Ed.
note:
This
is
the
latest
installment
in
a
series
of
posts
on
motherhood
in
the
legal
profession,
in
partnership
with
our
friends
at MothersEsquire.
Welcome
Joseline
Jean-Louis
Hardrick
back
to
our
pages.
Click
here
if
you’d
like
to
donate
to
MothersEsquire.
The
recent
statistics
from
the
AccessLex
Institute
show
a
clear
difference
in
performance
on
the
bar
exam
based
on
race
and
socioeconomic
status.
The
report,
which
took
three
years
to
collect,
analyze,
summarize,
and
interpret,
discusses
the
experiences
and
outcomes
of
first-
and
second-time
New
York
State
Bar
candidates.
AccessLex
Institute
worked
with
the
New
York
State
Board
of
Law
Examiners
to
finalize
the
publication
and
provide
recommendations
to
the
legal
education
community.
Specifically,
they
guide
legal
educators
to
build
and
improve
efforts
to
prepare
law
school
graduates
for
first-time
bar
exam
passage
in
a
way
that
is
both
equitable
and
effective.
The
report
is
disappointing
but
not
surprising.
For
decades,
first-time
bar
passage
rates
(and
overall
passage
rates)
have
had
stark
differences
identifiable
by
race,
as
reported
by
Bloomberg
Law.
The
authors
argue
that
the
bar
exams
are
not
tests
of
skill
or
competence
but
resources.
Resources
are
in
high
demand
among
Black
and
Brown
students;
many
first-generation
lawyers
may
lack
financial
support
from
their
families
and
enter
law
school
without
knowing
how
to
prepare
for
the
bar
exam
while
in
law
school.
They
are
also
less
likely
to
study
full
time
without
working,
pay
for
commercial
bar
prep
courses,
and
have
lower
household
incomes.
We
don’t
need
new
reports
telling
us
what
we
know
(although
I
understand
that
studies
are
useful
to
provide
empirical,
as
opposed
to
anecdotal,
data).
We
need
new
ways
to
judge
the
fitness
of
an
individual
to
practice
law
and
represent
individuals.
Of
course,
we
want
lawyers
who
are
honest,
competent,
and
mentally
well.
We
trust
these
people
with
lives
and
a
significant
amount
of
money.
But
it
is
also
well
known
in
the
legal
field
that
individual
clients
(and
to
a
large
degree
business
clients)
hire
from
within
their
communities.
It
is
also
industry-standard
to
limit
marketing
avenues
to
a
very
small
amount
of
media,
and
the
states’
bar
association
strictly
monitors
the
language
used.
That
leaves
Black,
Hispanic/Latinx,
and
immigrant
communities
with
few
resources
to
access
the
courts
and
legal
advice
essential
to
their
well-being
and
financial
health.
Schools
have
addressed
this
issue
in
part
by
having
part-time
programs,
scholarships,
and
pipeline
programs.
But
no
one
can
“practice”
law,
i.e.,
represent
a
client
in
court
and
other
settings,
without
a
license.
And
almost
all
states
require
bar
passage
to
obtain
one.
How
do
we
get
them
through
this
barrier,
given
the
enormous
costs
incurred
after
the
enormous
costs
of
law
school?
I
know
many
students
had
to
purchase
new
laptops
to
use
the
specific
program
that
the
Florida
Board
of
Bar
Examiners
required
to
take
the
October
2020
bar
exam.
Unfortunately,
the
program
had
security
glitches,
and
students
reported
identity
theft
used
to
hack
their
bank
accounts
(as
one
student
reported
to
me).
In
contrast,
others
reported
similar
stories
on
social
media.
The
student
I
know
already
had
to
put
the
laptop
on
her
credit
card
after
paying
thousands
more
for
the
bar
prep
course
and
undoubtedly
had
thousands
of
outstanding
student
loans.
These
challenges
are
avoidable
if
the
legal
profession
focuses
on
access
instead
of
exclusivity.
