The Supreme Court has handed down a new ruling in Howes v. Fields that strikes another blow at Miranda rights. If an inmate is already incarcerated, a jailhouse interrogator is no longer required to read the prisoner their Miranda rights. The 6-3 decision overturns a 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that threw out Randall Lee Fields’s conviction when he eventually confessed to and was convicted of sexual assault charges that carried a sentence of 10-15 years.
The majority focused their attention on the “shock of the arrest” and the idea that if the detained individual speaks to the officer, they’ll get out of the arrest or receive some leniency. Because the individual is in jail, the Court reasoned that the same thought process isn’t presented, simply informing the prisoner that “You are free to terminate this interrogation and return to your cell” is sufficient.
Ginsburg Not So Sure
However, for Justice Ginsburg, who wrote the minority opinion, these were the “wrong question[s]” to “focus on” She looked at three aspects: was it a “police dominated atmosphere…was he placed, against his will, in an inherently stressful situation…and [were] his ‘freedoms of ‘action’ any significant way.”Ginsburg continued and said those were the fundamental questions that needed answering when determining whether Miranda rights should be read.
Miranda Scope Narrowed by Roberts?
Howes v. Fields is the latest in a string of rulings from the Roberts Court that has narrowed the scope of Miranda, making it more law enforcement friendly. A famous example of this came in 2010 with Berghuis v. Thompkins, where the Court ruled that to invoke your right to remain silent, given by Miranda, a suspect must speak and indicate that they are invoking that right.
In the past two years, the Court has accelerated a pro-law enforcement trend in deciding Miranda rights, and today’s ruling continues that trend. Miranda was a tool that citizens could use to prevent themselves from being taken advantage of by the police. Still, with increasing exclusions being carved out, it is beginning to lose effectiveness and only serves to create more confusion for citizens.
The widow of the former University of Southern California football player Matthew Gee believes her husband died due to repetitive head trauma suffered while playing for the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) in the 90s. She sued the organization in what many sports attorneys believe could be a landmark wrongful death suit.
Ehline Law and our wrongful death attorneys have helped protect the rights of grieving families and get them the compensation they deserve in pro and semi-pro sports accidents. If you lost a loved one due to negligence, contact us to learn more about your rights.
Matthew Gee Dies, and Widow Files Wrongful Death Suit in Los Angeles Superior Court
Gee was the team captain and played in the NCAA college football game. Soon, he led USC to many victories with his tackles and explosive head blows. After graduating, the Los Angeles Raiders replaced Gee with another player forcing him to quit the game. He married Alana and started his insurance business in Southern California, where he lived a normal life for two decades.
According to Alana Gee, in 2013, Gee lost control of his emotions and would get angry or depressed. He turned to alcohol and would see a doctor for his condition, telling him he also suffered from memory loss as he couldn’t recall incidents for days.
In 2018, Matthew Gee died on New Year’s Eve, with the hospital listing his cause of death as drugs and alcohol combined with health issues. However, Alana Gee, his wife, did not believe the diagnosis of the former University of Southern California football player because Matt’s behavior changed drastically in the last few years before his death.
Alana Gee donated his brain to Boston University’s CTE center, where they studied the brain and reported severe signs of CTE, chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a degenerative brain disease caused by repeated blows to the head. Following the diagnosis, she decided to sue NCAA as they were responsible for protecting her husband but failed to do so.
Lawsuit Against NCAA in Los Angeles Superior Court Leads to Trial
According to the lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court by Alana Gee, Matt died from permanent brain damage resulting from continuous blows to the head while playing for the Rose Bowl-winning team in 1990.
In the past, there have been many lawsuits against the NCAA by college football players, but Alana Gee’s is the second lawsuit that will be trialed and perhaps the first that could reach a jury.
The lawsuit alleges that the NCAA has kept a dark secret for years and did not warn the players about the severe effects of head blows, slowly killing college athletes.
However, according to court documents, the NCAA stated that they are not responsible for the death of the former University of Southern California football player, blaming his demise on drugs, alcohol, and health problems.
The NCAA lawyers created a story out of Matt Gee’s last few years alive, stating that he turned to alcohol to fill the void left behind after his playing days were over. Lawyers representing the governing body of college athletics said that Gee consumed drugs and alcohol to numb the pain he was experiencing from his numerous health conditions.
In recent years, the issue of concussions occurring from blows to the head in sports, especially football, has taken center stage as more research revealed the serious long-term effects of repeated head blows. Many researchers reported the range of symptoms of those who suffered repetitive brain injuries, from minor headaches to major issues such as depression, Parkinson’s, and many others.
In 2018, the widow of former defensive player for Texas in the 60s, Greg Ploetz, went to trial, and after several days of witness testimonies, she settled the case. In 2016, the NCAA settled a class action lawsuit pertaining to concussions by paying $70 million toward monitoring the health of former college athletes and $5 million for medical research. The organization also had to pay $5,000 to individual players claiming injuries.
The National Football League also faced similar lawsuits in recent years, agreeing to cover 20,000 retired players by paying up to $4 million for wrongful death resulting from CTE. Besides CTE, it also agreed to pay for five other qualifying conditions, and many estimate that it will cost the National Football League over $1.4 billion in payouts across 65 years.
For years, NFL kept denying the association of CTE with football but eventually accepted the research conducted by Boston University’s CTE center in 2016, which found that repetitive head trauma in football led to memory loss, depression, and other brain-related issues.
What’s startling is that the CTE center studied the brains of 111 deceased former NFL players and 53 former college players and found CTE in the brains of 110 former NFL players and 48 college football players.
Five linebackers from the 1989 Trojans squad died before age 50, and Gee was one of them. In the recent NCAA wrongful death suit, the defendants are seeking to exclude testimonies of former teammates, stating that there is no medical evidence Gee suffered concussions during his time at USC.
However, two former teammates testified during depositions that head blows were routine during football, and the management would encourage players to deliver blows with their heads.
Mike Salmon, one of Gee’s teammates, recalled how the linebackers, including Gee, would be “out of it” during hard-hitting practices. He recalled how Matthew would hit with his dead and show signs of a concussion while heading back to the huddle.
Another former teammate, Gene Fruge, stated how it was the player’s job to explode into another player without asking second questions; helmet-to-helmet contact was pretty common.
The NCAA defended itself by stating that head injuries were not well understood back then, and the organization was unaware of the long-term effects of helmet-to-helmet contact.
However, Gee’s lawsuit referred to past studies of boxers suffering from the severe effects of repeated concussions and traumatic brain impacts and also mentioned other studies pertaining to contact sports, especially football.
It stated that the organization knew about the devastating consequences of such sports actions, even during the time Gee played, but refused to warn or protect their athletes. The NCAA put profits above everything else, above the lives of the players who generated revenue for the organization.
Alcohol Use Following Brain Injuries
Some individuals face drinking problems following their brain injury. In a 30-year follow-up study conducted by Bombardier et al., the findings suggested that about one-third of individuals suffering from brain disease start to drink heavily. Drug and alcohol abuse is the second most common symptom after a traumatic brain injury (TBI), next to a major depressive disorder.
In a 2000 study, Alcohol and Traumatic Disability by Bombardier, the findings reported that alcohol use and TBI might have an additive effect, further worsening cognitive recovery. Alcohol consumption following a TBI can lead to an increased risk of injuries and seizures, making it difficult for the injured person to return to work.
A 1997 study by Corrigan revealed that people consuming alcohol after their injury suffer from higher levels of depression and have lower life satisfaction than those without substance abuse difficulties. It identifies post-injury depression as a significant risk factor for alcohol dependence.
The former Rose Bowl winning team member, Matthew Gee, experienced depression and turned to alcohol after suffering a progressive degenerative brain disease. There have been many similar lawsuits where NCAA and NFL settled the cases with the injured victims or their family members.
If the plaintiff’s lawyers can prove that Matthew Gee died of brain and head injuries from football, it can be a real game-changer. Many sports attorneys believe that the NCAA’s attempt towards character assassination is a distraction, and they would not be able to argue the evidence showing Gee had CTE before his death, a disease not caused by substance abuse.
In the event that the NCAA loses the case, they may have to protect their players from any such injuries going forward.
Schedule a Free Consultation with Ehline Law
Losing a loved one due to another’s negligence can be a tragedy, but it is important to act fast if you wish to seek justice and obtain compensation for your loss.
If you lost a loved one because of someone else’s negligence, contact us at (833) LETS-SUE for a free consultation, as you may be eligible for compensation. Our experienced wrongful death attorneys will help assess your case and discuss your legal options.
I am Michael Ehline, an expert on the Common Law History of Becoming a Lawyer without law School and formation of bar exams. Securing your Juris Doctorate (JD) or law degree from an ABA or state-accredited law school is a prerequisite before practicing law in most U.S. states. The UK, including its commonwealth, has a similar path. Although I studied law under the California State Bar Law Office Study Program guidelines, only a handful of U.S. states have their versions of legal apprenticeships.
Some people think there are advantages to attending a traditional, costly law school if they can survive during legal studies and its enormous, crushing student debt. No matter what, either way, there is no such thing as a quick law degree. No matter what, a minimum level of training will be needed.
Below, I will discuss American common law history, the myths associated with Moorish sovereigns, and sovcits about the B.A.R.
ANCIENT TO MODERN TIMELINE OF BECOMING A LAWYER WITHOUT LAW SCHOOL
Law schools were not even a thought. Clergy was the closest thing England had to lawyers by the time of Alfred the Great. Lay people or “commoners” were generally not law practitioners. Hence, there was no “common law” yet. Commoners descended from Germanic barbarians and often resorted to trial by battle, self-help, and blood feuds to resolve legal disputes.
There was no such animal as a wrongful death lawsuit, for example. Ultimately, these heathen leaders received education from church institutions, including law and history. Eventually, commoners practiced law using rules modified from former Canon law religious courts and the shire’s royal laws.
527-565 – The Roman Emperor Justinian prohibited any clergyman from pleading in lay courts, whatever the nature of the cause unless it was one in which he had a personal interest or his Church or monastery parish was involved. Despite this, western bishops turned a blind eye, their clerics influencing and even running royal, secular courts for hundreds of years. Besides, clergy were typically the only people who could read, write, or conduct record-keeping for local public officials. The king’s scribes were often religious monks, for example.
