late 19th Century the American Bar Association undertook a major effort to improve the professionalism of the practice of law, and as part of that it came to certify law schools. In many states, such as Wyoming, admission to the bar came to normally require graduation from an ABA certified law school combined with a Bar Examination. The Bar Examination examined the applicamt on the law of the state. Wyoming's Bar Exam, for example, has always featured state specific topics, although it has featured some national ones too. Like most states, Wyoming has also required passage of the Multi State Bar Exam, which is a national test that tests on either national topics or general concepts of law.
This has now passed away in Wyoming. The current Bar Commissioners have adopted, and the Wyoming Supreme Court has approved, adoption of the Uniform Bar Exam in Wyoming. This is a terrible idea. It's not too late for the State Bar to correct its error, and I hope that it does, although reversing a bad administrative decision is never easy.
The Uniform Bar Exam (UBE) is a national test. Wyoming's adoption of it means that Wyoming has joined handful of states that will use this exam rather than create one of their own. No Wyoming specific topics will be tested at all. None. In order to gain admission beyond that, an applicant need only to take a CLE on Wyoming's law.
The sole purpose of a bar exam is to provide protection to the public. Passage of a bar exam in any state means that the passing lawyers are deemed competent to represent clients in that state, but nowhere else. As Wyoming has a self administering state bar, overseen by the Wyoming Supreme Court, passage of the bar here has been a representation by the State Bar and the Wyoming Supreme Court that those passing the exam are deemed competent to represent Wyomingites, in Wyoming, in Wyoming’s Court, under Wyoming’s law. Passage of the UBE, with a mere CLE on Wyoming’s law, hardly provides that security as admission to Wyoming’s bar will now completely omit any testing on Wyoming’s law. And Wyoming's law is highly unique in a number of areas. Wyoming is the only state to use Comparative Fault, as opposed to Comparative Negligence, in tort cases. Wyoming's law on oil and gas tort indemnification is unique. Wyoming's water law is unique. I don't know much about the state's criminal law, but to the extent I've had to become familiar with it from time to time in the past, it's been unique. Worker Compensation in Wyoming, a state administered system, is unique. Our oil and gas law is unique. Now, thanks the the UBE, the student can safely be that none of this will show up on an examination, and that rater the student will be tested on general concepts, whether nor not they are applicable here, and on general topics, with the old Wyoming specific topics gone.
That this is a bad idea would seem to be self evident in light of the effort, just one year ago, to require new Wyoming lawyers to be adopted by a “mentor”, who would oversee their work for a year and tutor them on the nuts and bolts of practice. At that time it was thought that new lawyers were so ill prepared to practice law in Wyoming that they were effectively incompetent to do so without the tutelage of a local practicing attorney. Now the State Bar proposes to let lawyers practice without their even having been tested on Wyoming law.
I should note that there still seems to be some concern that the University of Wyoming’s College of Law is not preparing students to take the Bar Exam, given recent low passage rates, and that this seems to be a silent means of addressing that. Most applicants to practice in Wyoming, although certainly not all, are graduates of the University of Wyoming. Indeed, it used to be regarded as a real advantage to admission here to have attended law school here. In recent years, however, there has been a noted decline in pass rates at the Bar Exam, and the law school itself has indicated that its moving towards not really attempting to teach Wyoming's law. Indeed, that has been the case in some areas, such as torts, for a very long time. But students who were aiming to practice in Wyoming generally made sure to take Wyoming specific courses, such as Oil & Gas and Water Law. Water Law actually disappeared from the bar exam a year or so again, perhaps indicting the general direction that things were headed in. The general attitude now somewhat seems to be that the College of Law does not attempt to teach Wyoming specific topics, and therefore the Bar Exam should likewise omit them. The thought seems to be that if Wyoming topics are entirely removed, therefore, that passage rates will climb thus essentially allowing failure to dictate what should be tested rather than taught. Whether that is the case or not, and whether or not that is the impetus behind this effort, some serious consideration of the logical result of this move should be considered.
Indeed, this is such a move in the wrong direction that my suspicion is that it might ultimately lead to the elimination of the law school. The only real basis, at least in the eyes of the public, for the University of Wyoming having a law school at all is to prepare students to be Wyoming lawyers. This may not be evident to the faculty of the law school, but that’s how the school is perceived. There is already a fair amount of discontent with the law school in certain quarters of Wyoming’s populace. I would note that as a lawyer who is also a stockman, and familiar with the views held in the agricultural and mineral production industries, there is very little sympathy for the efforts of some of the College of Law’s professors who use their positions to support their efforts in opposition to those industries.
