In his June editorial, Acting Justice Peter W Young AO, General Editor of The Australian Law Journal, wonders whether law schools ought to become more selective:

Chief Justice Marilyn Warren spoke of her concerns about the quality of legal education in her Fiat Justicia lecture on 25 March. She expressed the fear that universities, in endeavouring to turn out a large number of law graduates, had converted law into a generalised degree which was producing too many lawyers, many without a sufficient grounding in subjects which were basic to practitioners. The example given was the fact that statutory interpretation was not a compulsory subject.

The Chief Justice also said: “There are very important core subjects which are taught in a way that is at least disappointing and in many respects unsatisfactory.”

Although not mentioned by the Chief Justice, the teaching of equity in the semester system (where equity is actually taught rather than bits and pieces about trust law etc) is unsatisfactory as the subject is too big to teach in a semester yet cannot logically be split.

The Chief Justice noted that only about two thirds of law graduates actually practice. She suggested that it may be appropriate to introduce the equivalent of the United States’ Bar examination to make sure that those who do practise law are equipped to do so.

The matters raised by the Chief Justice are of very real concern and there are a number of aspects to them.

First, whilst it is laudable that everyone who has a desire to be a lawyer has the chance of becoming one, if the standard is set too low people will come into the market who are incapable of performing well, to the detriment of the clients.

Sometimes this tendency is corrected by the profession itself. About 30 years ago, one Sydney law school started teaching succession as an examination of the way various societies of past and present treated death and personal injury law concentrated on rape cases. The upshot was that many leading law firms would not hire its graduates.

The Admitting Authority held an inquiry and in the course of that inquiry, mothers and fathers would ring and ask: “If my daughter attends the X Law School, will she be admitted as a solicitor after graduation?” Negotiations proceeded and the university altered its course.

However, many small firms are not able to compare universities and a well presented graduate whose qualifications are OK on paper but deficient in fact may well be hired and a capable graduate is left unemployed.

Actually the problem is not only with the person whose legal education has been inadequate, it is also with the graduate who may be a Doctor of Jurisprudence, but whose subjects may have been so slanted to the philosophic and academic side that basic subjects such as contracts, probate and legal interpretation have not been touched. Fortunately, at present, the Priestley 11 do form part of the JD program at the major universities. However, care must be taken to see that students have a good mix of the academic and the practical.

It does not seem right that the legal profession goes back to the 19th-century system of training for practising lawyers letting the universities teach law-related subjects of considerable interest leaving the “boring practical” subjects to be taught during apprenticeship or at colleges of law run by the judges and the profession.

What appears to be happening is that what used to be derogatively called the “plumbers’ courses” in law (in New South Wales, the Diploma in Law offered by the Law Extension Committee of the University of Sydney and the degree course at the University of Technology Sydney) are now often the preferred courses for people who wish to practise law.

Then there is the problem that we are producing too many law graduates. In New South Wales, the court admits about 450 each year. There are not that many dropping out of the profession through retirement or death. There are multiple applicants for each vacancy. Is it really fair to young people to allow them to train and then have them find that for a large percentage of graduates, there are no jobs for them?

If the answer to that question is “No”, what system should be produced to maximise the probability that only those who are likely to succeed as lawyers will be permitted to study law (with perhaps the provision of private law schools who may offer a qualification for those who fail to meet the cut in the official system)?

The United States style Law Schools Admission Test might be the answer.

Read more in Volume 88 Part 6 of The Australian Law Journal.

Should Australian law schools introduce an admissions test? Or is a US-style Bar exam the way forward? Let us know what you think on Twitter @JournalsTalk, or below in the comments.