Why the federal government should enforce anti-discrimination rules for the bar.
Access to justice is a public good
- Lawyers affect liberty, property, and rights.
- If entry is gated by cost, geography, or private tests (LSAT/law school), the public suffers from fewer competent lawyers and inequitable legal representation
Merit + trust is sufficient for competence
- High school diploma (basic literacy), passing a background/ethics check, and passing a standardized bar exam is enough to ensure minimum legal competence.
- Extra barriers mainly protect private interests (law schools, LSAC) rather than the public.
Current system discriminates against the poor and rural
- Expensive tuition, tech requirements, and elite-school pipelines disproportionately exclude low-income applicants.
- The result: the legal profession favors the wealthy, perpetuating inequality.
What a merit-based model would look like
Requirements:
- High school diploma or GED
- Background/character check
- Standardized bar exam
Effects:
- Equal opportunity for anyone competent
- Floods the market with lawyers → cheaper legal services
- Reduces dependency on private gatekeepers
How evil is the current status quo?
- Artificial scarcity: LSAT + law school + bar = high-cost barrier
- Wealth-based access: Only those with money or elite networks can realistically become lawyers
- Public harm: Poor people and rural communities get less access to competent lawyers
- Symbolic “competence” filter: Doesn’t prevent bad lawyers — incompetent or unethical lawyers exist anyway via public attorneys
- Market distortion: Drives up fees, protects law schools and elite firms, concentrates legal power in wealthy hands
In short: the current system is expensive, exclusionary, and partially symbolic, while failing to actually guarantee competence. It’s designed to protect privilege over the public, which makes it “evil” from a justice perspective.