Academic freedom aside, if the Wyoming State Bar is not going to test on Wyoming topics, and if the only requirement for admission to the state bar after taking the UBE is to take a Wyoming CLE, then there is no reason for the University of Wyoming to retain the College of Law. While practicing lawyers may not appreciate it, the general public has next to no sympathy whatsoever for the practice of law and the law school, and there will be very little reason for the public to support the continued existence of a school which provides no unique Wyoming benefits and which employs some professors who are opposed to basic Wyoming industries. For example, the College of Law's professor Deb Donahue has taken a radical approach to the topic of livestock on the public domain, essentially opposing its presence, although perhaps she's contributed a real gem of an argument the other way around in one essay when she sappily noted how when she looked out of the window of her Laramie home she wasn't witnessing wildlands the way they had been. . . no kidding. . she was looking out from a house, the ultimate destroyer of wildland. At any rate, it's asking a lot for anyone in the agriculture industry to support the existence of a state law school when the students don't have to take any Wyoming specific topics in order to take the bar safely, and when no Wyoming specific topic is a required course, and when no Wyoming specific law is being emphasized. Members of the agricultural sector, for one, therefore have no incentive at all to support the ongoing existence of the law school and, as there's at least one professor that is a declared opponent of their interests, they have a real incentive to wish the law school's demise.
The same is now true for the oil and gas industry. There has always been at least one professor at the College of Law who was an opponent, on private time, of some mineral industry activity. And academic freedom dictates that this must be allowed. But it was also the case that a person could receive a very solid education in oil and gas law, and mining law (and water law) at he university. It is my supposition that this is still the case. But at least as two of those topics, oil & gas, and water law, an incentive existed to study the topics in that they were on the bar exam. Water law, as earlier noted, no longer is. Now oil & gas will not be either. In the midst of an oil boom, there's no earthly reason to suppose that this course of study in now not needed. And, again, now this section of the state's economy, which is a huge portion of it, should wonder why bother with supporting the College of Law. When there are those on the faculty who are industry opponents, an industry of this type probably ought to consider opposing the existence of the college, as the incentive that previously existed to take industry specific classes has now been removed.
Put another way, the University of Wyoming does not have a Medical School. It does not have a Dental School. It does not offer degrees in Veterinary Medicine. Why should it have a College of Law if there is nothing Wyoming-centric about that institution’s education or to the admission to the Wyoming State Bar?
I very seriously doubt the implications of this move have been completely thought out, and if they were this course of action would not have been taken. I doubt that this move is supported by the majority of the members of Wyoming’s bar. I suspect that when the topic comes up in conversation with non lawyers, on the rare instances in which that might occur, that the UBE takers will be regarded as lesser lawyers, and I would be surprised if the Legislature did not begin to question why the University of Wyoming needs a law school if there are no Wyoming topics on the bar exam. Indeed, I cannot think of a reason to support the law school in any fashion, other than that I am a graduate of it, and would think we might be better off taking the same approach we presently take towards dental, medical and veterinary students, in the absence of a real Wyoming State Bar exam.
The sole purpose of a bar exam is to provide protection to the public. Passage of a bar exam in any state means that the passing lawyers are deemed competent to represent clients in that state, but nowhere else. As Wyoming has a self administering state bar, overseen by the Wyoming Supreme Court, passage of the bar here has been a representation by the State Bar and the Wyoming Supreme Court that those passing the exam are deemed competent to represent Wyomingites, in Wyoming, in Wyoming’s Court, under Wyoming’s law. Passage of the UBE, with a mere CLE on Wyoming’s law, hardly provides that security as admission to Wyoming’s bar will now completely omit any testing on Wyoming’s law. And Wyoming's law is highly unique in a number of areas. Wyoming is the only state to use Comparative Fault, as opposed to Comparative Negligence, in tort cases. Wyoming's law on oil and gas tort indemnification is unique. Wyoming's water law is unique. I don't know much about the state's criminal law, but to the extent I've had to become familiar with it from time to time in the past, it's been unique. Worker Compensation in Wyoming, a state administered system, is unique. Our oil and gas law is unique. Now, thanks the the UBE, the student can safely be that none of this will show up on an examination, and that rater the student will be tested on general concepts, whether nor not they are applicable here, and on general topics, with the old Wyoming specific topics gone.
