Right, right, right. My point is not about the test. My point is that early on in this thread some suggested that if an attorney declines to represent someone because he finds their behavior/beliefs morally reprehensible, he is somehow less than competent, or acting in a fashion inconsistent with his oath, or whatever. Which is not true.
Boston Man Sues Over Gay Marriage Question on State Bar Exam
- Thread starter AlteredEgo
- Start date
Right, right, right. My point is not about the test. My point is that early on in this thread some suggested that if an attorney declines to represent someone because he finds their behavior/beliefs morally reprehensible, he is somehow less than competent, or acting in a fashion inconsistent with his oath, or whatever. Which is not true.
Again, I'm not talking about the exam. I'm talking about the assertion in this thread that a person need be prepared to represent all comers (no pun intended) regardless of their personal beliefs if they are to be considered a competent attorney, which is not true. There are attorneys in MA who do not want to represent gay couples in family law issues because they disagree with the law for moral or ethical reasons. The LPSG audience may consider them bigots, but they wouldn't agree, and that's their right. Similarly, there are doctors who will not perform abortions, and this doesn't make them incompetent. Some would argue that they are not satisfying the obligations imposed by their oath, but they hold otherwise.
not really. you were responding to this when you made that point earlier:
To which you responded:
And other posters pointed out to you the myriad reasons why an attorney must have strong knowledge of legal principles and some knowledge of the laws as they stand in the jurisdiction they hope to practice law in specifically to pass the bar exam, regardless of what kind of law they ultimately practice.
Your smart-ass one liner was a shitty response and got equally shitty commentary.
No one is disputing the fact that an attorney doesn't have to represent someone whose behavior or beliefs he or she finds morally reprehensible unless they are a public defender. Regardless, the bar exam is in place and the test takers are aware of the sorts of questions they will be asked, specifically, questions that run the gamut of laws in the state they are taking the test. This person knew going in the types of questions that would be on this test. If he didn't want to have to potentially answer questions on a test (not in practice), then he should take the exam and practice in another state.
No one said he was incompetent or incapable, but that such tests and the questions therein are the standard for measuring competence to practice law in that state as determined by the state bar association. Not answering that question (and getting others wrong) made him incompetent in the eyes of the bar association and therefore unable to practice law.
Nope. No one ever said this. All anyone said was an attorney has to be competent enough to pass the bar exam.
No one disagreed with that.
No, because a fundamental requirement of the job of being an attorney is passing the bar exam. It doesn't matter what they practice. Every bar association in every state writes a test that all attorneys must pass to practice law in that state. The reason? Partly so all attornies have competent knowledge of the laws in the state where they are practicing. No one is asking this man to get involved in a same sex marriage case. How does answering a test question on the laws as they exist in his state go against his morals? He's not being asked to represent those clients or condone those laws. If the test question does, in fact, go against those morals, why is he choosing to practice in a state whose laws are morally repugnant to him?
No one is talking about representation. They are talking about a test question.
Again, this is about a test question. Not representation. Test question. There was never an assertion made that an attorney has to represent anyone and everyone.
1. Your analogy between the doctor and the lawyer is still false. Even if a doctor refuses treatment to a certain individual, a competent physician can (or should) be able to explain the science, clinical implementation, and expected outcomes for a type of medical procedure. For example, the physician who refuses to perform an abortion on moral grounds should still be able to explain how an abortion is performed .
Again, the point is not whether you agree or disagree with the test; the point is how you apply legal reasoning to a case.
2. I believe that a poor lawyer is one who cannot argue the opposing side's case. A good lawyer can argue the opposing side's view so that he can provide the appropriate defense and rebuttal of his own case.
Snoozan wasted a lot of time saying Stuff Stuff Stuff exhaustively and then finally said ...
To wit:
Didn't say "IF he is going to pass the bar ... he MUST" - said "IF he is going to practice law ... he MUST".
QED.
To wit:
Didn't say "IF he is going to pass the bar ... he MUST" - said "IF he is going to practice law ... he MUST".
QED.
so explain to me again where lex said a lawyer has to represent a client he finds morally reprehensible? all lex said was he needed to know that laws of the state he practices in to practice law there.
QED, that, motherfucker.
Leaving aside the unnecessary language, which in this context does all the work of supporting the QED for me....
