"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.

“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.

Saturday, February 20, 2016

Albany Law School is planning to offer programs aimed at non-lawyers, bracing up for likely sagging enrollment and potential deregulation of the legal profession

In the past 10 years, Albany Law School has changed its presidents about 4 times.  Apparently, presidents do not live up to the enrollment goals.

Albany Law School is a private law school with a per-year estimated costs each student would invest into his or her education, close to $60,000 PER YEAR:

Under the guidance of its newest president, Professor Ouelette, the school is about to start offering education to "non-JD students" (as in "JD = Juris Doctor", a degree qualifying graduates to sit for the bar examination and obtain a license to practice law).

The declared intent of such "non-JD" programs is "that we would like to make available to a broader audience what we believe is a high-quality and incredibly valuable legal education," Haynes said. "We want to make it so that non-lawyers and non-JD students can get a quality legal education."

Why did it happen so that ALS was inspired to bring legal education into broader masses just when the legal profession is suffering a push for deregulation, losing paying clients not only to bad economy, but also to legal information portals such as Nolo and LegalZoom, and when law school enrollments are ever dwindling?

It was a marketing move to survive, not a move to educate masses out of generosity of ALS faculty's kind hearts.

I would love to be able to fast-forward time about 10-15 years into the future and see how ALS and legal licensing will fare then.  It is not a betting game and I do not want to make predictions, but it appears that the legal profession is coming towards deregulation faster and faster.

No comments:

Post a Comment