In an editorial in today's issue, the Times is recommending that the state give law school graduates "provisional licenses" that will enable them to practice law until they pass the bar exam in October or whenever it is safe to conduct one.

What? Is the Times's really advocating that the state let incompetent and unethical lawyers represent the public?

Shocking! What is the world coming to? After all, isn't that what licensure is supposed to do — weed out the incompetent and unethical lawyers? Well, I've got one question to licensure advocates: How is that working out for you? Because the way I see it, despite the rigorous bar exam in California that has long prevented many law school graduates from practicing law, there are still plenty of incompetent and unethical lawyers representing people. And now the Times wants that number expanded — well, at least for several months.

I've got a better idea. Let's abolish state licensure for lawyers entirely, along with that idiotic bar exam.

The fact is that lawyer licensure is nothing more than a protection racket, one designed to limit the number of lawyers in order to keep lawyer incomes higher than they otherwise would be. Licensure is akin to the guilds of the Middle Ages, where entry into certain trades was highly restricted in order to keep incomes of the guild members artificially high.

Licensure is just a way to use the coercive apparatus of the state as a way to reduce competition. In principle, it is akin to a monopoly.