Waves of Indian and Chinese engineers and programmers have flown in and out of American businesses.  They are/were willing to work for less and had comparable training to American engineers.  At the time, and even to the present, American engineers were afraid of and wanted to legislate against, foreign highly skilled workers.

But right now, in law, it doesn’t seem new legislation is needed to keep out foreign lawyers.  The laws are already in place.  Right now, most states require attorneys to have a J.D. from an ABA approved law school to take the bar.  This excludes the vast majority of foreign trained lawyers.  The more liberal states allow foreign attorneys with a LLM degree to take the bar and practice in the States.

But why hold out against foreign lawyers?  Especially in a world where law is one of the things holding this shrinking world together?  For example, it is more important to have foreign and native lawyers working together than foreign and native engineers.  This because, in my opinion, the laws of chemistry and physics are the same no matter what cultural background you come from.  An Indian perspective on how to build a high quality road, though valuable, is not likely to be substantially different than a European view.  However, a Chinese lawyer’s perspective on how to practice law in China is invaluable to an American law firm that wishes to have dealings in China.  The laws in China are different, the customs of the people are different, and the business environment is different.  Thus, when practicing international law, it helps to have lawyers from both nations involved.  In this way law is become a global practice.

I think the ABA is making it unnecessarily difficult for foreign lawyers to enter and practice in America.  Because of this, it is difficult for foreign lawyers to enter the American market and be a part of American law firms.  If their English and knowledge of law is good enough to pass the bar and succeed in a job interview, why shouldn’t they be working with and contributing to an American firm?

Of course, America is not the only nation that has rules like this.  Spain may waive a half-year’s worth of courses if you have an American J.D., but the rest of the 5 year degree is required.  And China will not allow foreigners to pass the Chinese bar.

But China is, as usual, more complicated than that.  Though I, as an American, can not pass the Chinese bar, that only means I can not represent a Chinese person in a Chinese court and that I can not advise foreigners on Chinese law.  But even the restriction on advising foreigners on Chinese law has gray areas.  This is because I, as a (prospective) foreign lawyer, can ask a Chinese national to advise the foreign customer and me.  But after a Chinese lawyer on a particular issue has advised me once, do I need to ask him again when I am working with a foreign customer?

So here’s the down low: China has laws against foreign lawyers practicing in China, but purposefully allows gray areas and loopholes.  Why?  Because the Chinese lawmakers realize that foreign lawyers have a lot to add to the practice of Chinese law.

I think America and the rest of the world should make room for more international cooperation in law.  The Chinese system, where the law is tough on paper, but lenient in practice, works for this purpose.  The Chinese have found a way to have the state of law firms reflect the global nature of law.