Lawyers
are
trained
problem-solvers
—
we
need
to
recognize
the
inequities
within
our
systems
and
fix
them
accordingly.
The
bar
exam
is
a
challenge
of
resources
and
memorization,
not
competence
to
practice.
Many
students
struggle
with
test-taking
skills
but
ultimately
make
excellent
lawyers,
advocates,
judges,
politicians,
and
the
list
goes
on.
What
to
do
instead?
Allow
waiver
into
jurisdictions
once
an
attorney
has
shown
competence
in
their
jurisdiction.
Allow
students
to
take
the
bar
exam
in
phases,
i.e.,
hold
a
First-Year
Bar
Exam,
which
immediately
follows
a
students’
completion
of
their
first-year
courses.
The
information
is
fresh
in
their
minds,
and
it
is
one
less
burden
for
the
remainder
of
law
school
so
they
can
focus
on
skills
and
experience.
With
the
current
setup,
students
must
try
to
remember
topics
they
learned
three
(or
more)
years
prior
in
two
months
for
a
two-day
exam.
There
is
already
a
model
for
this
structure.
The
Multistate
Professional
Responsibility
Examination
(MPRE)
is
held
throughout
the
year
and
can
be
taken
at
various
times
in
a
law
student’s
academic
career.
And
California
has
a
First-Year
Law
Student
Exam.
Include
a
third-year
externship
or
apprenticeship
in
place
of
the
bar
exam.
This
practice
used
to
be
the
norm,
but
it
was
also
very
exclusive.
California
is
once
again
at
the
forefront
of
this
idea.
If
we
are
truly
concerned
with
legal
education
creating
competent
lawyers,
then
why
not
create
the
infrastructure
for
externships
and
apprenticeships
—
to
learn
the
law.
With
the
support
of
the
local
Board
of
Bar
Examiners,
local
voluntary
bar
associations,
government
employers,
and
academic
institutions
—
students
can
equitably
get
access
to
this
experience.
Those
mentioned
above
are
only
a
few
of
the
ideas
circulating.
But
the
largest
barrier
by
far
to
innovation
in
this
area
is
the
resistance
from
lawyers.
Those
lawyers
already
admitted
to
the
bar
have
a
tremendous
fear
(or
anxiety)
of
increased
competition
for
legal
services
and
a
sense
of
unfairness.
Some
believe
that
since
they
had
to
go
through
the
rigor
of
a
bar
exam,
others
who
come
after
should
go
through
it
as
well.
Although
understandable,
this
sentiment
is
not
based
in
equity
and
fairness.
Further,
it
ignores
the
enormous
need
for
legal
representation
in
lower
and
middle
socioeconomic
classes.
That
need
is
currently
filled
by
nonlawyer
legal
services
like
Legal
Zoom,
Avvo,
artificial
intelligence,
and
lawyer
referral
services.
Services
lawyers
also
have
been
attacked
as
the
Unauthorized
Practice
of
Law
(UPL).
It’s
time
for
lawyers
to
take
swift
and
decisive
action
about
how
we
as
an
industry
will
fill
the
gap
of
legal
services,
ensure
entry
into
the
profession
by
those
who
are
truly
competent,
passionate,
and
trustworthy
(not
just
good
test-takers)
and
embrace
the
change
that
lies
ahead.
Professor
Joseline
Jean-Louis
Hardrick
is
a
visiting
Assistant
Professor
at
WMU-Cooley
Law
School
in
Florida.
She
teaches
Criminal
Law
and
Constitutional
Law
and
assists
graduates
with
bar
preparation.
She
is
the
founder
and
director
of
Diversity
Access
Pipeline,
Inc.
This
nonprofit
organization
runs
the
Journey
to
Esquire®
Scholarship
&
Leadership
Program,
Blog,
and
Podcast
to
promote
diversity
and
create
access
for
law
students.