Our traditional weekend update on disparate impact policies is here:
The bar exam for aspiring lawyers is being removed because it is disproportionately hard for black people to pass.
As a result, clients will suspect every black lawyer of being unqualified and won’t hire them. The state will have to hire these otherwise unemployable lawyers, and this will dramatically affect the public defender offices and the prosecution offices. More criminality, more chaos, more resentment. Nothing else can come from these embarrassing policies.
It’s not possible to have two constitutions working at one and at cross purposes. This is the result when we fail to understand this.
Clarissa's Blog 
So the last time you hired a lawyer, how did you find them and vet them?
LikeLike
Clearly not about the kind of lawyer Clarissa can get.
“The state will have to hire these otherwise unemployable lawyers, and this will dramatically affect the public defender offices and the prosecution offices”
Do you think it’s OK as long as it’s just the poors who get stuck with lawyers who wouldn’t’ve been able to pass the bar?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m still trying to figure out how subpar lawyers aren’t going to have a disparate impact on clients. Of color, even. Or is it that if you’re already refusing to prosecute certain minorities, it doesn’t matter how bad their lawyers are?
LikeLiked by 2 people
“if you’re already refusing to prosecute certain minorities, it doesn’t matter how bad their lawyers are?”
I think you cracked this particular code….
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ah, so white people charged with crimes who can’t afford a lawyer… well, it’s only what they deserve, right?
LikeLike
(flashbacks to Zachary Wester case…)
LikeLike
“Or is it that if you’re already refusing to prosecute certain minorities, it doesn’t matter how bad their lawyers are?“
The latter.
You see, dear methylethyl, our Anonymous “scourge” (a self-avowed academic hiding behind an anonymous sobriquet, just in case) is a text-book adherent of luxury beliefs: he [I’m adamant it is a he] will not have to suffer from the consequences of the beliefs he purportedly supports, since his ass is totally covered.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I never doubted it.
LikeLike
Point of order: they are not actually luxury beliefs.
They are beliefs that this person cannot afford but instead of staying within budget, getting other people to pay for such beliefs makes them strangely affordable.
That insouciant smugness comes from believing that it’s possible to get away with it.
LikeLike
Post Alley Crackpot, of course … let’s make sure the Anonyrat knows who refuses to feed it free cheese.
LikeLike
It makes sense when you consider that the main welfare function of public service is providing jobs for the otherwise unemployable rather than the services provided, which are generally avoided by anyone who can afford to.
LikeLiked by 2 people
We have previously used public services such as WIC and medicaid, and my husband briefly worked in the welfare office. I find nothing to disagree with in your statement.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is a genuine question.
Most lawyers have nothing to do with criminal law either in private practice or working for the state.
And you don’t need to interact with the criminal justice in any fashion to be harmed by a subpar lawyer.
The way lawyers try keep their salaries up is by restricting who is credentialed and who can practice — like a guild.
Academia doesn’t really do this, which might partially account for the low low salaries a lot of adjunct have.
I’d ask why this state board is allowing people to be credentialed without passing the bar exam, but where’s the fun in speculating about that?
Here’s their press release. Not only are they setting up new ways to be licensed, they’re lowering the bar passage score, and reducing the amount of experience for out of state lawyers to be licensed by motion (in other words WITHOUT taking the state bar exam) in Washington state.
Also they’re making big changes to the bar exam itself.
LikeLike
Ah, well, I’ve never lived in Washington State and never plan to move there, so this couldn’t possibly affect me. No reason to care, then.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are plenty of reasons not to reside in Washington State, but in short: the State routinely violates its own administrative law and procedure, shits on relevant Federal law, and ensures steady capital flight.
Which leaves it in the position of one of the highest levels of per capita government indebtedness in the US.
Plus that map previously mentioned also has a lot of area that has a few things in common with … say … Liberty County, Florida, but with slightly different demographics.
Avoid.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That the whole eastern half of the state wants to join Idaho is pretty telling.
Corruption and malign authority go way back, from what I’ve heard. My parents lived in Tacoma briefly, before my time. Sort of a bohemian neighborhood. Decided it was time to leave, when the *cops* started driving by at night shooting randomly into houses.
LikeLike
Adjuncts get about $45 an hour.
($3,600 per course, 3 times a week for 50 mins plus let’s say 2 hrs a week for preparation and grading. So 5 hrs a week of work total over 16 weeks). Of course, preparation goes away after you’ve taught the same beginner-level course a couple of times.
I don’t think it’s all that low for the amount of effort required.
LikeLiked by 1 person
(sputters)
$45/hr?
Holy crap.
Ok, yesterday I was on the side of student loan forgiveness. I’m rethinking that now for people who go into academic jobs.
LikeLike
\ $45/hr … I was on the side of student loan forgiveness. I’m rethinking that
From what I understand, the number of hours in academia is often small.
Those adjuncts are hardly swimming in riches.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They are swimming in free time. Three sections are 3 class hours 3 times a week. You make $10,000 in 16 weeks while easily carrying a full time job at the same time.
One of my lecturers is a mother of 3 very small kids. This is a great way of her to pick up extra cash in the evenings.
LikeLike
It sounds like with all their spare time they could easily be working a second job, though! It’s what anybody else would do, if their part-time job wasn’t covering their expenses or they had debt to pay off. The teachers I grew up with were trying to support families on $30k/yr salaries… most of them waited tables at restaurants, or worked at the amusement park during the summer to make ends meet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly. It’s not supposed to be anybody’s primary source of income but it’s a very nice addition to other things. Often, retired people come in to teach a couple of sections. It’s very undemanding, so why not?
LikeLike
If we take into account that people are hired to teach 3 sections of the same course, they don’t need to do separate prep for each section. Then the pay goes up to $60-65 per hour. I wouldn’t say it’s low for what is truly not a very onerous job.
LikeLike
LOL, as an old retired scientist, I have to say “there is nothing new under the sun.” For more than half a century, pushed by lying feminists and race hustlers, we have been deliberately hiring and promoting inferior applicants in all public as well as their influenced private areas. It does not matter what “pretty” term is utilized: whether affirmative action, quotas, hold aside, or currently DEI; it does not matter what new term one invents, the result is designed to cheat the most qualified applicants out of their opportunities. Merit matters.
LikeLiked by 2 people