557 A.D. – Middle Ages Ecclesiastical Legal Advocacy
In Western Europe, the Justinian interdict was largely ignored (See above). Because of his education, the clergyman became indispensable in all matters concerning the orderly transaction of public business, whether in the chanceries or the courts.
First Lawyers Had No Law School?
True, no law schools existed until well after the Church created our modern university system. Few people other than clergy educated in guilds or schools practiced law. Hence, educated lawyers monopolized legal jobs, as they do today. Due to the Papal Bulls against owning a Bible, let alone reading, the church controlled thought, similar to how modern [politicized] social media has taken over modern “news” reporting/censoring.
People who were called cleric lawyers:
Proctors: If a party to action appeared by a proctor, the proctor represented the party.
Advocatus: But if the party had the assistance of an advocate, the party had to make a personal appearance in court, supported, aided, counseled, and advised by the advocate on all matters of law and procedure.
Hence, the ecclesiastical proctor remained similar to early mediaeval attornatus’ (see below), whereas advocates had similarities to a mediaeval pleader, forespeka, vorsprecher narrator. However, advocates could argue and not just repeat statements.
Mediaeval Proctor
The ecclesiastical proctor was a kind of “officer” appointed by the court or selected by the client to represent a party that empowered him to appear on its behalf and manage its cause. Under certain conditions, the same person could act both as a proctor and advocate in the same case for the same client.
Medieval Advocate
Contrary To English Shire Courts, Parties In Religious Courts Were Allowed Their Advocates Any party appearing in an ecclesiastical court, whether as plaintiff or defendant, could appear either in person or by counsel, professional or not. In some instances, the court might insist on the appearance of counsel for the party. The professional duties of an ecclesiastical advocate loosely resembled the Roman Imperial period advocate.
In mediaeval society, clergymen were practically the only people who possessed some of that general education and learning, which is necessary to present or plead a case intelligently and convincingly. But subsequently, a difference arose as to the propriety of clerics practicing law, the custom varying depending upon who was in charge.
Did Proctors Or Advocates Attend Law School?
No. There were no law schools. And they probably had no undergrad requirements. We do know when proctors were commissioned candidates, and they had to pass through an apprenticeship.
Moral Character Rules – Genesis
Our secular moral character requirements are inherited from sixth-century ethics rules and standards. A cursory inspection of the Corpus Juris Civils of Justinian, especially of the Codex, shows the massive extent to which lawyers’ ecclesiastical regulations were dependent on Roman law. (Cf. Chroust. The Legal Profession in Ancient Imperial Rome, 30 NOTRE DAME LAW. 521, 579 (1955)).
Several provisions and rules existed regarding the supervision and discipline of proctors. They were to display restrained and dignified conduct in the presence of the court, refraining from “loud speech and babbling, and behave themselves quietly and modestly.” (Could not buy the litigation, acquire an interest in the case, demand an excessive fee, or betray their client’s confidence to their party in opposite).
1230: One title is based on the Decretals of Pope Gregory IX, published around 1230, which includes Pope Gregory the Great of 596’s regulation, one from Pope Alexander III (1159-1181), one by Pope Clement III (1187-1191), four by Pope Innocent III (1198-1216), and two of Pope Honorius I (1216-1227). Six more were issued by Pope Gregory IX (1227-1241).
Circa 1298: Pope Boniface VIII’s Sixth Book of the Decretals followed Roman law, modified or expanded by Papal Decretals (decrees), Church Councils, or bishop/court created local statutes.
Compare Early Germanic Secular Courts – Rarely Recognized Another’s Right To Advocate
In a nutshell, Germanic peoples and their early Anglo-Saxon ancestors had no use for what we now call lawyers. These were warrior societies. “…every man ought to fight his own battles, using his hands or tongue as the occasion required.” (Id at 539). They looked down upon accusers refusing to litigate, arbitrate and face death for making accusations during their parliamentary courts, called the “Thing” or “Althing.”
During the arbitration, the accused and accuser might engage in trial by battle, the surviving victor being innocent of all charges. It appears that ancient courts relied upon a lawman to recite the law.
But this person did not advocate and was typically someone belonging to the king’s court. Modern scholars believe many German tribes were outlaws who either fled Scandinavia or were banished. (Source) (See also). The 5th and 6th Century German invasions of Western Europe saw the end of the once highly developed, prosperous Roman legal profession. (See Chroust, The Legal Profession in Ancient Imperial Rome, 30 NOTRE DAME LAW. 521 (1955); Chroust, The Legal Profession in Ancient Republican Rome, 30 NOTRE DAME LAW. 97 (1954); Chroust, Legal Education in Ancient Rome, 7 J. LEGAL ED. 509 (1955)).
These tribes, including the earlier-ancient Romans before them, had no attorney-client advocacy system, mainly because no concept of legal “agency” existed. (acting on another’s behalf in law.
Early Orators In Legal Causes Were The Closest Thing We Had To Secular Lawyers?
The Rise of The Vorsprecher
Germanic tribes allowed an accused, their professional orator, or Vorsprecher, to speak “their words” during court.(Vorsprecher, forespreca, furisprecho, redesman rechtsprecher, spruchman, rechtsager, asega, eosago, sagibaro, talman, prolocutor, or plain “mouth-piece”). A Vorsprecher was not trained in the law, nor was he allowed to advocate. He was to appear [often as a professional orator] to narrate their version of the facts.
But some Germanic kings vested others acting in their own interests with the right of representation by an advocate. It seems German tribes insultingly called these legal pleaders “criers.” (Latin: Clamatores). But anyone could be your Vorsprecher, even the judge deciding the case against you. No legal training was required because no advocacy was allowed unless you were the king’s Vorsprecher. (Vorsprecher‘s were great orators and storytellers, often becoming great leaders).
Distinguish Vorsprecher With Scandinavian “Lagman”
At first, lawspeakers/lagmen represented the people, and their duties and authority were connected to the assemblies (things). For most of the last thousand years, however, they were part of the king’s administration. A lawspeaker or lawman (Swedish: Lagman, Old Swedish: laghmaþer or Laghman, Danish: lovsigemand, Norwegian: Lagman, Icelandic: lög(sögu)maður, Faroese: løgmaður, Finnish: laamanni, Greenlandic: inatsitinuk) is a unique Scandinavian legal office. It has its basis in a common Germanic oral tradition, where wise people were asked to recite the law. The lawman’s function evolved into a legal office.
Germanic Tribes Become Anglo-Saxons Settling Britania
During this period, around the 5th century, Voumllkerwanderung tribes, including those formerly residing in Germany’s Angles and Saxony, settled part of Brittain, ultimately becoming Anglo-Saxons. (But other tribes mixed, including Goths, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Lombards, Suebi, Frisii, and Franks).
Lack of Stable Laws = Social Instability
However, Nordic people’s preferring poetry and oral histories over a more superior written system of stable laws with professional clerks, courts, and advocates weren’t progressing society forward. Ancient England was far from being a unified society under such an unstable, Spartan-like system.
“It is an old axiom that a true legal profession – a class of trained and professionally acting experts who are conscious of their expertness and, hence, of their peculiar status within a given society – cannot possibly be found until there exists something like a fairly distinct and stable body of laws, a somewhat settled jurisdiction with regular courts handled by experts, and a fairly consistent legal procedure.” (Anton-Hermann Chroust, Legal Profession during the Middle Ages: The Emergence of the English Lawyer Before 1400, 31 Notre Dame L. Rev. 537 (1956).)
Ultimately, as laymen were admitted to the bar, these “commoners” practiced what is modernly “common law.”
813 AD – Council of Mainz
Clerics and monastics were again prohibited from actively participating in a secular lawsuit, except when involving Church or a Church interest or defending orphans or widows.
871 AD – Enter Alfred The Great
Ultimately, especially after the accession of Alfred the Great (Viking slayer) (871), the realm developed established rules similar to traditions inherited from wandering Germanic tribes. The Doom Book, Dōmbōc, Code of Alfred, or Legal Code of Ælfred the Great was the code of laws (“dooms” were laws or judgments) compiled by Alfred the Great. Alfred codified three previous Saxon codes:
Alfred prefixed the Ten Commandments of Moses. He even incorporated Mosaic Code rules of life into a Christian code of ethics. The History Channel smash hit mini-series, Vikings loosely bases some true history about Alfred’s desire to learn history and benevolence during Ragnar’s conquests. For example, some crimes were monetarily compensable concerning victim restitution. But there were still no lawyers, as we call them today.
1066 AD – Enter William the Norman Conquerer
After the successful King William’s 1066 Norman invasion of Britania, things dramatically changed for legal professionals. Our American common law system can be seen as a fusion between:
Laypersons entering legal practice/advocacy after the 13th century.
William, I brought efficient legal administration at speeds only dreamed of by King Alfred. He was heavily reliant upon court clerks and chroniclers, establishing the first English Census. We must remember that the Normans were French-speaking descendants of Danish-Norwegian Vikings, raiding and settling France’s western coast. These barbarians ultimately absorbed Christianity, with its more refined Holy Roman clerical and legal systems.
Fusion of Anglo-Saxon-Norman-Papal-Law
But Norman custom was not simply transplanted into England; upon its arrival, an emerging new body of rules based on local conditions materialized. Elements of King Alfred’s burgeoning Anglo-Saxon system surviving the “Invasion” included the jury, ordeals (trials by testing physical strength or by “battle”), and outlawry (banishing a person beyond the protection of the law or exiling them).
Commoners were not allowed to practice law, as they were not clergy. The king’s roving secular courts had not yet conflicted as they would in later papal power struggles.
Normans maintained the use of writs (orders mandating someone to appear at a court; see also,The development of a centralized judiciary). We must always remember that priestly study was among the highest status education one could receive. Only men of God could read, and the church prohibited the private ownership of Bibles. Ecclesiastical law and papal canons needed interpreting.
Even the Holy Templar Knights (Knights with banks, lands, titles, and money needing management and legal protection) maintained their own priestly house counsel, as it were.
No English Common Law Existed?
True. England had no professional, commoner lawyers or judges; instead, literate clergymen administered, some familiar with Roman law and the canon law. During this period, the Christian church developed the universities of the 12th century. Before the Reformation, mediaeval Roman Canon law had original jurisdiction over most English legal matters.
Civil Canon law was basically copied from Rome’s Civil law, influencing modem English ecclesiastical and common law. America’s first corporate universities, including Harvard, adopted this religious heritage, emblazoning its first two official seals with “Christo et Ecclesiae” (“For Christ and Church”) (1650 and 1692).
