The Evil that is the Practice of Law.
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.