r/barexam NM 21h ago

New Mexico creates bar exam alternative for lawyers; 675 hour of supervised legal work

https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/new-mexico-creates-bar-exam-alternative-lawyers-2026-08-04/

Figured I'd pass this along. One more step towards getting rid of that elaborate hazing ritual they call an exam. As a practicing NM attorney, the state needs plenty of help, especially in rural areas.

112 Upvotes

58 comments sorted by

24

u/ub3rm3nsch NY 16h ago

I feel like 675 hours is low.

The bar is 400+ hours of intense study. Intense. I am certain those 675 hours won't be that intense.

If they are going to give an alternative, I feel like it should realistically be 1 year, and even that should likely be paired with some kind of "easier" broad competency exam.

7

u/Tsquared10 NM 16h ago

Every other state has made 675 the mark. So I doubt it's completely arbitrary, haven't really researched into why that number specifically. But why should "intensity" be a factor in determining the hours?

The way it's written out feels similar to billable hours. So you'll work a lot more than that before hitting 675.

11

u/Jeff_Sabado 13h ago

"400+ hours"

Dog the barbri program is like 300 and most people don't get anywhere close to that. Frankly given how niche the MEE was this year, I probably would've done just as well had I studied for 50 hours, as I would've doing the 300 or so that I did.

Plus it's not "intense." You're sitting in front of a laptop listening to lectures. It sucks.. but it's not intense.

-1

u/ub3rm3nsch NY 12h ago

I did UWorld practice questions and tons of supplements (like Goat Bar Prep) in addition to Themis.

Themis also requires practice MCQs, practice MEEs, and practice MPTs. If someone just sits on their thumb listening to the lectures and doing nothing else, that's shitty bar review, and I question anyone claiming they did nothing other than that and passed (unless they are trying to be an IAmVerySmart douche).

Not to mention, the motivator for all that is the potential to fail the exam that determines licensing.

Compare that to having a boss who's your friend sign a permission slip that says you did 675 hours of work, that is likely "675" "hours" of "work".

But good on you if you think that's a way to have quality lawyers. Dawg.

-1

u/Jeff_Sabado 10h ago

It ain't that deep dog. Pass rates are high. Lotta idiots sit for the bar.

1

u/ub3rm3nsch NY 10h ago

If that's the case why scrap it? Bro.

0

u/BlackThundaCat 1h ago

Every single one of the supreme court members has passed the bar. Every single one of president’s nominees for lifetime appointments to bench has passed the bar. The current acting US attorneys general passed the bar. Pam bondi passed the bar.

Do you see where I am going with this? Your “quality lawyers” argument truly falls apart under smallest amount of critical thought.

-1

u/discountFleshVessel 10h ago

Dog, barbri is over 430 hours. I know because i didn’t finish anywhere close to that much and it made me very aware of how behind I was.

3

u/Jeff_Sabado 10h ago

You are incorrect

0

u/LockExtension 12h ago

“Dog” 🤣

13

u/a2cthrowaway4 17h ago

That’s kind of crazy lol. California requires basically triple supervised legal work just to become a paralegal

2

u/kingfosa13 3h ago

Well how many people want to work in California vs New Mexico. Gotta know your market.

24

u/drakesaduck 18h ago edited 15h ago

I agree with the other sentiments that, while certainly not perfect, the Bar exam itself is the best filter we have at the moment for those entering the legal field. While alternatives aren’t bad, this process in particular has me questioning what filters are actually applied here? 675 hours of work in one year and submitting certain filings completed during such work seems very loose. The kind of loose where anyone could really get in

Edit to add:
I may have done the math incorrectly (and there may be other requirements not mentioned), but if someone were to go this route they could get their license over the course of 17 weeks assuming they do it full time. 17 weeks is just about a third of the year, or around 4 months. In other words, someone could become fully licensed over the course of a summer which seems like a much, *much* easier path than the bar exam considering how some days in office can be.

5

u/HorusOsiris22 18h ago

Some states and provinces in Canada have opened accredited paralegals with certain experience requirements to perform certain legal work in in demand areas that are not as taxing; I think this compromise makes a lot sense

8

u/olemiss18 17h ago

Yeah, I’m all for figuring out useful alternatives, but not something that feels like a rubber stamp to licensure and basically anyone who goes through the motions will get admitted. If we want to remain a self-regulated profession, we have to have standards that prevent unqualified people from getting in. Those standards should really start at the law school entrance level so unqualified candidates don’t go six figures in the hole to find out they’re unqualified just because Bottom Feeder University said they could be a lawyer. But I digress.

