He said it today at Binghamton University.
Of course, others have recently said the same. But that leaves many questions open and they will be interesting to answer if this idea moves ahead:
a. who accredits or approves the degree? The ABA? Will it wish to do so? What role will state courts play?
b. what should the requirements be other than two years? Should there be course requirements beyond what are now the limited requirements in the standards for the three year J.D.?
c. should it be called a J.D. or an LL.B.?
d. should a two year graduate's license qualify her to do all of the same work as the license for a three year graduate?
e. should there be post-graduate experiential requirements for a two year graduate before she is fully licensed? What should they be? If a requirement is some sort of law office clerkship, how can we be confident that those positions will be available and that graduates will not be exploited?
f. should the requirements in the standards for operation of three year law schools (faculty, library, tenure/job security, etc.) be different if some enterprising schools (even colleges and universityies with no current law school? Amherst? Princeton? Oberlin? Reed?) now start a two year law school? Taught predominantly by adjuncts, perhaps, and at half the current tuition scale or less? Or maybe a five year combined B.A. and law degree.
g. is there yet some small number of lawyerly tasks for which two years are simply not enough, as a categorical matter?
These are really important questions. The overarching question is easy to state. Can we do a better job of sartisfying the many unmet legal needs with lawyers who are licensed after two years of law school, who graduate with less debt and who can, presumably, charge lower fees? Even if the answer is yes, as many now believe, the challenge is how to get there.