That this is a bad idea would seem to be self evident in light of the effort, just one year ago, to require new Wyoming lawyers to be adopted by a “mentor”, who would oversee their work for a year and tutor them on the nuts and bolts of practice. At that time it was thought that new lawyers were so ill prepared to practice law in Wyoming that they were effectively incompetent to do so without the tutelage of a local practicing attorney. Now the State Bar proposes to let lawyers practice without their even having been tested on Wyoming law.
I should note that there still seems to be some concern that the University of Wyoming’s College of Law is not preparing students to take the Bar Exam, given recent low passage rates, and that this seems to be a silent means of addressing that. Most applicants to practice in Wyoming, although certainly not all, are graduates of the University of Wyoming. Indeed, it used to be regarded as a real advantage to admission here to have attended law school here. In recent years, however, there has been a noted decline in pass rates at the Bar Exam, and the law school itself has indicated that its moving towards not really attempting to teach Wyoming's law. Indeed, that has been the case in some areas, such as torts, for a very long time. But students who were aiming to practice in Wyoming generally made sure to take Wyoming specific courses, such as Oil & Gas and Water Law. Water Law actually disappeared from the bar exam a year or so again, perhaps indicting the general direction that things were headed in. The general attitude now somewhat seems to be that the College of Law does not attempt to teach Wyoming specific topics, and therefore the Bar Exam should likewise omit them. The thought seems to be that if Wyoming topics are entirely removed, therefore, that passage rates will climb thus essentially allowing failure to dictate what should be tested rather than taught. Whether that is the case or not, and whether or not that is the impetus behind this effort, some serious consideration of the logical result of this move should be considered.
Indeed, this is such a move in the wrong direction that my suspicion is that it might ultimately lead to the elimination of the law school. The only real basis, at least in the eyes of the public, for the University of Wyoming having a law school at all is to prepare students to be Wyoming lawyers. This may not be evident to the faculty of the law school, but that’s how the school is perceived. There is already a fair amount of discontent with the law school in certain quarters of Wyoming’s populace. I would note that as a lawyer who is also a stockman, and familiar with the views held in the agricultural and mineral production industries, there is very little sympathy for the efforts of some of the College of Law’s professors who use their positions to support their efforts in opposition to those industries.
Academic freedom aside, if the Wyoming State Bar is not going to test on Wyoming topics, and if the only requirement for admission to the state bar after taking the UBE is to take a Wyoming CLE, then there is no reason for the University of Wyoming to retain the College of Law. While practicing lawyers may not appreciate it, the general public has next to no sympathy whatsoever for the practice of law and the law school, and there will be very little reason for the public to support the continued existence of a school which provides no unique Wyoming benefits and which employs some professors who are opposed to basic Wyoming industries. For example, the College of Law's professor Deb Donahue has taken a radical approach to the topic of livestock on the public domain, essentially opposing its presence, although perhaps she's contributed a real gem of an argument the other way around in one essay when she sappily noted how when she looked out of the window of her Laramie home she wasn't witnessing wildlands the way they had been. . . no kidding. . she was looking out from a house, the ultimate destroyer of wildland. At any rate, it's asking a lot for anyone in the agriculture industry to support the existence of a state law school when the students don't have to take any Wyoming specific topics in order to take the bar safely, and when no Wyoming specific topic is a required course, and when no Wyoming specific law is being emphasized. Members of the agricultural sector, for one, therefore have no incentive at all to support the ongoing existence of the law school and, as there's at least one professor that is a declared opponent of their interests, they have a real incentive to wish the law school's demise.
The same is now true for the oil and gas industry. There has always been at least one professor at the College of Law who was an opponent, on private time, of some mineral industry activity. And academic freedom dictates that this must be allowed. But it was also the case that a person could receive a very solid education in oil and gas law, and mining law (and water law) at he university. It is my supposition that this is still the case. But at least as two of those topics, oil & gas, and water law, an incentive existed to study the topics in that they were on the bar exam. Water law, as earlier noted, no longer is. Now oil & gas will not be either. In the midst of an oil boom, there's no earthly reason to suppose that this course of study in now not needed. And, again, now this section of the state's economy, which is a huge portion of it, should wonder why bother with supporting the College of Law. When there are those on the faculty who are industry opponents, an industry of this type probably ought to consider opposing the existence of the college, as the incentive that previously existed to take industry specific classes has now been removed.