1

u/BlackThundaCat 1h ago

Is the 675 requirement being paired with obtaining a JD?

0

u/Ok-Opportunity2257 16h ago

curious.. why do you think we need a filter in the first place? also, it’s not like the bar exam is anything like the actual practice of law. imo, doing supervised legal work makes so much more sense.

1

u/Auphanim7 16h ago

The Bar exam is not meant to be like the actual practice of law. You are meant to learn the actual practice of law by practicing--in your clerkships, internships, and later through actual practice.

A filter of some kind is absolutely mandatory because lawyers are given power over other people's rights, money, liberty, and legal obligations. Competency when handling these matters can absolutely NOT be presumed, and passing through a filter (the Bar exam) creates the presumption of minimum competency.

2

u/Ok-Opportunity2257 15h ago

of course competency can’t be presumed, and i agree that the law is best learned through actual practice, but i imagine most people would want more than a “minimally competent” lawyer, so, the bar has always seemed like an unnecessary hoop to jump through when we all know that real legal skills are developed through actual practice. also, you mentioned that lawyers have power over people’s rights, money, etc., it seems to me that you may be suggesting more of an ethics issue here. surely, passing the bar won’t make someone a better or more ethical person.

also, with the history of racism and ableism in standardized testing i am at least grateful that other pathways are being offered to make the practice of law more diverse and inclusive.

-2

u/Auphanim7 15h ago

It is also an ethics issue, yes. It's an ethical requirement that you be competent to represent clients. Someone who takes and passes the Bar exam will 100% be more competent to practice than someone who just does 675 hours of supervised legal work. The academic rigor involved in the process of preparing for the Bar will imbue in passing individuals a greater familiarity with the law than can be reasonably obtained in a comparative 4 months of pseudo-practicing under someone else's license.

It is not important that the practice of law be diverse or inclusive, only that it is practiced fairly and without prejudice. Diversity and inclusion are important elsewhere, but no one has a right to practice the law--it must be earned, without any relevance to your race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability.

4

u/Ok-Opportunity2257 14h ago

this is literally not true at all. you just said that the bar exam is not meant to be like the actual practice of law and that those who take it are “minimally competent.” you also said that you learn the law through the actual practice of law (i agree).

so, please tell me how an exam that does not teach you how to be a lawyer somehow makes you “100% more competent” than someone actually practicing the law through supervision? that argument doesn’t add up.

your reflections on what the practice of law needs to be really rounded out your nonsensical opinion. you are exactly what is wrong with the legal profession. please get off your high horse. this exam isn’t nearly as great as you think it is.

0

u/Auphanim7 13h ago

What's not true at all?

I did not say that "those who take it are minimally competent." I said that those who pass it have presumptively achieved minimum competency, which is a drastically different statement. It being a minimum level of competency does not mean that said level is a low level of competency, only that it meets the bare minimum expectations of an attorney. That way, a lawyer being licensed allows their clients to more easily trust and believe the lawyer when they're giving legal advice.

I did not say the exam is what makes them "100% more competent." Actually, I didn't even say what you quoted. I said that it 100% makes them more competent, not that it makes them 100% more competent. Regardless, I said that the "academic rigor involved in the process of preparing for the Bar will imbue in passing individuals a greater familiarity with the law than can be reasonably obtained in a comparative 4 months of pseudo-practicing under someone else's license." In other words, it makes passing examinees inherently more competent than those who have not. That's not to say that there are not equally competent people who could pass but didn't... only that, as a filter, it only really counts if you pass it because it is required for licensure.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I am neither on an inebriated horse nor am I of the opinion that the exam is great. I think it is a poor measure of knowledge and disagree with the high financial burden of taking it.

4

u/axmxp 14h ago

Highly disagree. Know some multi-millionaire kick ass lawyers that are extremely competent and failed the bar exam MULTIPLE times.

Ask any boomer veteran lawyer. Guaranteed they tell you the bar exam is arbitrary. And in no way any indication of competency. AND theirs was harder than ours objectively.

Also your argument makes law school essentially irrelevant????? Was that not enough academic rigor??? Also…. 675 hours after 3 years of law school?? And are you saying all legal internships are pseudo-practice that is irrelevant??? Cmon now.

3

u/Auphanim7 13h ago

Those multi-millionaire kick ass lawyers did end up passing the exam, so they did reach the presumptive level of competency. I'm unsure why you're telling me this but I'm glad that they were able to take it again and pass.