Canon Law Applied
Canon law was applied to English church courts, with revived Roman law seeing less influence in England, despite Norman’s government dominance. England and its colonies during the 12th-13th centuries saw ecclesiastical law taught mostly by the clergy. Even the king’s early central courts had no professional advocates. The proceedings were informal, and parties (or their speakers) presented their own cases before their king, noble, or clergy.
Until the thirteenth century, and far into it, the clergy remained the prominent legal practitioners in the ecclesiastical courts and lay courts. As a matter of fact, clergymen predominated lay courts so much that a word was coined: Nullus clericus nisi causidicus (no clergyman was not also a legal practitioner). It would not be till much later that British Canonical law was subsumed into the Chancery court.
The First English Law Clerk Was A King?
Probably. Norman princes were educated in all manner, including by professorial monks. The Anglo-Saxon Born Norman king, Henry I, was called Beauclerk because he was well educated, fluent in Latin reading and writing, with knowledge of Anglo-Saxon Domesday Book laws, nature, and history. Beauclerk was a fan of the last Anglo-Saxon King, Edward the Confessor. (1042-1066).
Edward’s mother, a Norman, and was born around 1003, or 1005. Edward was recorded as a “witness” overseeing the two charters of 1005. In the early 1030s, Edward witnessed four charters in Normandy, later signing two of them as king of England.
1100: (The Charter of Liberties, also called the Coronation Charter, was Henry I’s written proclamation to bind the King to certain laws regarding the treatment of nobles, church officials, and individuals. (Magna Carta forerunner).
1140 – James Brundage has explained: “[by 1140], no one in Western Europe was a professional lawyer or canonist.”
Henry II (1154–1189); Rise Of The “Common” “Law Attornatus” and Servientes or Serjeants
Henry II’s royal officials roamed the country, inquiring about administering justice. Church and state were separate during his reign, each having its own law and court systems. This led to centuries of rivalry over jurisdiction, especially since church courts’ pre-Reformation appeals could be taken to Rome. And all the “lawyers” of the day were religious employees.
Attornatus Defined
The term attornatus, or attorney, probably is early German. (Anglo-Saxon) Freemen of each shire were regularly summoned to the Torn by the shire reeve (modernly, sheriff). Any man incapable of personally attending the torn could send their friend or close family member relative to represent the missing person “at the torn.”
Their “attorney” substitute now represented the attorney party. Other theories exist the word is French atournee or atourner, with Godofredus labeling this an 11th Century Latinized “loan word.” Gradually this became a person prepared or equipped to act in substitution of parties during legal proceedings.
Attornatus Distinguished From Forespeka
The attornatus, forensically speaking, remains clearly distinguishable from the forespeka or Vorsprecher. “If you appear by attorney, he represents you, but when you have the assistance of an advocate [scil., a leader], you are present, and he supports your cause by his learning, ingenuity, and zeal. Appearance by attorney is one thing, but admitting advocates to plead the cause of another is a totally different proceeding.” (Serjeant’s Case 5; Lord Brougham explains attorney-pleader (forespeka) differences.).
1150 – A small but increasing number of the clergy became experts in canon law. But the clergy gradually withdrew or became barred from practicing law in lay courts. Laypeople had begun replacing clergy legal practitioners.
1161-1185: The First Temple, or Inns of Court
No one knows the Inns of Court’s exact origins. But believe it or not, the Knights Templar liked lawyers. Originally, their lawyers lived with them in their castles. Ultimately they became Inns, where all lawyers in England received legal apprenticeships. But, they were central to the development of English law and the Legal Profession. By 1422, the king’s serjeants were almost exclusively drawn from the court’s four inns. Mentors gave readings on commoner lay laws and certain aspects of Roman law. (Fun fact: Ancient Serjeant = Modern Sergeant = Servant)
Almost all the Judges taught there and returned to attend readings. And the inns weren’t aloof as to the developments of the common law. But their primary function was to “preserve and elaborate the settled learning concerning real actions and real property, and it was in that sense that the law schools made tough law.” The Inns showed us the law was not a creature of statute only. They showed us a human influencers’ body, refining the legal profession, producing future legislators and judges.
The Honourable Societies – The Inner and Outer Temples were sandwiched between the remnants of Roman ruins called “the Liberty of the City,” just outside London’s protective walls. “This gate opens not immediately into the City itself, but into the Liberty or Freedom thereof.” (Queen Anne, 1708).
The Templars considered it an honor to remain posted outside the “protective walls” of London’s secular society.
The Temple’s construction and remodel phases can be dated between 1161 and 1185, named for the warrior monks of the iconic Order of The Knight’s Templars. Templars originally lodged its lawyers and allies, the Knights Hospitalers, within Temple walls. The Temple is where knights launched holy crusades when England’s Kings and Rome’s Pope were were religious allies.
Rank Structure Of The Temple Inns
The masters became known as benchers while the students were classified into three categories:
Readers: Experienced teaching assistants/students, known as readers, were employed in instruction in somewhat the same manner as contemporary law school professors.
Inner Barrister: New students, whose course of instruction was largely lecture and observation were denominated inner barristers.
Outer Barrister: outer barristers, were perhaps the equivalent of today’s second-year law school class and their studies were dominated by participation in the “moot.”
Possible Origins Of the Legal Term “Bar”
Temple Bar. Evolved from the so-called “Liberty line,” or “First-Barrier” (A chain gate draped between the Temple and London’s gates.). Ultimately, the bar meant one thing for “legal London,” and another for the courts. (This is where we traced the legal terms “Barrister,” and “passing the bar,” or first barrier to practicing law) Modernly, each Temple’s dining hall still has a long wooden bar dividing the governors (benchers) from their apprentices. For non-lawyers, since 1351, the Temple Bar is mentioned historically as the location victorious kings would pass beneath its arches. This may have something to do with holy crusades being launched from this location.
“The Liberty line was marked by a chain gate which became known as the Temple Bar, now a stone gateway of the same name. Along with London Bridge, the gateway became a prime public location used to display the heads of traitors and rebels as a warning to others. Below the gateway was a well-used pillory.” – Duhaime’s Law Dictionary, “Inns of Court Definition.”
Call to the Bar or Call to Bar referenced the wooden barrier separating the public and “Apprentice at the Law” from the judge’s bench. Barristers, like attorneys today, stood or sat behind the bar while speaking to and facing the judge, staging their legal briefs, papers, and pleadings there. (We lawyers must seek admission from the court before passing the bar to approach the bench (See the Temple influence? Ex: “Your honor, may I approach?“)
Bar in the Middle Ages: The Bar also referenced the king’s summons, calling a legally qualified man to address the King’s Bench’s legal issues.
“Bar” Modern Use: Ultimately, in common law countries, this term interchangeably came to mean passing a bar exam and being admitted to practice law as a barrister or attorney, with solicitors passing a different but similar examination. Modernly, some scholars claim that the word bar was derived from the old English/European custom separating court business between a public viewing area. At least one Wikipedia editor thinks, “The origin of the term bar is from the barring furniture dividing a medieval European courtroom.”But they provided no citation in support.
See the Image of the Bar!
Myths and Fantasies – British Accreditation Registry “BAR”
No, there is no legitimate or recognized entity known as the “British Accreditation Registry” (often abbreviated as BAR). This term is sometimes associated with the “sovereign citizen” movement. Many of them claim the legal profession and court systems in English-speaking countries, particularly the United States, are secretly controlled by foreign powers, often referencing the British legal system.
The acronym “BAR” in legal contexts usually refers to the legal profession, such as being “admitted to the bar,” which means a lawyer is authorized to practice law after passing an exam and meeting other qualifications. But we have not had anything to do with a so-called “British Accreditation Registry.” In short, the “British Accreditation Registry” is not a recognized institution and we found zero evidence it has anything to do with various common law bars, or any bars for that matter.
England’s Four Inns of Court
Due to the different types of legal education required, four Inns of Court evolved to train Barristers, responsible for teaching and nurturing law students for their unique legal skills as follows:
Ultimately, this Temple Inn evolved into two “Temples,” as follows:
The Honourable Society of The Inner Temple,
The Honourable Society of The Middle Temple
Next on our list of Inns of Court are:
3. The Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn: not to be confused with Abraham Lincoln, remains the largest Inn, with official records showing its existence since at least 1422.
4. The Honourable Society of Gray’s Inn: traces its roots to 1569, but law student studies likely never happened there until the later fourteenth century.
Brief Legal Education History Of the Inns of Chancery
There were two types of Inns, Inns of Court and Inns of Chancery, attached to an Inn of Court “like Maids of Honour to a Princess.” These Inns were responsible for training solicitors. There were other equitable courts we will not cover here. This study limits itself to the evolution away from apprenticeships and the remnants left behind in those few hold-out states. At their height, there were eight or ten Inns of Chancery.
Inns Of Court Legal Education
Evolution Of Law Practice Admissions From Guilds to Inns
As the namesake suggests, inns were various structures housing various law students who would live and earn their keep as apprentices, laboring under their legal masters, reading for the law, and eventually working as barristers solicitors (previous Court of Chancery lawyers).
Inns remained unincorporated bodies, run by senior members called “masters of the bench” or “benchers.” When law students had been “called” to enter the profession by fellow Inn members, they would receive recognition and authorization to legally practice law and plead at the bar in England’s higher courts.
What Was The “Moot”
The best method of legal education for Inns members was attending court. When the court was in session, the Inns were crowded with the judges, lawyers, and students. When courts were not hearing cases, law readers gave lectures and conducted Bolts within the same courthouses, a special moot court.
Since case reports were rare, moots and open court helped students understand current legal questions, as they were argued by admitted and skilled litigators with student input. After moot courts, a collegial and pedagogical discussion between the above parties ensued . “the mooters presented the judges with a slice of bread and a mug of beer. . . .”
At night, generally, Inns students engaged in educational exercises.
End of the Moots
By the eighteenth century, the readings and moots had declined, students being left mainly to their own devices. England’s only requirement for bar admissions by benchers of the Inns was proof that they had kept twelve terms eating the mandatory number of meals.
Another method to gain bar entry was proof a student had clerked with established barristers. But barristers had no formal time commitment to supervise law students in the barrister’s chambers. With no standard tests, apprenticeship quality was never subject to objective, standardized evaluations.
Origins of the Crib and “Crib-Notes”?