Put another way, the University of Wyoming does not have a Medical School. It does not have a Dental School. It does not offer degrees in Veterinary Medicine. Why should it have a College of Law if there is nothing Wyoming-centric about that institution’s education or to the admission to the Wyoming State Bar?
I very seriously doubt the implications of this move have been completely thought out, and if they were this course of action would not have been taken. I doubt that this move is supported by the majority of the members of Wyoming’s bar. I suspect that when the topic comes up in conversation with non lawyers, on the rare instances in which that might occur, that the UBE takers will be regarded as lesser lawyers, and I would be surprised if the Legislature did not begin to question why the University of Wyoming needs a law school if there are no Wyoming topics on the bar exam. Indeed, I cannot think of a reason to support the law school in any fashion, other than that I am a graduate of it, and would think we might be better off taking the same approach we presently take towards dental, medical and veterinary students, in the absence of a real Wyoming State Bar exam.
I'm not urging the elimination of the law school. I am urging the reconsideration of the UBE.
Postscript:
As anyone following the comments will know, assuming that they're not from here and don't already know it, Wyoming did charge ahead with the UBE and its solution, as described below, for the deficiency of Wyoming topics in the new testing regime was to require a CLE for admission. That's the way things now are.
At least a few lawyers I've spoken to about this are not happy at all about it, to include at least one other who was associated with putting together the CLE, as I was. CLE topics were limited to about 10 minutes in length. I fear that all we've done is open the door to malpractice, at best.
But, more particularly, one of my expressed concerns here has already been confirmed. One lawyer I know well told me that he recently spoke to a Denver attorney who has confirmed that his firm now intends to send out Denver lawyers to each of the rural UBE states, Wyoming, Montana and Colorado. And I'm sure it won't be limited to one. That will be the beginning of the end of whole categories of work in these states, and the results will not be happy ones for either actual clients or local lawyers.
My prediction on this is that within five to ten years entire classes of significant legal work will now be concentrated in Denver and Denver firms, where previously they were handled locally. The old traditional firms that aren't aware of this danger will wake up to it within three or four years, but it will be too late for them. By that time, the backers of the UBE will be so entrenched that there will be no going back.
My further prediction is that this will be the end of the University of Wyoming's College of Law. With the UBE, it is now wholly obsolete and totally unneeded. The Dean of the College, who was somehow associated with the UBE CLE, sent out a congratulatory letter to all of us who worked on it, showing how ignorant on this development he is. If we're going to give our work to Denver lawyers, what need have we of a law school here at all? None. Lawyers aren't well liked and most people see no reason for state sponsorship of the creation of more. Now, there really isn't one.
It's the end of an era, to be sure. Much of the court work and major business work will not be going to Denver. With that, the collegiality of the Wyoming bar will give way to the nasty behavior associated with most. The need for a local law school has been eliminated. The concerns of those of us opposed to this development won't even be recalled in short order.
9 comments:
This is very interesting to me, as a history educator in the public school system in MD. I have been a promoter of some sort of national curriculum, though I see the constitutional limitations of Congress creating it. Because we live in such a fluid and transient society, in which people move around a lot, it would help if students could know that the course they started with would be the same, or at least similar, to the one they would be in wherever they end up. However, I do see the problem of leaving out state or local history (a specific problem in my own district). So, this post about nothing Wyoming specific in order to become a lawyer in Wyoming is of interest to me. Please keep posting these types of articles. Your analysis of the issues is always good to read. :-)
Thanks for your comment LeAnn, I appreciate it.
Your point on national teaching standards is a very interesting one, and I can see the merit for that in K through 12 education. Indeed, I can see the need for it. The main reason is the one you note, so many students go through various schools in their school career, due to their nomadic parents. A second reason, however, is that, at least here, we've seen the introduction of Internet based high school education, which serves remote students, or even just students who prefer that type of learning. With the possibility of remote education, comes the need for uniform basic standards.
At the post graduate level, however, at least in law (but possibly note in other professions) the situation is nearly the reverse. All U.S. states allow graduates of ABA approved law schools to take their bars, and some, such as California, allow graduates of any law school, certified or not, to sit for their bar exam. All states also have the requirement now that applicants take a national test, with most states requiring the Multi State Bar Exam. That test is on general principals of law, including for example the big national topics, such as Constitutional Law (at least when I took it) and general principals of tort and contract law. So that element is there.