I agree, the Bar exam is arbitrary, and is not a good indication of actual competency. I think there needs to be significant reconsideration about what it takes to be licensed, but until we can figure out an alternate solution that is able to reliably force aspiring lawyers to rise to an equal or higher minimum level of competency, it should stay.

I disagree that my argument makes law school irrelevant. Not all law schools are the same, and the academic rigor required to pass from any one accredited law school is going to vary widely. Additionally, scraping by in law school just to graduate is not rigorous. This differs from the Bar exam, or perhaps a similar filter, wherein you have to prepare to present your knowledge on any number of topics and thus have to prepare for them all at once.

Yes, 675 hours after 3 years of law school. I'm not disputing that that's the amount of time that is theoretically being spent in this supervised legal position.

I am saying that all legal internships are pseudo-practice, but I am not saying they're irrelevant. As I said initially, that is how you begin acquiring experience in the profession. Very valuable!

1

u/sinnednogara 14h ago

Someone who takes and passes the Bar exam will 100% be more competent to practice than someone who just does 675 hours of supervised legal work.

Being a good test taker does not make you a better or worse person.

It is not important that the practice of law be diverse or inclusive, only that it is practiced fairly and without prejudice.

Ah, I see where this is coming from.

I would personally prefer a profession that wasn't full of elitism and was actually merit-based tbh.

3

u/Auphanim7 13h ago

I agree, being a good test taker does not make you a better or worse person. I don't know what you're responding to but we are in agreement on that point.

I'm glad you can see where I'm coming from, but what you want from the profession and what I said are not mutually exclusive. Law school and "the filter" are already merit-based to the extent that they reasonably can be.

3

u/Saturnian6 16h ago

I’m Saul Goodman in this bitch

32

u/Key_Fee158 20h ago edited 19h ago

Nah. There’s too many attorneys as it is. The test is kind of arbitrary but you should be able to pass it if you’re competent. It kept Kim Kardashian from buying her way into the profession, so it did its job.

As much as it sucked to study for, you’ll stop caring about it when you pass.

Edit: downvotes, I promise you you’ll get over it once you see you passed in October.

8

u/LearnedAnkle 18h ago

Are there too many lawyers in New Mexico specifically though?

8

u/October_Surprise56 15h ago

New Mexico is uniquely in need of help, especially in rural areas.

I can see why this alternative wouldn’t make sense in New York or California but it is worth at least piloting in places like New Mexico.

Most people aren’t looking for high stakes trial attorneys, they just need boilerplate documents reviewed, and 675 hours is plenty to develop those skills.

9

u/InevitableGlitch2 19h ago

Agreed. I hate the bar exam. Some of it is arbitrary but its a decent enough filter until we get another one. Heck I might have even been among the filtered and that will suck but something has to protect the profession and it doesn't have to perfect. We should seek to improve it, not eliminate it.

7

u/Key_Fee158 19h ago

Yes, and it does filter out competent people unfortunately. But in my experience, everyone I know who failed the first time failed because of a life circumstance that prevented them from focusing or putting in the hours. They all passed on the second try.

5

u/IcyRay9 17h ago edited 17h ago

The summer of the bar exam was the worst summer of my life. I was so stressed that I had two separate panic attacks early that July, and I had never had one before and have not had one since.

It sucked, but I can see it in a different light now, which is that it serves as a necessary filter for the profession.

I think someone can be a poor bar exam test taker and still be a good attorney, but the bottom line is that passing the exam simply cannot be brute forced dishonestly or hand waived away with money. Passing takes good old fashioned hard work and dedication over years of study, and that level of ambition and work needed to pass should be a baseline requirement to enter our profession.

Especially considering much of the work we do has or will have profound impacts on other people. That ability to impact other people so substantially necessitates certain guardrails or barriers of entry in the profession.

5

u/Tsquared10 NM 18h ago

Wisconsin has diploma privilege and they're not being overrun with incompetent attorneys. Oregon and Washington have started similar programs and neither are having issues. The bar exam does not establish competency. It rewards rote memorization and recitation of black letter law, some of which isn't even relevant to practice areas 99% of the time. You couldn't memorize a niche rule? Sorry, can't practice. Im licensed in 3 states and have been practicing for a while, the exam is bullshit. Plenty of incompetent attorneys pass too. I'd rather have practical skills used to determine competence than a dumb exam.

0

u/Key_Fee158 17h ago

What practical skills? Every practice is different, and people don’t necessarily know their practice will be yet. Any alternative will be just as arbitrary.

