Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bar Admission Apprenticeship topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee splits on apprenticeship path to the bar; amendment passed but bill fails in committee
Summary
House Bill 16‑09, proposing a Supreme Court‑developed apprenticeship pathway to bar admission, drew lengthy debate. The committee approved an amendment to remove a provision allowing certain legislators to sit for the bar but then voted down a "do pass" recommendation 8‑6; members agreed to consider further study.
House Bill 16‑09, which would require the Supreme Court in cooperation with the state board of law examiners to develop an apprenticeship path to sit for the bar exam, generated extended debate on whether life experience and supervised practice can substitute for law school.
Proponents cited other states with alternative routes to the bar. Representative Van Winkle listed several examples, saying that in "California you can take the bar exam without attending law school," that "Washington...you just need an apprenticeship program," and that other states permit various alternative paths. He described the proposal as an effort "to create an opportunity for a career that's in high demand" and as a way to expand the pool of lawyers for underserved areas.
Several members supported counting practical experience toward qualification; Representative Better suggested a legislative pathway as an example, saying he would "hog house this bill and make it basically make it so 8 years of service in the legislature equals 20 credits at the UND law school." Opponents pressed concerns about academic rigor and public trust. Representative Schneider said the bill was "not well thought out or planned or detailed enough," adding that law school provides a discipline and rigor "you can't get any place besides law school."
The committee voted to amend the bill by removing text on page 2, lines 5–6 (the portion that would have treated certain legislators differently). The amendment carried 10‑4. After adopting the amendment, a motion for a "do pass as amended" was called; the roll call recorded six votes in favor and eight opposed, so the committee did not recommend passage. Representative Twyte later moved that the bill be studied; the committee did not finalize a study directive that day but agreed to revisit the measure and possible study language at a subsequent meeting.
Committee discussion included points that the bill, as written, would require a bachelor’s degree plus 2,000 hours of supervised engagement under a licensed attorney (as described on the bill's draft), and that the Supreme Court and board of law examiners would set program standards. Supporters said the apprenticeship would be supervised and that other states have implemented similar pathways. Opponents said an academic program provides essential doctrinal training and that substitution of life experience could leave gaps in a candidate's legal education.
The committee took no further floor action that day.