Although student-barristers were expected to read certain standard works, such as Littleton, Coke, Glanville, and Bracton, Lord Mansfield set aside a portion received most barrister legal education in the courts. Lord Mansfield set aside a portion of the courtroom for student use to accommodate student needs, called the “crib.” Incidentally, the modern phrase “crib notes” likely arose from his teaching method.
The UK’s new legal system presented many opportunities for non-clergy and other men of the cloth to read for and practice law during the 14th century.
1164: During this period, we see Inns of Court coming into its own. Religious officials became absolutely disqualified by Papal Bull from law practice in lay courts.
1178: King Henry II appointed two clerics and three laymen to a “permanent and central court.” From this time on, it was not unusual that laymen on the Bench should preside over their ecclesiastical brethren.
1179: Third Lateran Council [Citation needed]
1190 to 1230: A crucial shift began with some men practicing canon law as legal professionals.
1215: Fourth Lateran Council admonishedclergyto never appear for a secular lawsuit, except in cases affecting themselves or on behalf of the poor and the distressed.
1215: Magna Charta agreed upon by king Henry II.
1216-1272 – Henry III: By now, despite the Papal admonishments, most royal justices, including royal clerks or officials, were technically clergymen. But beginning under Henry III would recruit his lawyers would recruit lawyers from the royal Bench’s Bar.
1217: Law of the Forest (introduced as policy in 1217 and confirmed by Edward III in 1225).
1217-1218: The Pope, frustrated with King Henry I and II, prohibited England’s clergy from practicing law in secular English Common Law courts. “neither clerics nor monastics are to appear as advocati in a secular court, unless in their own causes or in those of the poor.” (Later incorporated in the so-called Constitutions of Cardinal Otho in 1237).
1225: Law of Forest confirmed.
1232: Two French councils in 1231 had mandated that lawyers had to swear an oath of admission before practicing before the bishop’s courts in their regions. A London papal legate created a similar oath in 1237.
1234: Ultimately, in 1234 AD, Henry III banned legal education “within the City” of London, prompting a mass legal educator exodus, including clergy and law students leaving the protective “Liberty” of the City’s walls. (He couldn’t just ban priest law teachers, as he could set of a Holy War against England) The warrior Templar monks (See above), still vassals of the Pope, granted these legal disciples respite alongside their own legal counsel then training as Templar lawyers, renting space as it were, to these displaced jurists.
1236: The great barons of Normandy were permitted to appoint an attornatus, provided they ‘had secured a royal license…”
1237: Constitutions of Cardinal Otho affirms restrictions on religious officials participating in secular courts.
Clerical legal representatives were on the decline in England, as was Rome-based Christianity.
1270-1300 – Rise Of The Full Attornatus
By now, we see two classes of attorney rise:
Full Attornatus: The full attornatus helped courtiers, nobles, clergy, people living far away, or those engaged in protracted causes. Because certain people (sick, infirm, far away) could not always appear personally, the attornatus became a class of pros and, like servientes or serjeants, were becoming “full-time lawyers.” But unlike public deputies of the day, these new representatives were educated.
Attornatus Regis: The King’s attorney. (See below)
1272-1307 – Edward I: The English Bench and Bar’s secularization continued, ushering in a class of professional legal practitioners in general. By Edward’s death, most English lawyers practicing law in royal courts were professional laymen. Edward also instituted the first Moral Character Law.
1275: France’s professionalization trend saw a proposal at the Second Council of Lyon in 1275 that all ecclesiastical courts must institute an oath of admission influential in many European courts, including England.
1275 – First Statute of Westminster: England’s civil courts joined the trend towards professionalization. (Statute was enacted punishing professional lawyers guilty of deceit). (no sheriff shall suffer “barretors to maintain quarrels in their shires, neither stewards of great Lords, nor others, unless he be attorney for his Lord, to make suit or give judgment in the counties …” The non admitted attornatus was considered a deputy, not respected as the Crown’s particular attornatus, merely acting as their lord’s deputy at the Bar or Bench.
1278: The King’s attornatus or attornati, called attornatus Regis (King’s attorney), sued the Bishop of Exeter. After that, Attornatus Regis began assuming serviens Regis roles. But the King’s attorney still needed the “King’s commission.” (or Chancellor’s commission).
1280: the mayor’s court of the city of London promulgated regulations concerning admission procedures, including administering an oath.
1285: Second Statute of Westminster provided penalties for serjeants, leaders, and attorneys who engaged in unprofessional conduct. Lawyers were made legally liable for defrauding clients and negligent representation of causes. Lawyers were penalized if convicted of engaging in or consenting to deceit or collusion in Royal courts. But mainly it was the King’s serjeants, and pleaders complained of.
1288: Norman attornatio were finally allowed to practice in lower Norman courts.
1289: “The City Ordinance of 1289” regulated London’s legal practitioners.
1290: The so-called Mirror of Justices observed that “no counteur [pleader] should be a man of religion or an ordained cleric.”
1292: King Edward I appoints 140 attorneys, including their apprentices, to accompany his common-law courts, helping litigants. This increased formal legal training needs in the realm.
1294: The 1288 Norman Court rule allowing law attornatus in lawyer courts was abolished in 1294 by the Parliament of Paris, including Normandy.
1295: First Mention of Attorney General. “because John . . . is at the King’s command, . . . he may have general attorneys in all his lawsuits.” The King, London, and the great barons, like any large corporation, constantly needed competent legal representation.
1297: Confirmatio Cartarum – Edward II recognizes pre-existing natural laws respecting liberty and freedom from certain government interference. (Learn more about Natural Law Here).
1297: Remonstrances – Edward II is served with the Remonstrances. Edward I’s incessant wars and his confrontational style led to conflict with some lay and ecclesiastical lords. Edward II’s bias towards his lover/friend Piers Gaveston in giving him royal titles created great jealousy among the realm’s magnates as well, culminating in complaints about the royal government.
1298: London’s First City Attorney – London appoints William of Grantham (Granham or Graham) city attornatus to the royal court, “to receive annually so long as he be attorney twenty shillings.” (“the freedom of the City” granted to “attorney before the King.”)
Over time, the legal profession in England was divided into two functions; as follows:
Forespeaker (advocatus or prolocutor): A person stood beside a litigant and spoke as if they were him.
Attornotus or procurator: A representative who acted on behalf of someone in his absence, bound to represent that person.
1307-1327: Edward II complained his Barons of the Exchequer admitted attorneys in other courts. This period saw the extraordinary growth of a professional attorney class. The Crown regularly granted permission to appoint special and general attornati, either by statute or by writ. The attornati also received remuneration from clients.
1308: Parliament banishes Lord Gaveston, [previously banished by Edward I’s father] (Earl of Cornwall, and likely Edward II’s homosexual lover) from the realm under pain of Papal ex-communication.
1309: Edward II convinces the Pope to drop annulment risks against Gaveston, and Lord Gaveston returns to England from Ireland.
1309: Gaveston’s arrogance remains such an affront to the Lords, barons, bishops that many in parliament won’t attend sessions with Gaveston present. The king ordered Gaveston to stay away, and parliamentarians appeared, illegally, wearing full battle regalia, armed, demanding the appointment of Ordainers. Their goal was to prevent the king from acting against their interests again.
1311: Ordinances of 1311 are accepted by Edward II under duress, forced upon him by Papal clergy, including rebellious Baron’s and Lords, called Lord Ordainers. (Attempting to end arbitrary royal government action, including confiscatory taxes, etc.)
1312: Lord Gaveston is captured and executed when two Welshmen beheaded him on behalf of Parliamentarians and their allies, [now preparing for war against the Crown] his body left behind.
1312:The End Of Templar Influence Over English Legal Education. Most of us are aware of motion pictures like Tom Hank’s, based on Dan Brown’s best-selling book, Davinci Code. As in real life, the King of France, going bankrupt from Holy Crusade debts, conspired with the new Pope to destroy the Knights Templar. France’s king attempted to confiscate Templar’s wealth. The Church turned its allied Orders living in England against the Templars. The English King was also deeply in debt to the Templars. So he saw no problems when the Order of Saint John’s Knight’s Hospitalers defeated the Temple Inns Templar crusaders in 1312, displacing their former landlords. But their Order honored the rental/lease agreement of the resident lawyers and law students apprenticing there.
1322: The Statute of York, 1322 undoes the Ordinances of 1311 and prohibits lawmaking attornati and inferior officers of the royal courts (clerks) from interfering with royal prerogative.
1344: Inns of Chancery, Clifford’s Inn is said to come into existence.
1349: Marks the era England/Papacy began severing secular disputes from Papal courts and clerics in earnest.
1349: Thavie’s Inn of Chancery was founded, and for several centuries, Chancery Inn education was the first step towards equity practitioners becoming a barrister. A student would first join one of the Inns of Chancery, where he was taught moots and rote learning by Readers sent from the Inn of Court to which his Inn was attached. These readers presided over the moots and engage in class discussions. At the end of each Inn’s legal term, gifted students would be transferred to the parent Inn of Court for stage II.
1392: The House of Commons suggested that no clerk attached to Royal courts should be admitted as counsel or attornatus to other parties. (conflict of interest). (Attorneys are also no longer held liable for their client’s wrongful deeds).
1402: In the year 1402, the Commons complained that many instances of legal malpractice had occurred.
1413: Statute was enacted protecting law practitioners as a class, restricting legal practice. (No Under-Sheriff, Sheriffs Clerk, Sheriff’s Bailiff or Receiver, may act as an attorney in royal courts while holding office – Titles of Nobility).
1439: The attorney was fined forty shillings for failing to pay for his law license. (No person should regularly practice law unless duly admitted by the Mayor and Aldermen).
1461: Approximately 100 students engaged in Inns of Chancery studies. Inns of Chancery also served as accommodation and offices by solicitors.
1512-1517: Fifth Lateran Council.
1517: Luther nailed his 1517 smash hit Ninety-five Theses to the door of a local Dioces, with copies being made widely available. With the invention of the Guttenberg printing press, copies of the Holy Bible, banned from public view by the Church, would become widely available. No longer maintaining a biblical text stranglehold, the Catholic Church was confronted by renegade, heretic German monk Martin Luther.
1521: Edict of Worms officially bans Holy Roman Empire citizens from agreeing with or spreading Luther’s “blasphemy.”