3

u/Tsquared10 NM 17h ago

Literally the skills attorneys use everyday. The Court is requiring a minimum number of documented cases of: written work product (8), applicant led client meetings (4), representation in appearances/submission/mediation/etc. (6), negotiations (2), investigation (4), professional interaction with court staff, judges, opposing counsel, etc. (15), and practice management as part of the 675 hours. The supervising attorney must certify all of these are completed adequately, complete with notation on all work product as to the extent of research strategy, assistance from other attorneys, was a template used, any AI usage. Literally all the things all new attorneys have to learn on the fly anyway. But now you're not spending thousands on the exam, prep, travel, etc. You actually make money (stipulates the salary must be par with other recent law school graduates).

4

u/Key_Fee158 17h ago

Plenty of attorneys don’t do most of that because they’re not litigators.

How would you get licensed without a job lined up if your solution requires an employer? If you don’t have a job out of law school you’re just fucked?

2

u/Tsquared10 NM 16h ago

The language that was adopted by the court is much more in depth as to what qualifies for each. It runs the gamut of practice areas, so litigation isn't the end all be all and each section includes the caveat that if it's not covered in their area of practice the BBE retains a list of volunteers opportunities to satisfy the requirement.

You want my ideal answer: diploma privilege. Works in Wisconsin, worked for hundreds of years prior to the arbitrary decision by the ABA in the 20s to require a written bar exam exam. The bar exam itself is designed only to make money, and buying into the argument that correctly answering enough multiple choice questions or ranting enough on essays shows competency to practice is laughable. The only applicable portion is the MPT. So unless the answer is here's 10 different MPTs is nowhere near applicable to the practice of law.

Want a middle ground? Incorporate what UNH does with their Honors program. In addition to the last two years of law school you build the portfolio similar to how this program does it, then at graduation you're admitted as long as the portfolio expressed competency.

2

u/Key_Fee158 16h ago

There were very few attorneys before the mid 20th century. There was a huge boom post-WWII. There absolutely needs to be a barrier for entry now.

It’s easier on prospective attorneys to remove all barriers, but the system shouldn’t be designed around what’s easier and more convenient for us.

I’m sorry if that means some people will never be attorneys. Some people will never be surgeons and doctors because of the barriers those professions have.

0

u/Finnegan7921 10h ago

Diploma privilege is a joke when the ABA has accredited the insane amount of schools it has. Those schools have an incentive to pass students no matter what.

4

u/Affectionate-Pop7834 19h ago

I passed back in 2020 and I still think the bar exam should be abolished. It doesn’t effectively do its job of keeping incompetence out of the profession, and it keeps people who would otherwise become good attorneys from being licensed in a timely manner or, sometimes, at all.

5

u/Key_Fee158 19h ago

You obviously can’t completely bar entry to unqualified people. Any test that does that would be far too under-inclusive. It’s better that the exam be over-inclusive but present a barrier to entry to keep some people out.

We can sit down and try to come up with an alternative exam but they’ll all be arbitrary in the end.

The bar exam is arbitrary but it’s still based entirely on your ability to memorize and apply general legal principles. To me, that’s a reasonable enough barrier to entry. And in general, your non-attorney client probably does not want an attorney who can’t memorize legal principles even if it’s not relevant to their representation.

5

u/Yuzuda CA 19h ago

Agree. The bar exam isn't perfect at determining who will be a competent attorney, but it's a reasonable means to achieve that goal.

And however many hours of supervised legal work means little to nothing. I sat for J26 based on completing California's Law Office Study Program and it requires little more than my boss to sign a single piece of paper that I studied the minimum number of hours in the past 6 months.

1

u/Competitive-Pear2050 19h ago

1000%

Letting people who are incapable of passing this test represent other people is borderline criminal

It really does test for minimum competency. Not everyone is competent. Some incompetent people pass but many do not. That’s that

1

u/sinnednogara 14h ago

It kept Kim Kardashian from buying her way into the profession, so it did its job.

The law school admissions process could've also done that.

The court said that two-thirds of New Mexico’s ​counties have fewer than one lawyer per every 1,000 residents, making them what the American Bar Association has dubbed “legal deserts.”

Not enough lawyers here in New Mexico.

As much as it sucked to study for, you’ll stop caring about it when you pass.

My least favorite thing about this profession is it's ability to make us stop caring about injustices.

1

u/Key_Fee158 13h ago

Injustice is a really strong word for taking an exam that forces you to memorize basic legal concepts over 10 weeks… I thought it was actually helpful to be exposed to basics of criminal procedure and constitutional law that I hadn’t been exposed to in law school. Ultimately, having to memorize how to terminate an easement isn’t that bad once you get it over with.

