Alternative pathways to bar licensure are an important topic of conversation right now. I thought that some background might be useful for those not actively engaged on it. I would welcome a conversation with anyone who wants to know more or share their thoughts. For that discussion, “alternative pathways” means routes to bar admission that do not rely entirely on the current bar exam structure, but instead utilize a variety of other approaches to identify minimum professional competence prior to granting admission. The current bar exam is a validated measurement of core legal knowledge necessary to be competent in practice. It is not perfect, no process of admission can be; I think that we can and should continue to look for ways to improve the bar exam and the assessment of competence to practice. So does the National Conference of Bar Examiners. Following a multi-year study, NCBE is radically transforming the bar exam to eliminate the multiple-choice MBE and implement a more skill focused exam. This restructured exam is currently being drafted and psychometrically validated. This “Next Gen” bar exam will be available in July of 2026 for those states that adopt it. The potential for a better test does not make the current test invalid as some argue, however. Likewise, the existence of a valid exam does not preclude considering alternative pathways to bar admission.
program, granting licensure to graduates of Wisconsin law schools that follow a curriculum prescribed by court rule. New Hampshire has a limited enrollment program for admission without the traditional bar exam. It requires completion of a prescribed curriculum and assessment of capstone projects by the New Hampshire bar examiners. Oregon has conceptually approved a two-track system. One track mirrors New Hampshire's; the other grants admission after completion of a prescribed curriculum and completion of 1000 to 1500 hours of supervised practice. Although I support exploring alternative pathway programs, I believe that there must be balance between protection of the public and access to the profession. I also believe that striking that balance will require coordination between the Court, the Bar Examiners, the Bar, and the Law School. Each of these states have implemented their alternative pathways based on coordinated input from those quarters.
The South Dakota Legislature recently rejected HB 1073 which proposed pure “diploma privilege." That bill had no input from the Court, the State Bar, or the Law School; it also had none of the public protections that the alternative pathway programs described above do. I opposed HB 1073 along with many others. I was asked in that discussion why graduation from law school does not guarantee competence. The answer is that many of Three states currently have or are implementing our graduates want to go into business, banking, trust alternative pathway programs. None of them uses work, or other settings outside traditional practice. Each “diploma privilege" in the sense that everyone who year, several students elect joint degree programs where graduates from law school is admitted to the bar they substitute MBA or other classes for traditional bar without other conditions. Wisconsin has the most open topics. We strive to build our curriculum around core
10