1535: The Protestant Reformation became a huge powerplay for Europe’s monarchs and Hapsburg Empire loyalists. The political separation of the Church of England from Roman influence brought England alongside this new movement. Henry VIII establishes the Anglican Church, tired of the Pope’s spiritual control over English courts and people. The king effectively breaks England away from the Papacy after its final insult in refusing to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon.
1539: Ultimately, the British Crown evicted the Knights Hospitallers and Order of Saint John from this guilded property between 1539-1540.
1562: The Statute Against Forgery prohibits attorney punishment for pleading his client’s forged deed if he was not a party to the forgery. (“immunity” of attornatus is older).
1608: King James I enacts Inns of the Court Charter. (Law students, teachers/governors have rights to stay and train at Inns of Court).
Date: The English Reformation sped up under King Edward the VI. But then, for a short period, Queen Mary I and King Philip Catholicism were back. But The Act of Supremacy 1558 renewed the schism, with the Elizabethan Settlement earning Britain its sovereignty from Rome.
1620: Senior English judges ruled that all four inns would maintain equal order of precedence. The English legal craft of learning the law from the 16th century forward would primarily involve legal apprentices volunteering, or paying a fee, attending court with their masters, living and working among either their head barrister, “professors” until the cessation of apprenticeship training, swearing their lawyer’s oath.
1642: After the First English Civil War in 1642, teaching Chancery students to be barristers at the Inns ended. Chancery Inns were now a dedicated association for solicitors used as offices and accommodations. England’s war of independence hurt the legal profession. This is where we see barrister Inns of Court seven or more years of legal training all but disappearing as a rule.
The Decline of Inns Chancery-Importance In English Law Legal Studies
By the 15th century, these Inns of Chancery had already morphed into preparatory schools for the Inns of Court, after the Inns of Court began charging higher acceptance fees to students trained in independent Chancery Inns. Experienced solicitors made Inns sort of a warm marketing network, similar to CAALA or ABOTA today. Still, many Inns fell in and out of allegiance with the Inns of Court, with some claiming independence through the eighteenth century.
NOTE: American Inns, similar to English Inns, are akin to social clubs, offering mentoring and guidance rather than supervising law study. I, too, was a member of the Benjamin Arranda III pupilage group of Redondo Beach, California.
NOTE: Like today’s law schools, only very wealthy or well-off students could pay the exorbitant price of an Inns of Court legal education, with King James requiring “a gentleman by descent” as a pre-condition to entry.
1673: These Temple’s residents, by now mainly Middle and Inner Temple pupils and law mentors, ultimately purchased the defeated Templar’s land and structures in 1673 for a £78 payment.
1729: These legal training methods slowly fell into decline after the latter 16th century, with many students now reading books made possible in part by Luther’s popularization of the printing press. With Inns training being replaced by Blackstone and Sir Francis Bacon’s writings, the mid-17th century saw little formalized English legal education until the solicitor’s apprenticeship program in 1729.
1739 and 1825: The foundation of the Society of Gentlemen Practisers and Law Society of England and Wales in 1739 and 1825 were professional bodies established for professional solicitors but gradually dissolved and sold over time.
This section covered most of the ancient history of becoming a lawyer. Go here to read part two about becoming an attorney under common law.
It’s called the District of Columbia Act of 1871. But I digress. “Sovcit,” or “Sovereign Citizen,” means many things to American citizens, especially within the federal government.
The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, passed by Congress, repealed the individual charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown. It established a new territorial government for the District of Columbia. While this territorial government was repealed by Congress in 1874, the legislation was significant as it marked the creation of a single municipal government for the Federal District.
The passage of the Residence Act in 1790 fostered a new federal district to serve as the capital of the United States. This District was formed from land donated by the states of Maryland and Virginia. Notably, the capital territory already included two sizable settlements: the port of Georgetown in Maryland and Alexandria in Virginia.
In 1791, a new capital city was founded east of Georgetown in honor of President George Washington. Shortly after, Congress passed the Organic Act of 1801, which organized the federal territory. The territory east of the Potomac River within the federal District formed the new county of Washington. This county was governed by a levy court consisting of seven to eleven justices of the peace appointed by the president. Additionally, it was governed by Maryland law as of 1801.
According to the Sovereign Citizen’s Handbook, The US went bankrupt under Roosevelt and was taken over by banks to bail us out. Sovereigns believe the Organic Act of 1871 set the stage.
“The UNITED STATES corporation now uses your birth certificate, filed as a registered security with the United States Department of Commerce, as collateral to secure credit from the World Bank, England’s private bank, thus making you liable for the national debt..” (International Bankers Guilty of Mass Bank Fraud.)
So-called “sovcits,” say before this, all Americans were “sovereign citizens.” Of course, there are many people with similar views who do not endorse the opinions of others. According to many legal experts, including me, it is a catch-all word used by the administrative state to define anyone who believes in limited government. Sovcits, like most intelligent people, don’t think the mainstream media, aka for-profit media. So, I am hoping you will appreciate this expert information from a legal history expert and civil rights lawyer.
When I use it here, I am using it as a catch-all, so please don’t hold it against me. Have you ever wondered what the Organic Act of 1871 entails and how it compares to modern sovereign citizen ideas? You’re not alone. Understanding historical law could sometimes seem akin to unwrapping a complex legal puzzle. So, let’s dive deep into the matter and shed light on this iconic legislation and its implications in today’s context.
“Law doesn’t exist merely to place regulations. It’s there to shape society and reflect its changing needs.”
Police and the Southern Poverty Law Center claim that the “sovereign citizen movement” believes individuals can choose whether or not to subject themselves to governmental laws created after 1871. This invites a vast array of legal issues and potential confabulations.
Exploring the Organic Act of 1871
Most of our founding fathers did not want a national debt.
When America canceled the Charter of the First National Bank in 1811, this precipitated an economic recession and the War of 1812. According to Sovcits, this was punishment for America refusing to do business according to the wishes of the International Banking House of Rothschild.
Congress refused to let the National Bank renew its Charter. It was followed by 4500 British troops burning down the “White House, both Houses of Congress, the War Office, the US State Department, and the Treasury and destroyed the ratification records (signed by 12 US states).”
Except for Gen. Andrew Jackson’s victory in the Battle of New Orleans, the War of 1812 ended in a string of American military disasters.
During the war and the post-war recession, the Republican government, under James Madison, re-established a second National Bank of the United States in 1816.
In January 9, 1832, President Andrew Jackson vetoed the Bank’s recharter on the grounds that the Bank was unconstitutional and won! Jackson then paid off the national debt, leaving the U.S. with a surplus of $5,000.
1868: Ultimately, the Fourteenth Amendment and Sixteenth Amendment were deemed legal. President Lincoln was assassinated before ending [unlawful] martial rule by executive order. (Sovereigns say the Republican’s veto-proof 14th Amendment created a “new citizenship” or “status” for expanded D.C. jurisdiction using UNELECTED carpetbaggers and blacks placed in Southern State assemblies by Republicans guilty of treason.)
Soon after, Congress allowed the privately run “Federal Reserve” into power. They began printing FIAT currency, and the republic is now over 75 trillion in debt, teetering on a mass financial depression. Anyone who disagrees with its legality is immediately branded as a nut, parroting “conspiracy theories.” Tens of thousands of Americans say it’s no conspiracy theory at all.
Legislation Key Points District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871
Repealed the individual charters of Washington and Georgetown
Established a new territorial government for the District of Columbia
Retained all existing laws relating to the District unless inconsistent with the Act
Prompted legislative assembly to enact new laws relevant to restaurants and similar establishments (1872, 1873.)
So Called Sovereign Citizens – Ideology
Basically, they argue the Organic Act converted the U.S. into a business (based on municipal corporation terminology)
Challenge the validity of Acts by the District’s legislative assembly
Debate the conflicting regulations between initial and later legislation in the District
Sovereign citizens assert that gold fringes on American flags in courtrooms are evidence of admiralty law in effect. This leads sovereign citizens to believe that U.S. judges and lawyers are agents of a foreign power. This foreign power is typically thought to be the United Kingdom. Another belief they carry is that the word “bar” is an acronym for “British Accreditation Registry.” This is the reason why sovereign citizens challenge our legal system to this day.
Modern Law Perspective
Contents legislative assembly acts are valid
Sustains the permanency of the District government (1901)
Argues Organic Act was implicitly repealed by the Organic Act of 1878
The Organic Act of 1871, officially titled ‘An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia,’ primarily aimed at creating a new municipal government for Washington, D.C. It is significant because this act transformed the municipal government of Washington, D.C., from what was formerly a piece of federal territory into something more like a regular city.
“An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia” (Organic Act of 1871.)
In stark contrast, the sovereign citizen movement posits a controversial and often misunderstood interpretation of personal freedom and governance. These individuals believe themselves exempt from typical legal constraints, usually wielding this belief as a defense in legal altercations.
Here are some key points that need clarification:
The Organic Act of 1871 is often invoked by the sovereign citizen movement as proof of government overreach, reclaiming that it replaced the federal government with a corporation. However, statists claim this is a misinterpretation.
A municipal corporation and a private corporation are distinct entities with different purposes, structures, and functions. However, many sovereigns say the Act created a “United States corporation” under a commercial code; extending corporate rule over the American people.
Distinguishing Municipal Corp with Private Sector Corp
Municipal Corporation: A municipal corporation is a legal entity created by a state government. Its job is administering specific governmental functions within a defined geographic area, such as a city, town, or village. Municipal corporations can provide essential public services and infrastructure. This includes utilities, public safety, transportation, and sanitation.
Private Corporation: A private corporation, on the other hand, is a legal entity formed by individuals or entities to conduct business activities and generate profits. Private corporations produce goods and services in the marketplace.
Ownership and Governance:
Municipal Corporation: Municipal corporations are owned and governed by the residents or taxpayers within the jurisdiction they serve. They are typically overseen by elected officials. Typical officials include a mayor, city council, and chief of police. These people make decisions for communities.
Private Corporation: Private corporations are owned by shareholders or private individuals who hold ownership interests in the company. They are governed by a board of directors elected by the shareholders. The board makes strategic decisions and oversees management.
Legal Status and Powers:
Municipal Corporation: Municipal corporations possess limited sovereignty and governmental powers delegated to them by the state government. They can enact local ordinances, levy taxes, issue bonds. They can also provide public services inside their jurisdiction. However, their powers are subject to state laws and regulations.
Private Corporation: Private corporations operate under the legal framework of corporate law and are subject to the laws of the state in which they are incorporated with legal rights and obligations similar to individuals. This includes forming contracts, suing owning property.
