ABA Journal Podcasts

The episode delivers substantial, concrete information about multiple alternative bar admission pathways with specific mechanics (Oregon's 675-hour requirement, Nevada's 85-page outline, New Hampshire's 15-year track record). Merritt provides evidence-backed claims about skills vs. doctrinal knowledge and concrete details about what these programs require. However, there is notable filler in the form of extended introductions, sponsor segments, and some repetitive explanations that dilute density.

“one of the big advantages for students or candidates is that these pathways are much less expensive than the bar exam”

“the average time to licensing in Oregon now through this pathway is about 11 months”

Merritt presents fresh, counterintuitive arguments about the bar exam being worse than alternatives and offers a first-principles critique of closed-book exams in an AI era. The core insight that state supreme courts should intervene via licensing (not just law schools or practitioners) shows original thinking. However, the broader framework of skills-based assessment over doctrinal knowledge is becoming more common in legal reform discussions, limiting novelty.

“it's hard to study whether or not people in two different pathways are effective lawyers. As I think I mentioned earlier, there's no study that proves that the bar exam does a good job.”

“law practice is already changing and will change more. And so how do you assess somebody appropriately for a law practice that includes AI?”

Deborah Jones Merritt is an exceptionally well-calibrated guest: a law professor emerita with 25+ years of research on bar admissions, principal investigator of the landmark Building a Better Bar report, direct consultant to multiple state supreme courts on pathways (Oregon, Nevada, others), and someone who has actually shaped policy at scale. She has done the work, not just theorized about it.

“Deb. She's professor emerita at Ohio State University Moritz College of Law and the co principal investigator of the landmark 2020 report Building a Better Bar”

“I've had a bird's eye view really of how the grading process goes, because I lead those calibration sessions”

Merritt provides specific program details: New Hampshire's Daniel Webster Scholars (25 students/year, 15+ years), Oregon's 675 hours + 12 work products (average 11 months to license), South Dakota's fall semester public interest work + 2-year commitment requirement, Arizona's 10-point lower pass threshold, Nevada's 85-page outline and 2-hour performance tests. The simulation study with New Hampshire graduates outperforming licensed lawyers is concrete. Some claims lack specific numbers (e.g., pass rates, student outcomes across programs).

“New Hampshire...at that law school they have a program called the Daniel Webster Scholars program...they are licensed when they graduate”

“applicants have to complete 675 hours of supervised practice and they have to compile a portfolio of 12 different work products”

Host Julianne Hill asks substantive follow-ups and attempts some pushback (e.g., on downsides, rigor, legitimacy). However, many questions are softball or descriptive rather than challenging. Hill rarely presses Merritt on limitations, contradictions, or difficult tradeoffs. The conversation flows but lacks the sharpness of genuine intellectual tension; Merritt rarely faces skeptical questioning about whether these pathways truly ensure competence or create new inequities.

“Is this rigorous? I mean, there are people who are concerned that these pathways are the easy way out. Is this easy?”

“How do we know that we're going to get qualified and practice ready lawyers with these things?”