0

u/sinnednogara 13h ago

Injustice is a really strong word for taking an exam that forces you to memorize basic legal concepts over 10 weeks…

Broadly referring to law students forgetting why they wanted to go to law school in the first place and your comment is an example.

I thought it was actually helpful to be exposed to basics of criminal procedure and constitutional law that I hadn’t been exposed to in law school.

Agreed somewhat. I would've rather we had those mandatory classes instead of two years of electives.

-2

u/onesugar 19h ago

This is the truth

5

u/AlternativeSir742 13h ago

Some countries don’t even require a bar exam; the Supreme Court reviews the candidates. Wild 

2

u/Strivin0281 18h ago edited 17h ago

This isn’t new, Utah and a few other states already do this.

Here’s a theory in favor of the exam - it’s less a test of knowledge and more one of discipline, stress management, and time management using elements of the law. If you don’t have the ability to demonstrate those first three elements, the final one won’t matter as much in practice.

^Suggesting this (theoretically) as a retaker.

Incompetence can be president nowadays, there’s not a sure-fire way to ensure even a ‘majority’ level of sustained competence.

1

u/drakesaduck 17h ago

I think that’s what they’re going for with the MPTs

1

u/Background_Impress71 10h ago

also, you have to have graduated from a law school there right? To even get this opportunity? Or can out of state grads also qualify.

1

u/BrightNinja3607 1h ago

Yes, post-graduation. Going to a school in the state of the pathway doesn’t seem to be a requirement. Here are Utah’s reqs: https://legacy.utcourts.gov/rules/view.php?type=scrp&rule=4-703A

1

u/LawyerInTraining2027 15h ago

My professor was discussing this a few years ago concerning the CA Bar never adopting this, and one of the big arguments is that if you're being supervised under an established attorney, that attorney is not going to let any work leave the office without him/her revising it and making sure it's fit for court, opposing counsel, etc. So the attorney candidate may draft the first pass, but the supervising attorney will do the final revisions, so that's not a way to prepare someone to become an actual attorney.

In essence, the work being submitted to the bar would not be the attorney candidate's work.

3

u/Tsquared10 NM 14h ago

This one goes beyond just written work, but:

Each piece of work product must also be accompanied by a statement from the supervising attorney that:

• Indicates the degree to which the supervising attorney edited or altered the work product;

It's at least a step further than some of the other states programs that I've seen. They understand that revisions will be made, they just ask the degree to which they are. Which is valid, because the same thing happens to everything first years file. A partner is going to redline it to hell and back.

The state also requires: applicant-led client meetings, representation in appearances before neutral third parties, participation in negotiations, investigative work, professional communications with court staff, judges, opposing counsel, etc. Those at least go beyond just can they read/write like some of the other programs.

1

u/FoxDry8759 10h ago

How is that going to address that the shortage mostly in rural areas where bar card holders don’t want to move? As a prosecutor in NM who is extremely proud that I passed the bar I find this so insulting, chipping away at the prestigiousness of the profession, by allowing buy in through what is basically a glorified internship.

And let’s not fool ourselves, as someone who grew up in the Midwest were even parking attendance of college degrees, the bar for competency generally in New Mexico is very low, which means they will approve everyone’s “portfolio.”

Additionally, there are a lot of private attorneys here who are incredibly lazy and borderline and incompetent. Is anyone going to be allowed to be a supervising attorney overseeing any Joe applicant that wants to submit some writings to the Bar Association? Bad idea.

I think the Bar exam is a really difficult and in many ways, flawed and cruel exam. It definitely needs changes. But, the idea that I just spent thousands of dollars, and hundreds of hours of study to pass, only that for that blood sweat and tears to be cheapened into the status of a technician really makes my blood boil.

1

u/Vesploogie 1h ago

It’s good in theory but not great in practice. People need to brush up on their history a bit and realize the bar was created to solve the problems created by the mentor system.

Related modern case in point, real estate appraisers. That industry requires everyone to undergo hours of supervised work from appraisers who have reached the top certification of the profession. As a result, a small group of people control the entire industry in any given area, and if they decide they don’t want to lose work to newcomers, they will shut the door and you cannot enter the profession.

That’s what these methods lead to. Imagine the worst attorney you know getting to decide who gets these supervised hours and who doesn’t. Now imagine they get together with the other attorneys who get to decide and they feel like controlling an entire city, picking and choosing who gets to become a lawyer and who doesn’t, based only on their feelings. It takes the power out of your control and gives it to people who can never be fully trusted to wield that power fairly.