Yes, municipal corporations existed in the United States prior to 1871. The concept of municipal incorporation dates back to the colonial period, with the establishment of chartered municipalities in the American colonies. In the 19th century, as cities and towns grew, state governments created municipal corporations to govern urban areas, providing essential residential services.
Understanding the differences, misconceptions, and correlations between these two legal paradigms will not only enlighten your grasp of the American legal system. Still, it could also prove to be helpful in courtroom skirmishes and debates.
As we dissect it further, this complex dance between legal history and modern sovereign citizen ideas will take more twists and turns.
Let’s delve deeper together!
The term ‘municipal corporation,’ present in the Organic Act of 1871, has been seized upon by the sovereign citizen movement as proof of the United States being transformed into a business corporation.
Tyler v. Judges of the Court of Registration (179 U.S. 405, 21 S.Ct. 206, 45 L.Ed. 252) is a pertinent legal reference in understanding the Act’s implications.
Note that a defendant restaurant keeper once challenged the Act’s legitimacy.
Other pertinent cases include Yakus v. United States (321 U.S. 414, 64 S.Ct. 660, 88 L.Ed. 834), Roach v. Van Riswick, MacArthur & M., 11 D.C. 171, and Smith v. Olcott, 19 App.D.C.
Legal cases such as Stoutenburgh v. Hennick, Roach v. Van Riswick, and Cooper v. The District of Columbia provide significant insights into the limitations and powers that Congress vested to the legislative assembly of the District.
Contrary to a trial court ruling, the widely accepted view is that the Organic Act of 1878 did not implicitly repeal the legislation 1871.
The apt evaluation of police regulation in the municipal sense lies in its local relevance.
Supreme Court decisions and local appellate court rulings have upheld the viewpoint that local governments have the authority to manage local matters.
A discussion exists around the conflict between the Acts of 1872 and 1873 and later regulations in the District of Columbia.
The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 acted as an umbrella governance mechanism, canceling existing town charters and assembling the whole area under a single district government. This marked a significant shift in the jurisdictional arrangement and is a point of active debate amongst law scholars and professionals.
All laws relating to the District of Columbia that do not conflict with the Organic Act of 1871 were scheduled to remain valid, as stipulated in the Act. This fact forms a significant point of contention and interpretation, particularly about subsequent legislative developments in the District.
Who has sovereignty in the United States?
As per the Constitution, the sovereignty of the United States rests primarily on the people and the states. However, unique complexities arise when examining the Constitution and the Organic Act of 1871. In the narrative of the Act and its comparison to modern sovereign citizen ideals, the Organic Act’s interpretation and comprehension hold a high degree of significance.
Federal Government Organic Act of 1878
In the progression of the District’s legal landscape, the Organic Act of 1878 brought forth a reorganization of the District Government but did not repeal the laws governing the District established before the Act. Despite a trial court’s upholding of an opposing view, there is an overwhelming consensus amongst legal scholars and practitioners that the 1878 legislation did not implicitly repeal the Organic Act of 1871.
Thus, in comparing these points of view, it’s crucial to consider the correct interpretation of the act and its implications.
What does it mean when a country is sovereign?
It implies that the country operates independently, with complete authority over its domestic affairs. It means that the nation is not under the control of any other foreign nation and has full autonomy to determine its laws, regulations, and governance structures. It takes on international obligations of its own volition and can negotiate and sign binding agreements with other nations.
Essentially, a sovereign nation can control its population, establish its legal framework, regulate its economy, and interact with other sovereign nations on an equal footing. However, the concept of sovereignty is a bit more complex in terms of its practical application. We often find cases where sovereignty becomes conditional or is limited due to international regulations and agreements, global organizations’ rise, and influential nation-states’ influence. Nevertheless, a country retains its ability to make and enforce laws within its borders.
Despite the complexities, deepening your understanding of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 and its roots on modern sovereign citizen thought is essential. The rich tapestry of legal cases, scholarly debate, and historical context surrounding the Act is a valuable foundation for comprehending its intricacies.
Firstly, let’s dive into the legal details of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, a pivotal Act of Congress that forever redefined the governance of the District of Columbia. Erasing the individual charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown, the Act established a new territorial government for the whole District. It proclaimed, quite forcefully, that any existing laws relating to the District of Columbia, so long as they didn’t contradict the Act, would remain in full force and effect.
This Act didn’t just simplify governance by eliminating town charters; it engulfed the entire area under the unifying umbrella of one district government. Perhaps more critically, the Act stated emphatically that the legislative power of the District would extend to ‘all rightful subjects of legislation within the District.’ This was, however, with the clear understanding that the restrictions imposed by the Constitution of the United States would continue to apply.
What is a state national?
A state national is a person who is a legal citizen of a particular state within the United States but not a citizen of the United States as a whole. This concept is rooted in the inherent sovereignty of individual states. It coexists with the federal sovereignty of the United States as a nation. State nationals enjoy all the rights and privileges afforded to citizens of their home state. Still, they are technically not entitled to the rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship, such as participating in federal elections or holding federal office. Many sovereigns say that are actually governed under the Declaration of Independence, under the laws of the original states before their constitutions were re written to comply with the 14th Amendment.
Modern Definitions vs Historical Origins
However, it’s crucial to understand the origins of the term’ state national’ and how it’s interpreted today, especially in the context of sovereign citizen movements. Historically, state national refers to individuals born or naturalized within a given state pre-Civil War, when state allegiance sometimes precedes national loyalty.
However, in the modern context, it has been co-opted by the sovereign citizen movement. Today’s sovereign citizens leverage this term to claim immunity from federal laws and taxes. They argue that the federal government lacks jurisdiction over them as they consider themselves bound only by their state’s jurisdiction.
While this interpretation employs the language of the law, most legal and governmental authorities see it as a distortion of the Constitution and established Constitution statutes, leading to a significant amount of conflict and confusion.
Debunking Myths
The idea of dual sovereignty — federal and state — is an established part of U.S. jurisprudence. However, the distinction between state nationals and U.S. citizens is not as clear-cut as some believe. Indeed, the 1868 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Thus, it merges the concepts of state and national citizenship contrary to the claims of the sovereign citizen movement.
Let’s leap forward in time and consider the modern sovereign citizen movement. Proponents of this perspective argue that this Act morphed the United States into a business corporation. Their argument springs from the specific terminology within the Act, precisely the term’ municipal corporation.’ However, from a purely legal standpoint, some critics view this interpretation as an oversimplification or misreading of the text.
Consider seminal cases like Stoutenburgh v. Hennick, Roach v. Van Riswick, and Cooper v. The District of Columbia to appreciate the nuances better. These cases spotlight the limitations and powers of Congress over the legislative assembly of the District.
Ironically, while the 1871 Act facilitated the streamlined governance of the District, its interpretation isn’t straightforward. Much like the ongoing debates around the Act’s relevance to the sovereign citizen movement, the tension between the Acts of 1872 and 1873 and later regulations within the District of Columbia further crop up inconsistencies.
So, in summary, while the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, on the surface, merely rearranged the governance of the District, its ripples continue to shape debates in modern legal and civic society. Tens of thousands of sovereigns want nothing to do with the incorporeal Washington District of Columbia, and claim special privileges, convinced they are right.
Bad Communication: Sovereign citizens reject federal, state, and local laws. They subscribe to their interpretations of the law. This makes it difficult to communicate effectively.
Difficulties in court proceedings: Sovereigns employ unconventional legal tactics. They often file voluminous and “frivolous lawsuits.” They are known for filing lots of motions, and other legal documents. These tactics can disrupt court proceedings, forcing lawyers to devote substantial time and resources.
Personal liability for practitioners. Sovereign citizens often engage in so called ‘paper terrorism.’ This includes filing fidelity bond liens and other legal documents against public officials, law enforcement officers, and private individuals. Practitioners who represent or interact with sovereign citizens may become targets of these tactics. This can can cause financial harm or damage to their professional reputation.
Ethical dilemmas when dealing with sovereign citizens: Sovereigns reject the courts’ authority. They also refuse court orders. This places legal practitioners in a difficult position, similar to what happened with Michael Mie and Chille DeCastro. Attorneys must balance the duty to represent clients with the obligation to uphold laws. Courts expect them to honor the integrity of the legal profession.
Finally, lawyers may encounter challenges advising and representing sovereign citizens due to their unique beliefs and behaviors among the American people generally. Sovereigns often refuse to recognize the authority of legal professionals. They may resist or reject their advice and representation. This makes it difficult for practitioners to establish a productive attorney-client relationship or advocate effectively.
There have been many secret, illegal spying programs by the federal government. We now know that the FBI is labeling people who support the Constitution and Second Amendment, are treated as a sovereign citizen, and are considered a potential domestic violent extremist. If you were arrested or threatened by LEO and falsely labeled a sovereign, you should call a lawyer right away.
At the outset, as a professional, I know that the State Bar Exam is being mischaracterized as a rote memorization test. It is not; it is a problem-solving, speed exam requiring powerful memory. It is designed to make sure a candidate can competently represent clients. Most people know that clients can get stuck with a terrible lawyer. Now imagine carving out exceptions to make it even easier for less qualified people to practice law so “everyone gets a trophy.” It’s no longer out for public comment; it’s on the desk of the California Supreme Court for approval.
What could go wrong? California’s State Bar Board of Trustees has recently presented an alternative plan for licensure, proposing the implementation of a pilot Portfolio Exam (PBE). Many lawyers say the State Bar is hiring experts to support a fallacy that the Bar Exam is all about rote memorization. This is misinformation. It’s also about application.
A vital point of this article is to identify areas in the State Bar recommendation that it does not take into account:
No Alternatives: The PBE does not address the underlying proposal, such as reducing passing scores or identifying a program that surgically addresses the needs of a smaller population of students who might benefit from another licensing pathway. Would this not be better than abolishing a proven, merit-based program?
Unreliable: The reliability of the PBE proposal is suspect as it is based on a tiny student and student population of tiny states versus California, with a population of over 45 million people. Much more significant than the two small states that pale to CA.
Apples to Oranges: We also have 62 law schools or varying accreditations versus the handful of law schools in the smaller population states. Why are we comparing apples to oranges?
Ambiguous: The PBE program does not mention the testing process for past graduates of these two classes of law schools, approved by the State Bar. And these candidates probably number in the thousands. These people have not taken the bar or not passed and want to become licensed attorneys. What is their pathway to licensure?
