I’m a little skeptical of the effective lawyer study because of how I’ve seen this play out in similar studies in education. Asking about someone’s “effectiveness” is just substituting another metric for the actual outcome we want to measure, I.e. their actual effectiveness.
Studies that rate teacher “effectiveness” based on surveys typically show little correlation with student test score changes. I wonder what the correlation is between lawyer’s rating and their actual win rate?
Also remember that historically the bar exam wasn't a requirement to practice law. It was optional in California until 1919, for example. IMHO the best way to measure "effectiveness" is through a truly free market. An ineffective lawyer should be outcompeted by an effective one; let the client choose the meaning of "effective".
I'm thankful that, at least so far, we don't have to pass an exam to "practice science" and for good reason: A poor scientist, like a poor lawyer, would never get hired.
I’m a little skeptical of the effective lawyer study because of how I’ve seen this play out in similar studies in education. Asking about someone’s “effectiveness” is just substituting another metric for the actual outcome we want to measure, I.e. their actual effectiveness.
Studies that rate teacher “effectiveness” based on surveys typically show little correlation with student test score changes. I wonder what the correlation is between lawyer’s rating and their actual win rate?
Also remember that historically the bar exam wasn't a requirement to practice law. It was optional in California until 1919, for example. IMHO the best way to measure "effectiveness" is through a truly free market. An ineffective lawyer should be outcompeted by an effective one; let the client choose the meaning of "effective".
I'm thankful that, at least so far, we don't have to pass an exam to "practice science" and for good reason: A poor scientist, like a poor lawyer, would never get hired.