What's missing, however, is that fact that, as fluid of society as we are, local, ie., state, law varies enormously from state to state. For example, some states recognize "common law marriage". Wyoming, however does not. I've had that come up in my legal career on at least two occasions when the surviving female member of a male-female unmarried arrangement found themselves alone with their decedent having failed to write a will. In both instances that "maybe we had a common law marriage" topic came up. Wyoming tort law has some extremely unique aspects to it. And so on. It'd actually make more sense to abandon a national test entirely, if we must abandon one, and require only the state test.
(cont)
One disturbing thing that seems to be occurring to me here, additionally, is that the State Bar is now making excuses for the law school, or might be making excuses for the law school. I've met the current Dean and he's a very nice personable professor who makes a very good presentation. But outside of direct contact I've heard rumblings that the law school feels that it need no longer be dedicated to Wyoming's law, and that's the job of the post law school Bar Review programs. In part this is, supposedly, because up to half of Wyoming graduates up until recently, in recent decades, have gone elsewhere, principally to Colorado, but that actually seems to have been an economic based trend that has now reversed, with a lot of Colorado attorneys now coming up here. Another aspect of it, however, might be that the law school has slipped into the tempting thought that they're a nationally competitive school, and to some extent they are, particularly because the Wyoming tuition, long based on what a Wyomingite can pay, is much cheaper than tuition elsewhere.
If that last thought is part of the equation at the law school, and if the Bar is reacting accordingly, this will have a very bad end for the law school. What lawyers seem to have a hard time grasping is that we are truly a hated class. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln aside, lawyers have never been popular with non-lawyers. And this is a trend which, in recent history, has grown much worse, in my view. Most Wyomingites likely feel that there is next to no reason to house a law school next to the University's field house, and I'd guess a move to convert it into space for the basketball team would be very well received by average people. This is in part simply because lawyers are hated, generally. But beyond that, the University's law school, like law schools everywhere, has attracted some academic lawyers whose use their position as professors to take positions that are not sympathized with in the state. At the University of Wyoming, Deb Donahue in particular can be regarded as a type of environmental radical who is radically out of sink with the view of almost the entire population of the state. Academic Freedom has its merits, but I really wonder how long the Legislature will propose to bother with a school that isn't focused on the state, and with the adoption of the UBE, has no real remaining role to play in connection with the state.
(cont)
There's already precedent for that in that it's long been the educational policy of the State to support students, rather than schools, if the legislature felt that the cost of a school was too high. Therefore, Wyomingites can receive support from the state, to make their tuition at the in state level, if they want to study medicine, dentistry or veterinary science. There has long been support in the state for the idea of a medical school, but the dollars and economics simply are not there, according to the legislature. If they aren't there for doctors, I have to wonder when they feel they aren't there for lawyers. Indeed, I'm not sure how to answer this question any longer. If asked by somebody if they should attend CSU or UW, to study law, I guess I'd cite to UW being cheaper, but that seems like an anemic argument really.
I guess that also goes back to UW being a land grant school, which was funded in the first instance with the concept that it's existence would help the state. Originally land grant schools were mostly agriculture, engineering and mining schools, although certainly none are now. The law school itself has been at UW for something like a century, something I failed to note in my long-winded essay but should have given the general theoretical focus of this blog. The state is extremely proud of the school, but even at that we've seen departments come and go as the need waxed and wanted. The strongest departments, and the law school has been a good strong one, have tended to have a direct application to the needs of the state. Now that can be questioned.
Of course, the law school has also benefited from strong support from the lawyers of the state, a majority of whom are UW graduates. But right now there's very open questioning in some quarters about the UBE, which hit most of us as a surprise, and I'm not the first one to draw the connection between the law school and declining bar exam pass rates, and the UBE.
As a couple of final thoughts, one of the additional ironies of all of this is that it comes at a time when there's increased local concern about lawyer competence, and there's been massive criticism of law schools nationwide. The State Bar itself, just last year, essentially was operating under the concern that a high percentage, indeed perhaps all, newly minted attorneys were incompetent to practice law, and that perhaps this was the reason for an increased number of problems the state bar was noting. And nationwide, there's been an extremely strong current of criticism of law schools in general, with the criticism even running towards law schools perpetuating fraud upon their applicants by promising them lucrative careers in a profession that, in most locations, is actually saturated. Indeed, a recent editorial by a law school Dean in the New York Times, arguing that people should still be encouraged to go to law school, provoked a pitchfork and torch reaction from practicing lawyers. Pretty surprising indication of the state of things in some locations. That hasn't generally been the case here, because or economy tends to be uniquely out of sink with everyone else's, and because it was only relatively recently that it was fairly easy for out of state lawyers to come into Wyoming and set up. I'm not arguing for state protectionism, but I have to wonder what incentive exists for the State Bar to create a situation in which lawyers who reside in one of the other few states with the UBE can so easily, and ignorantly, license themselves in Wyoming. That would seem to be an act sponsoring the shifting of work out of the state into bigger firms than we generally see here, where the person then handling that work will, in truth, probably be a junior associate with no connections to the state and next to no knowledge of its law.