What will PBE mean to the hundreds of thousands who have taken the Bar Exam? Why change the Bar Exam from a test identifying merit as the main ingredient to becoming an attorney? I will expose some State Bar hilites, and then I will expose a few things that were not discussed by the Bar. Now, let’s get into an understanding.
DEI supporters claim equity can be achieved by placing less emphasis on “rote memorization” and “overcoming economic barriers” presented by the “traditional bar exam.” Diligence, study habits, and learning methodology appear to be low on the list of priorities, with forced equity high on the support list. However, my issue is that if DEI is a goal, it should be a mere exam component for specifically identifiable students. Why are we dumbing down the entire Exam to the lowest common denominator?
Understanding ‘Merit’ versus ‘Lesser Merit’ Based Law Licensing
Typically, ‘merit’ refers to an aspirant’s inherent ability, skills, or achievements that qualify them for specific roles or positions, particularly about obtaining a license to practice law. A ‘merit-based system operates on the premise that permits should be granted to the most deserving or well-qualified individuals based on their performance in academic, professional, and practical evaluations.
In simple terms, while a ‘merit-based’ system seeks the top performers, a lesser merit system aims to widen the field. Both systems have their merits and drawbacks depending on the context, and understanding them can aid in comprehending the landscape and direction of law licensing. Here, ABA schools and CA-accredited law schools are cash-strapped. And now, all of a sudden, the curriculum becomes increasingly diluted. These same people will likely get into government, which could be dangerous.
DEI and Lowering Standards
States like Wisconsin and New Hampshire have already implemented alternatives to the traditional bar exam, with varying degrees of success. In Wisconsin, for example, 51% of attorneys were admitted via diploma privilege, as opposed to 19% the traditional Bar Exam.
It’s worth noting that the state reported no significant difference in the types of disciplinary matters for those admitted via diploma privilege and the traditional bar exam. However, these alternative pathways’ long-term effects and impacts are still under review.
It appears that, besides California, Washington will end its bar exam, following similar arguments. The DEI side claims the traditional method can’t correctly measure an attorney’s ability to practice law effectively and ethically. This new approach could redefine how we determine a new attorney’s competency. Moving away from rote memorization, the PBE focuses on real-world legal skills that new attorneys need. Law graduates will work under the tutelage of licensed attorneys for four to six months, getting graded on their performance, thus ensuring a practical, hands-on approach to legal competency assessment.
However, the proposal isn’t without its caveats. While the PBE presents an alternative pathway to licensure, it hinges heavily on the availability of lawyer supervisors. Thus, ensuring each candidate gets a fair chance might pose a challenge. Also, there is an implied risk that such a model could compromise the standards of legal practice by not assessing all the knowledge areas a traditional bar exam would cover.
Supervised Practice is the Old Way
I can’t argue against supervised practice, which is how I became eligible for the Bar Exam. The Oregon Supreme Court approved supervised practice-based attorney licensure methods. The trend of supervision with no bar exam will grow. Concerns remain that policies like these, ostensibly designed to create equal access and opportunity, may instead run the risk of treating potential attorneys as victims needing expert help rather than individuals needing better skills and comprehension. I think it is a grave error to end the bar exam. As it is, there are still crummy lawyers. Lowering standards will NOT improve things.
The question arises: How do we balance creating equal opportunities and maintaining necessary standards?
Explore alternative pathways: Investigate the possibilities for establishing alternative routes to licensure that still uphold professional standards and requirements.
Address economic disparities: Consider ways to make traditional and non-traditional Bar Exam routes more economically accessible to all eligible applicants, lessening the financial burden of exam preparation.
Promote skill development: Rather than reinforce the victim mentality, initiatives should focus on helping law students and graduate lawyers improve their study and comprehension skills, equipping them for success, regardless of their path to licensure.
Maintain professional integrity: Any significant change to existing systems must uphold the profession’s integrity, ensuring public safety and preventing fraud and malpractice.
The PBE pilot is expected to be launched and concluded by December 31, 2025. It will comprise 113 provisionally licensed lawyers (PLLs) still in the original Provisional Licensure Program (PLP) and are anticipated to be in the program as of the proposed pilot launch.
ALTERNATIVE PATHWAY WORKING GROUP’S OVERALL PORTFOLIO BAR EXAM DESIGN
Key components of the program, as recommended by the working group, include the following:
Eligibility is limited to confident accredited and ABA law school graduates.
After the pilot, JD graduates of ABA-accredited and California-accredited law schools would be eligible to participate in the PBE. Graduates of unaccredited schools would not qualify for this program.
Curriculum: After the pilot, candidates must have completed law school courses in the nine doctrinal subjects identified by the BRC as the subject matters necessary for establishing minimum competence.
Provisional Licenses: Candidates will be provisionally licensed while participating in the PBE.
Practice Scope During Supervised Practice Period: Candidates with provisional licenses would have authority, responsibilities, and duties similar to provisional licensees in the Provisional Licensure Program.
Supervisor Qualifications: Supervisors must hold active California licenses and not be immediate family members of candidates. All other supervisor qualifications adopted for the PLP would apply.
Required Supervised Practice Hours: Candidates must complete 700–1,000 legal work, capped at no more than 40 hours per week.
Portfolio Contents: Candidates must submit work products meeting specific requirements to make up their portfolio. The working group recommends that the number of work products required be between eight and thirteen, including two to three essays covering professional responsibility, professionalism, or civil issues that arose during the practice period. The written work products would reflect the analysis of various substantive legal matters, including materials related to negotiations and client encounters. The work products are intended to allow assessment of all seven of the skills and abilities identified as necessary to establish minimum competence and demonstrate that the candidates have worked with concepts from at least seven of the nine doctrinal knowledge areas identified as essential for minimum competence.
Grading: Each portfolio component will be graded anonymously by independent examiners based on grading rubrics established to ensure consistent grading across all examiners. The working group recommends two graders be assigned to each component.
The Supreme Court will authorize the State Bar to establish a proposed cut score for the PBE and to submit that proposed cut score to the Court for approval. This will determine the minimum score a candidate must achieve to pass the PBE.
State Bar Will Fix Problems as They Arise
The State Bar staff, subject to the input of a steering committee, will resolve any outstanding PBE pilot design or implementation issues not addressed by the Court in its action on this request. The steering committee will be composed of representatives of the Committee of Bar Examiners, subject matter experts, and others as appropriate.
Courts Upholding Mediocrity?
Alarmingly, with the Supreme Court upholding this, many in the public appear to be losing faith in the system, saying nothing makes sense. Finally, the PBE pilot is designed to alleviate the significant burdens imposed on candidates by the delivery of the traditional two-day bar exam, especially those with disabilities and those who lack economic resources. It aims to provide a more equitable and accessible pathway to legal licensure.
States Leading DEI Style Law Licensing?
Following in the footsteps of Wisconsin and New Hampshire, California is contemplating a new, alternative path toward law licensure. A move sparking discussions across the country, the proposed pilot Portfolio Bar Examination (PBE) is not only shaking up the traditional bar examination model but reducing the financial and time burden on law graduates.
Simultaneously, on a related note, Washington state is considering eliminating its bar exam. This trend of simplifying pathways to law licensure is rapidly gaining traction in the US, suggesting a paradigm shift in traditional legal competency assessment.
Another aspect worth considering is the impact on those participating in the Provisional Licensure Program (PLL) initiated during the pandemic. Under this, law graduates were bestowed limited permits to practice law under supervision. Including such graduates in the PBE could be an avenue for reconciling the disruption caused by the pandemic.
The Connection to California’s Portfolio-Based Exam (PBE)
You might be wondering what this has to do with California’s pilot Portfolio Based Exam (PBE). The PBE is a fresh approach to law licensing recently adopted by the State Bar of California. It aims to bring a more comprehensive, holistic method of assessing the adequacy and suitability of aspiring attorneys.
The PBE, in a sense, blends the ‘merit’ and ‘lesser merit’ concepts as it places equal emphasis on demonstrable skills, practical legal experience, and the commitment to ethical conduct, making it a more accessible pathway to law practice.
Merit-oriented assessment:The PBE evaluates a candidate’s proficiency and knowledge in various legal disciplines and their capability to apply these skills in real-world situations, similar to a merit-based system.
Lesser merit-oriented inclusivity:In line with a lesser merit system, the PBE also factors in a candidate’s commitment to ethical conduct, the breadth of their legal experience, and their potential to contribute to representational diversity in law.
Why We Must Delay the PBE – [Pending more Thorough Research]
Adopting the Portfolio Exam in California represents an attempt to balance ‘merit’ and ‘lesser merit’ approaches in law licensing, aiming for inclusive excellence in the legal profession. By understanding these dynamics, we can better appreciate the innovations and ongoing reforms in law.
You might wonder why the rush to implement the Portfolio Exam (PBE) should be stemmed. The truth is, we respect innovation when it serves the interests of justice and progress, due regard must be given to in-depth study with unwavering attention to the potential impacts. The desire to innovate, while admirable, should not be allowed to bypass the need for comprehensive checks and balances.
Reflect on this: if a structure is suspect, would we allow it to be inhabited before experts have conducted a thorough safety examination? Probably not. Analogously, a new licensing process, such as the PBE, must not replace the existing California General Bar Examination before a detailed content validation study has occurred. As put forth by Chad W. Buckendahl in his report on Conducting a Content Validation Study for the California Bar Exam, this assessment will ensure that the new path adheres to the principles of fairness and justice.
Approving guiding principles to minimize bias in Bar Exam questions is undeniably a step in the right direction. However, the feasibility of grading the portfolios under the new PBE and their intrinsic lack of uniformity remain vital factors that necessitate further exploration. After all, the law is about ensuring justice is served uniformly and without bias.
We must also question the likelihood of objectivity within the PBE portfolio submissions. Could these documents potentially include inputs from colleagues or other external sources? If so, how can we guarantee that such influence does not negatively affect the merit assessment?
DEI Friendly, Cash Strapped Law Schools?
Supporters of the PBE, like The University of West Los Angeles, argue its potential as an alternative path to licensure. UWLA has long associated itself with low GPAs and minority candidates. Lowering standards will bring a potential windfall to this law school. However, many experts agree that we must ensure this doesn’t create unequal representation in official records between traditional bar exam passers and PBE passers. In essence, every legal practitioner, irrespective of their path to licensure, should be presented equally in public records without differentiation.