Lex didn't say that a lawyer needs to understand family law as it applies to gay marriages in a state that allows them if he wants to practice family law in that state - he said that a lawyer needs to understand family law as it applies to gay marriages in a state that allows them if he is to practice at all. This implies that the lawyer must in fact practice family law, because otherwise, Lex' comment makes no sense at all. Which is to say, if Lex knows that a lawyer doesn't have to practice family law, why would Lex assert that he has to understand family law? As I said before, find me a personal injury lawyer who has any understanding of antitrust law...
One would have to struggle mightily to miss this point.
QED again.
Certain areas of the law are "basic" for lawyers - torts, contracts, property law, criminal law.
To use your doctor analogy again, a neurosurgeon should have knowledge of human anatomy & physiology, as an anti-trust lawyer should have knowledge of contracts (and prenuptial is a form of a contract).
Your point is correct as far as it goes. While family law is clearly on the bar, it isn't on the list of things all attorneys need to have familiarity with in order to practice. That antitrust lawyer need know nothing of pre-nups or custody.
rob_just_rob
Sexy Member
Fercrissakes, is anyone going to provide the correct answer? It's killing me not knowing.
Where I am (IIRC) the premarital property deduction would take Jane's million dollars out of the picture, and I believe clause (iii) is invalid (parents can't contract away Charles's right to support). I'm fairly sure that Mary has no visitation rights re Philip. And I don't know if conduct is an issue in divorce cases anymore - although "extreme" conduct (such as breaking someone's leg) might be.
It would be interesting to see how Mass differs from Ont in these regards.
edit: there are also actions in tort (battery and the like) available, but I was only looking at this from a family law perspective.
Where I am (IIRC) the premarital property deduction would take Jane's million dollars out of the picture, and I believe clause (iii) is invalid (parents can't contract away Charles's right to support). I'm fairly sure that Mary has no visitation rights re Philip. And I don't know if conduct is an issue in divorce cases anymore - although "extreme" conduct (such as breaking someone's leg) might be.
It would be interesting to see how Mass differs from Ont in these regards.
edit: there are also actions in tort (battery and the like) available, but I was only looking at this from a family law perspective.
But let's get back on topic. Regardless of his intentions to practice, should he sue to have that particular question invalidated on his bar exam?
Should a medical student who intends to become a surgeon be able to refuse family practice and obstetrics rotations?
Should prospective teachers also be able to pick and choose what they answer in their licensing exams? Before I received my teaching certificate, I had to pass a national general knowledge test and a national specialty area test. By your reasoning, I should have been able to request credit-without-testing in the general knowledge (since it did not relate to my intended teaching area) and about half of the specialty area test (since I was intending to teach secondary school, and the test also included elementary education questions.) For what it's worth, I scored in the 98th percentile when I took the test; I possibly could have had a perfect score if I could have sued ETS to selectively remove questions from my exams.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Posts
- 5,842
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 2,611
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
- Gender
- Male
A lot of the discussion here is moot. Why? All lawyers have to pass a bar exam that covers all sections of the law. A lawyer having just passed the law exam isn't an expert in any area of the law. The law exam just shows that the lawyer has the minimum knowledge to begin the practice of law where he or she may or may not become experts in one or more areas of law.
I am not an attorney. But I know enough about all professional exams and as I teacher I had to take one myself, that the profession in question has a list of minimum knowledge of the its particular profession that all licenced professionals in that area need to know.
Alex printed for us the question in its entirety. Most exams of this type try to state the situation in non "textbook" situations.
This is a classic case. The question is to allow the person taking the bar exam to examine the situation and determine how the law would handle a messy divorce where there are several really sticky situations. One prenuptial agreements. two the clause about what each brings into the marriage stays with the person if the marriage dissolves. Since Mary was the caregiver for the children and didn't work, how much "wealth" has she brought into the marriage. We have a non biological parent listed as a parent on the birth certificate. We have another child who both have helped raise, but only one parent is legally the guardian.
In Massachusetts the answers are the same regardless if it is a same sex marriage or man and woman marriage. That is not true in other states that don't recognize same sex marriages. But remember this bar exam is for the state of Massachusetts and Massachusetts alone. He can't practice law in another state without passing that state's law exam first.
