- within Law Department Performance topic(s)
- with Inhouse Counsel
- in Ireland
- with readers working within the Insurance and Law Firm industries
Send us a text
If becoming a lawyer no longer requires proving what you know, what does the profession really stand for?
Gavin Tighe and Stephen Thiele take on the Law Society of Ontario's proposal to scrap bar exams in favor of a training course, arguing that removing substantive testing undermines both public protection and the meaning of being called to the bar.
Drawing on their own experiences in law school and practice, they explore how legal education has changed, why baseline legal knowledge is essential, and how lowering standards risks public confidence in the profession.
They discuss the concerns about competency, mentorship, AI
misuse, and an increasingly saturated legal market, ultimately
questioning whether a profession without rigorous gate-keeping can
still claim legitimacy as a learned profession.
Listen For
:25 Should lawyers be licensed without proving substantive legal
knowledge
5:41 Why is the Law Society of Ontario considering scrapping the
bar exams
9:42 How does removing testing put the public at risk
14:10 Can lawyers rely on AI without strong foundational
knowledge
21:01 What happens to a profession when no one is allowed to
fail
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]