Admittedly, the proposed PBE presents a promising advance toward legal licensure. But at what cost? One cannot underestimate the importance of extensive research before ushering in such a dramatic shift in the law licensing process. The tenets of justice and fairness, cornerstones of our legal system, should never be compromised in the rush of innovation.
Why We Already Know We Must Defeat the PBE Proposal?
Delaying or defeating the proposal are more challenging goals – and, in my view – are optimally achieved through a strategy that brings public awareness to the negatives and persistent opposition. Many groups don’t want the PBE, far more than the DEI/Critical Race Theory supporting ones.
Other Concerns
Another significant criticism is directly linked to the broader fight for equality in licensing. Critics argue that the PBE, like the traditional California Bar Exam, may favor advantaged individuals. Much of this argument is based on the premise that these individuals may have the means to assemble a better portfolio through more extensive resources or connections.
Finally, there’s an ongoing debate on whether the state bar should differentiate between traditional bar exam passers and PBE passers in public records. Those in opposition believe that creating a distinction could unjustly devalue the latter group, affecting their career opportunities ahead.
In conclusion, while the PBE offers an alternative pathway to licensure, its implementation requires a meticulous balance. This ensures that it not only upholds the standard of competence expected in the legal field but also alleviates rather than exacerbates the existing inequality hurdles. The PBE, therefore, must continually be scrutinized for its potential weaknesses to become a viable and fair alternative.
Note that the motion to pass the proposal came in 6-2 votes. With trustee abstention, you see the biases when you examine who voted for it, given their affiliations. State Bar members change an entire licensing process – why don’t most CA lawyers want it?
Only Seven CA Bar Associations SUPPORT PBE, and Over Sixty One DO NOT SUPPORT PBE
Note that only 7 CA BAR ASSOCIATIONS are in favor of the PBE (DEI pushers)
Alameda County Bar Association
Asian American Bar Association of the Greater Bay Are
Bar Association of San Francisco (BASF)
East Bay La Raza Lawyers Association
La Raza Lawyers of California
Women Lawyers of Alameda
Women Lawyers of Los Angeles.
At Least 61 CA BAR ASSOCIATIONS Oppose PBE
Bar Associations
American Board of Trial Advocates – California Chapter
Arab American Lawyers Association of Southern California
Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Los Angeles
Association of Defense Counsel – Northern California
Association of Southern California Defense Counsel
Black Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles
California Association of Black Lawyers
California Defense Counsel
California Employment Lawyers Association
California Lawyers Association
California Women Lawyers
Century City Bar Association
Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles
Consumer Attorneys of San Diego
Filipino-American Lawyers of Orange County
Fresno County Bar Association Board of Directors
Fresno County Women Lawyers
Glendale Bar Association
Iranian American Lawyers Association
Irish American Bar Association
Italian American Lawyers Association
Japanese American Bar Association
John M. Langston Bar Association
Korean American Bar Association of San Diego
Korean American Bar Association of Southern California
Lake County Bar Association
Long Beach Bar Association
Los Angeles County Bar Association
Marin County Bar Association
Mexican American Bar Association
Monterey County Bar Association
Muslim Bar Association of Southern California
Newport Harbor Bar Association
North County Bar Association
Orange County Bar Association
Orange County Korean American Bar Association
Orange County Lavender (LGBTQ+) Bar Association
Orange County Women Lawyers Association
Pasadena Bar Association
Riverside County Bar Association
SacLegal (Sacramento’s LGBTQ+ Bar Association)
Sacramento County Bar Association
San Bernardino County Bar Association
San Diego Family Law Bar Association
San Fernando Valley Bar Association
Santa Barbara County Bar Association
Santa Clara County Black Lawyers Association
Santa Cruz County Bar Association
Santa Monica Bar Association
Silicon Valley Bar Association
South Bay Bar Association
Southern California Chinese Lawyers Association
Southwest Riverside County Bar Association
Thai American Bar Association
Tulare County Bar Association
Ventura County Asian American Bar Association
Vietnamese American Bar Association of Southern California
Western San Bernardino County Bar Association
Westside Bar Association
Women Lawyers of Sacramento
Yuba-Sutter Bar Association.
Why is it Crucial to Challenge Portfolio-Based Examination (PBE)?
First, we have the much-debated issue of merit and lesser merit when licensing law professionals. California’s current General Bar Examination protocol has already recently lowered its standards. Yet it is still accused of favoring privileged individuals, raising questions about its meritocracy. On the other hand, the PBE aims to act as an alternative pathway to licensure.
All About that DEI Grant/Loan Money?
Its adoption is championed by institutions like the University of West Los Angeles (UWLA) for its potential to diversify the field by removing barriers to admission. However, this well-intentioned proposal isn’t without concerns. Many UWLA grads, myself included, understand that UWLA champions itself as “pro-black.” What we don’t understand is why lowering standards and treating other races who have lower pass rates as a “sacred cow.”
From Chaos Comes Chaos
One of the most significant concerns is the lack of uniformity in the content of the portfolios under the PBE. The accumulation of input from colleagues and other sources may foster inconsistency in standards. This could arguably dilute the merit-based system for law licensing, introducing a ‘lesser merit scenario due to the distorted comparison criteria.
The proposed grading of the PBE portfolios also raises concerns. Compared to the standard Bar Exam, the evaluation scheme of the PBE could be potentially biased. A recent presentation on the Approval of Guiding Principles in Examination Development highlighted the need to minimize any potential bias in bar exam questions. This challenge seems to be amplified in the case of portfolio grading.
It remains vital that implementing another law licensing process – while previous bar exam reformation efforts are still ongoing – may destabilize the industry. Many believe these efforts should be studied before launching a new method that could potentially eliminate the California Bar Exam requirement.
Indeed, the PBE proposal is quite divisive. While it’s embraced as an alternative method to diversify the law licensing process, its potential for inconsistency and bias raises significant concerns. Moreover, introducing PBE during bar exam reformation might cause more harm than good. Moving forward, an inclusive discussion involving all stakeholders, including potential law professionals, educators, and the public, should precede any implementation decision.
It would be advantageous to contact representatives from some of the critical constituencies – and either get a written statement or have a succession of interviews.
EVIDENCE: The lack of it – which can be identified and addressed – does not justify abandoning a licensing system that has worked for years – responsible for hundreds of thousands of licensed CA attorneys. If you look at supporters’ claims, it’s primarily based on a limited pool of just 100+ trial cases – in addition to states who’ve adopted something like it.
Unresolved Unfairness in this DEI Initiative
The California Bar’s report to the CA SUPREME COURT was 148 pages – including attachments, here. Given the host of ambiguities RAISED BUT NOT RESOLVED, it should have been double that – given questions not addressed – and with complete transparency involved.
When you consider the worthiness of the PBE – without really identifying those who are eligible (beyond reference ABA or CA Accredited candidates) – you have to wonder why they would leave the likely thousands of candidates in licensing limbo who may be a repeater, not currently in an ABA/CA accredited law school, etc. Not to mention candidates from other states or countries.
AMBIGUITY-ON-STEROIDS
If the traditional bar exam disappears, so does an industry dedicated to serving examinees, such as Barbri, PMBR, Cal Bar Tutorial Review, etc. Once the horse is out of the barn – do these companies come back – when the EXPERIMENT fails? Do they stick around to serve those not eligible for the PBE?
Does the State Bar Maintain a Traditional Exam for those not eligible for DEI?
Interestingly, the LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY is against it, leading to this observation: They assert that the State Bar is creating TWO CLASSES of license. In the real world, a private – or PUBLIC – firm would prefer to hire an applicant who has passed a traditional exam. I only noted a handful of law schools that agreed with the proposed levels of tenure in law idea.
Are they marginalizing the value of their degrees? What about the workplace market? Many law firms will not go with a PBE licensure hire. Why deal with the stress of a DEI hire, to begin with? Why would they, when the more competitive potential hire has passed a traditional exam and showed basic knowledge?
Fallacie of Rote?
At this core to the State Bar’s assertion, traditional bar exams rely on ‘rote memorization.’ But this is disingenuous at best.
The other half of the learning equation is missing from this simplification:
Traditional bar exams DEMAND application: This goes to the heart of learning – and I’ve always been taught that the PROCESS to climb the mountain is as important as standing on top—and less applicable to pursuing any significant goal.
The subjects deleted by the PBE – about half of the current traditional subject matter – are replaced by courses that promote subjective evaluation. Again, standards are minimized.
Alternatives to the PBE alternative are not addressed; possibilities that assist with “DEI Objectives” for the class could be reasonably identified based on financial or other related learning opportunity factors. Scores could be cut. Or could the PBE be offered to them?
I have never met a bar review tutor who could not train an applicant to pass the traditional Exam – though the path can be more difficult for some. Trust me, rote memorization is merely part of the torturous process. No doubt, the State Bar is well-intentioned. For one, I can see the Law Office Study Program fade away, which is terrible. Ambiguity, clarity, and certain things still need to be addressed. Why would the Supreme Court allow a portfolio bar exam? Won’t less legal knowledge encourage incompetency?
Pundits contend it could deliver a more effective way of ensuring public safety and preventing fraud and malpractice. However, this proposal has raised concerns about diluting the requirements and standards for admission to practice law, feeding into the widely discussed race to the bottom phenomenon.
In conclusion, to many traditionalists, this incrementalism represents a slap in the face to law school graduates. While the PBE proposes a fresh, pragmatic approach to legal licensure, it’s imperative to weigh its pros and cons thoroughly. Given the hundreds of years the test has been around and the thousands of licensed lawyers, this proposal has not been tough enough. It fails to address students from other states and students who have not passed and fails to identify reciprocity or unaccredited law schools. The proposal only suggests that it is prospective, moving forward. The drive to make law licensure accessible and convenient should not undermine the need for rigorous standards to improve public safety and prevent malpractice.
As these debates continue, it’s crucial to remember that the goal is to promote fairness, inclusivity, and high professional standards in the legal field. As always, we must ensure that any changes contribute to improved public safety and deter fraudulent practices. Reducing an institution to something less than it is is not the way. Testing and standards are keys to a safe and fruitful society. Stay tuned for further developments in this evolving analysis.
The widow of the former University of Southern California football player Matthew Gee believes her husband died due to repetitive head trauma suffered while playing for the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) in the 90s. She sued the organization in what many sports attorneys believe could be a landmark wrongful death suit.