A version of this blog entry appeared today in the Casper Star Tribune as an op-ed piece. Guess I've done my part, I hope.
You bring up very valid points on your opposition to the UBE in Wyoming. The UBE is also now in Colorado. I see that Missouri, while also a UBE state, still requires state specific testing in additon to the UBE exam. Would Wyoming offering a similar component suffice?
Including a state testing component would address my concerns. It'd have to be more than a CLE, however.
Basically, I don't know that I find the UBE and the Multistate to really very significantly in that aspect. I'd be fine with the UBE as long as a state test is administered. Administering a state component test, however, is critical to certifying that a candidate is minimally proficient in state law.
As an update to all of this, I was ultimately asked by the State Bar President if I would participate in the implementation committee, to which I felt that I basically had to agree, if my opposition to the UBE was to having any meaning. A person can't complain, in other words, and then pass up on an opportunity to be part of the pre implementation process.
During this phase, some options were noted, including the test approach that Missouri adopted, but it was determined, and not by us, that the CLE route would be the route that Wyoming would adopt. In other words, after taking the UBE, you have to sit through a CLE on Wyoming's law. We were assigned topics for the CLE. As part of that, I rounded up a couple of experts on the topic I was assigned, and we wrote what I think is a very fine outline of the topic.
When the CLE was given my topic, like most topics, was assigned the time allotment of ten minutes. Frankly, I don't know that if I were to deliver the CLE, which I did not, that I could do much more than give the introductory remarks in that ten minute space of time. I sure couldn't cover the topic.
At the end of the CLE it was apparently the case that those attending were administ6ered a test. But that test did not have a pass and fail component, but rather exists in order to give feed back on the CLE.
I participated in this, as I volunteered to do, but I feel that the entire process is a disaster in the making. And I'm not alone. Since the CLE was given I happened to speak to another lawyer who was part of the process who was even more opposed to what occurred than I am. Indeed, his experiences were similar to mine.
Continued below.
So then, where does this leave us here in Wyoming? Well, not where most of us would like to be, I suspect.
The UBE is now the bar exam, and examining on Wyoming's law is dead in this state, or at least critically ill. Most of the practicing lawyers I've spoken to, which of course is an entirely unscientific sample, are not happy about the UBE. I've spoken to two, just two, who think it a good approach.
What I suspect that this means in the immediate short term is that we're set to unleash a crop of new lawyers on the state who know very little about Wyoming's law. Indeed, perhaps darned near nothing at all. Quite a few of them will go right into solo practice. Many more will join Denver firms that are setting up here. They'll malpractice rapidly, as they don't know what the law here is. Us older lawyers do. That will now be the brake on error, the threat of malpractice. It'll be interesting to see if we see a bump in malpractice litigation in the next couple of years.
It will also be interesting to see if we see some pushback from older lawyers who can't benefit from the cross jurisdictional provisions of the UBE, as we took the Multistate instead. Why, for example, shouldn't I be admitted to a UBE jurisdiction. I've practiced law for 23 years and I took the Multistate? Supposedly the backers of the UBE were convinced that the State was set up for a suit due to the grading of the Wyoming exam, well now it may be set up for one for equal protection under the law.
Finally, and I'll post separately on this at some point, this will be the beginning of the end for a lot of Wyoming practice. Truth be known, Wyoming litigators and specialists are far more adept than their out of state opposites, as they have such broad experience. Litigators here actually do try a lot of cases, as opposed to litigators in other states who think that if they get in ten in a career that they've actually done something. I've known plenty of civil litigators who have done 1/3d of an out of state litigators career total in a single year. But there's something about the "big city" that causes work to migrate here, and we're seeing an invasion of Denver firms that are no more experienced or adept that any local firm, but get work just because they are from Denver. That will now accelerate. Indeed, a person has to wonder why the State Supreme Court didn't care about that. But then a person has to wonder why the CLE presenter on oil and gas, if what I heard was correct, was from Texas, not Wyoming.
Post a Comment