The
Blue
Ribbon
Commission
on
the
Future
of
the
California
Bar
Exam
has
decided
that
it
is
not
going
to
join
some
other
states
in
substituting
a
national
bar
exam
for
its
own.
That
is
typical
of
California,
which
almost
always
chooses
to
go
its
own
way,
preferring
to
create
its
own
Next
Gen
bar
exam
than
to
follow
others.
No
surprise
there.
What
the
bar
exam
looks
like
is
a
critical
issue
going
forward
for
students,
law
schools,
the
legal
community,
and
last,
but
certainly
not
least,
the
California
Legislature,
which
now
looks
at
everything
related
to
the
bar
with
justifiable
suspicion.
So,
no
more
uncertainty
about
whether
California
joins
other
states
in
a
national
bar
exam.
It’s
not.
However,
the
commission
is
deadlocked
on
what,
if
any,
alternative
pathways
to
bar
admission
should
be
available.
Right
now,
the
only
other
pathways
leading
to
the
ability
to
practice
in
California:
reading
the
law
in
an
attorney’s
office
(a
la
Kim
Kardashian),
taking
the
attorneys’
exam,
assuming
that
you
qualify
to
do
so
(a
shorter
exam),
or
registering
as
in-house
counsel,
which
means
that
you
can
only
represent
that
corporate
client
and
no
others.
There’s
no
diploma
privilege,
and
I
will
be
taking
a
dirt
nap
long
before
that
happens,
if
ever.
A
little
history:
six
years
ago
the
California
Supreme
Court
directed
the
state
bar
to
“undertake
a
‘thorough
and
expedited
[ahem!]
study’
of
the
pass
rate
for
the
California
Bar
Exam
(CBX)
to
include
‘identification
and
exploration
of
all
issues
affecting
California
bar
pass
studies.’”
So
prompted,
then
the
state
bar
created
a
California
Attorneys
Practice
Analysis
to
survey
its
members
and
get
intel
about
what
practicing
lawyers
in
this
state
thought
should
be
on
the
bar
exam.
That
was
smart,
to
get
the
working
stiffs
to
opine,
rather
than
legal
academics
who
are
often
clueless
about
practice
realities.
In
May
2020,
after
reviewing
the
CAPA
survey,
the
trustees
decided
that
significant
policy
issues
needed
to
be
considered,
including
whether
California
would
continue
to
go
it
alone
on
the
bar
exam
or
join
other
states
in
a
national
bar
exam.
The
commission
has
decided
the
critical
issue
of
how
the
bar
exam
will
look,
but
there’s
no
consensus
about
possible
alternative
pathways
to
a
California
bar
license,
at
least
so
far.
Four
alternatives
were
proffered,
but
none
were
approved,
and
dissenting
opinions
to
the
commission’s
report
among
commission
members
were
varied
and
vigorous.
So
any
pathway
to
alternative
methods
of
admission
isn’t
clear
yet.
I
think
it’s
anyone’s
guess
as
to
what
pathways
might
be
recommended,
if
any.
I
am
confident
that
more
than
99%
of
you
could
care
less
than
zip
about
awards
season
here
in
Tinseltown,
but
I
mention
it
because
this
past
Sunday
at
the
SAG-AFTRA
awards,
chosen
by
actors
and
given
to
actors
in
television
and
films,
old
folks
won
major
awards.
Just
as
some
peeps
say
that
lawyers
should
be
pushed
out,
relegated
to
whatever
your
vision
of
old
age
looks
like
(and
everyone
has
a
different
version
of
that,
especially
advertisers)
major
award
winners
included
Sam
Elliott
at
77,
Michelle
Yeoh
at
60,
and
Jamie
Lee
Curtis
at
64,
two
women
definitely
considered
to
be
over
the
hill
by
Hollywood’s
ludicrous
standards.
Sally
Field,
at
75,
won
the
Lifetime
Achievement
Award
(she
started
in
the
biz
at
17)
and
James
Hong,
a
youthful
94,
was
part
of
the
ensemble
movie
cast
that
won
for
Everything,
Everywhere,
All
at
Once.
Why
mention
this?
Finally,
Hollywood
is
coming
to
terms
with
the
reality
that
there
should
be
no
benchmark
for
when
actors
are
too
old
to
act.
Similarly,
to
those
who
would
kick
lawyers
to
the
curb
upon
reaching
a
certain
age
(and
this
does
happen,
duh),
I
think
it’s
a
mistake.
I
don’t
just
say
that
because
I
am
a
dinosaur.
When
to
stop
working?
It’s
a
highly
personal
question,
not
to
mention
a
possible
legal
claim.
Just
like
everything
else
in
our
profession,
the
answer
is
“it
depends.”
Competence
to
practice
is
not
a
fixed
number.
I
know
lawyers
who
are
80-plus
who
still
out-lawyer
others,
and
lawyers
who
are
complete
doofuses
in
their
forties.
Granted,
technical
competency
is
now
part
of
the
rules
of
professional
conduct,
but
that
should
not
be
a
barrier
to
practice
after
a
certain
age.
Old
peeps
can
and
certainly
do
learn
and
keep
up
(don’t
we
do
that
all
the
time
with
new
statutes
and
case
law?)
If
not
sufficiently
technically
proficient,
then
that’s
a
perfect
opportunity
to
team
up
with
someone
who
understands
all
the
new
technology,
included,
but
not
limited
to
AI.
That
person
may
well
have
absolutely
no
idea
about
how
to
use
a
rotary
phone
or
even
worse,
what
that
was.
Don’t
dismiss
older
lawyers
out
of
hand.
We
may
not
be
as
physically
mobile,
we
may
not
be
as
savvy
technologically,
but
our
decades
of
accumulated
wisdom,
usually
achieved
the
hard
way,
makes
us
advisors,
mentors,
partners,
to
those
who
come
after
us,
whatever
shape
the
Next
Gen
California
bar
takes.
We
deserve
our
own
awards
for
longevity
and
survival
on
our
own
terms.
Jill
Switzer
has
been
an
active
member
of
the
State
Bar
of
California
for
over
40
years.
She
remembers
practicing
law
in
a
kinder,
gentler
time.
She’s
had
a
diverse
legal
career,
including
stints
as
a
deputy
district
attorney,
a
solo
practice,
and
several
senior
in-house
gigs.
She
now
mediates
full-time,
which
gives
her
the
opportunity
to
see
dinosaurs,
millennials,
and
those
in-between
interact
—
it’s
not
always
civil.
You
can
reach
her
by
email
at
oldladylawyer@gmail.com.