Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Licensing Apprenticeship topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to allow apprenticeship or legislative experience in lieu of law school draws mixed reaction
Summary
HB 1609 would let the North Dakota Supreme Court create an apprenticeship route so non‑J.D. applicants — including legislators with sufficient experience or apprentices with supervised hours — could be authorized to sit for the bar exam.
House Bill 1609 proposes to let the North Dakota Supreme Court, in cooperation with the State Board of Law Examiners, create an apprenticeship pathway that would allow some applicants to qualify to take the bar exam without a J.D. degree. The sponsor, Representative Laurie Van Winkle, said the program is aimed at expanding legal career access in rural areas and creating affordable alternatives to law school.
Van Winkle described the bill’s proposed thresholds: a legislator with at least four years’ service or a college graduate who completes 2,000 supervised hours under a licensed attorney within five years would be eligible to seek court authorization to take the bar. “This will provide affordable options that one may otherwise be unable to retain when left to traditional options,” Van Winkle said.
Supporters including citizen Paul Sorum argued the state historically permitted apprentices to qualify for the bar in other jurisdictions and that apprenticeship pathways would widen the pool of qualified professionals who can help meet unmet legal needs.
Major opponents included the University of North Dakota School of Law, represented by Dean Brian Pappas, the State Board of Law Examiners (Petra Holm), disciplinary counsel (Kara Erickson) and the State Bar Association. Dean Pappas told the committee law school provides structured instructional time — roughly the equivalent of thousands of hours of classroom and supervised practical learning — and that the four other U.S. states with apprentice‑to‑bar programs have far more stringent, multi‑year, full‑time curricula than the bill proposes. “There is no prescribed curriculum associated with this engagement requirement,” Pappas said, warning that the bill’s hour counts and lack of curriculum could leave “significant gaps” in applicants’ knowledge.
Regulators also raised process and safety issues: the State Board said the bill lacks an application and progress‑reporting structure used in other states’ apprenticeship programs, and it noted the bill omits required character and fitness screening and funding for program oversight. Disciplinary counsel added that the proposal does not require applicants to pass the multi‑state professional responsibility exam and said lack of ethics education would likely increase complaints and disciplinary matters.
Several witnesses suggested alternatives. The State Bar and members of the Supreme Court task force have recommended pursuing allied legal professional programs, navigator services and other Supreme Court‑led initiatives; witnesses said those options include more defined curriculum and oversight and have already been the subject of court study (and, in some cases, budget requests).
No committee roll call on HB 1609 was recorded in the transcript; the hearing ended after extended testimony from proponents and multiple opponents, and lawmakers asked the Supreme Court and Board of Law Examiners to continue work on structured alternatives and implementation details.