This is the point of the question on the test. What are the precedents in this case. Everything in law rests on precedents or previous law cases and their outcomes or the the specific laws on the books for the case in question.
All of this discussion about the lawyer may not be planning to be a trial lawyer or a divorce lawyer etc. Doesn't matter. By passing the law exam, a person is now legally qualified to practice any area of the law he or she so wishes.
Do you want to be represented by a person who opted out of several questions because he or she didn't know the answers and just said I don't plan to practice law in that area and then after passing the test decides to go ahead and practice in that field anyway.
All lawyers at this point in time can legally practice in any field of law they wish. Some may choose to specialize in only one area, but that is a personal choice. All of those questions are moot. They have no bearing on this case as long as lawyers can legally practice in any and all fields if they so choose. A person may be a dud at practicing law in a certain area, but that doesn't change the fact that legally that person may do so if they choose.
I suspect the purpose of using a same sex example was to see if emotions run ahead of what the law actually says. And in this case he did. The guy let emotions get ahead of the his knowledge of the law. That alone is a reason he shouldn't practice law in Masasachusetts or any other state.
Last point. This bar exam was not a morality quiz down at the church. It was a test on the knowledge of law of a paritcular state and what laws or precedents are applicable. I don't know about this particular state, but in some states, the laws or precedents used to determine the outcome must also be given in the answer to the question. I doubt all he had to do was say well Mary gets this and Jane gets that. It is according to law XXXXXXX Mary would get this, but precedent xxxxx dictates that Jane's right in this are BBBBBBBBBBBBB.. As for child vistation rights Act #### of 2005 states that Mary may blah blah blah but Jane more blah more blah etc and so on.
This is a very detailed question requiring extensive answers based on what the laws of Massachusetts have on the books and precedents established by the courts.
It is not a Sunday School test.
Sorry the guy couldn't pass the test. He needs to do what everyone else does that fails the test the first time. Go home and relearn what he has forgotten and try to pass the test again.
I don't remember the statistics, but it is not unusual for people to fail their first attempt at taking the bar exam.
nudeyorker
Admired Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2006
- Posts
- 22,742
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 853
- Points
- 208
- Location
- NYC/Honolulu
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
What Freddie said.
I can't believe this is being argued over. All reasonable logic is stacked against this guy.
I can't believe this is being argued over. All reasonable logic is stacked against this guy.
There is no question he has no leg to stand upon with regard to the test. There is no valid argument to be made to the contrary.
However, some conflated the issue by discussing competence as a licensed attorney in light of his presumed desire to avoid representing gay partners in family law issues, which is an entirely different question. In response, the point there is that such a desire does not reflect upon the licensed attorney's competence in the slightest.
However, some conflated the issue by discussing competence as a licensed attorney in light of his presumed desire to avoid representing gay partners in family law issues, which is an entirely different question. In response, the point there is that such a desire does not reflect upon the licensed attorney's competence in the slightest.
I was discussing his competence as a licensed attorney based upon his reaction to the test, not upon whether or not he "agrees" with same-gender marriage. If he is actually dim enough to sue the testing entity to have a question invalidated on his test, based upon the fact that he was offended by the premise of the hypothetical question, he certainly does not deserve to practice any area of law, anywhere.
Shelby
Experimental Member
What hilarity!
This dude claims he refused to answer a question because it was contrary to his moral beliefs on a test he was taking in an attempt to become an attorney. lol
Let's say he passed. Can you picture him telling a senior partner that he refuses to work on any case he was assigned because it was contrary to his moral beliefs? The members of the firm would still be laughing as the door hit him in the ass.
Judges pass judgement, attorneys try cases.
This dude claims he refused to answer a question because it was contrary to his moral beliefs on a test he was taking in an attempt to become an attorney. lol
Let's say he passed. Can you picture him telling a senior partner that he refuses to work on any case he was assigned because it was contrary to his moral beliefs? The members of the firm would still be laughing as the door hit him in the ass.
Judges pass judgement, attorneys try cases.
No shit, huh Shelby? And the humor is on so many levels! Of course, we all know that lawyers, in general, hold the highest level of scruples, morals, and ethics, of any profession.
And this guy's most vocal advocate keeps coming back to what he may or may not do after he passes the bar, when the OP was about what he did while taking the bar exam.
Similar threads
