From George Leef of the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy comes common ground — sort of — between George, a libertarian, and President Obama, a Leftist.

In some instances, people who haven’t been to law school have successfully handled real cases. What must surely be the ultimate in that regard is Samuel Sloan’s successful argument before the United States Supreme Court in his own stock trading case back in 1978, noted here. As of 2010, the Supreme Court only allows licensed attorneys to argue cases, but what we learn from Sloan and Abnegale is that having gone to law school is not a necessary condition for learning a lot about the law.

All of that is pertinent to an idea that President Obama recently advanced—that law school might be shortened from three years to two. The president argued that two years of classroom study are sufficient and that for the third year students “would be better off clerking or practicing in a firm even if they weren’t getting paid that much, but that step alone would reduce the costs for the student.”

All right, but if there is nothing sacred in three years of full-time study, why stop at whittling off just one year? Could law school teach future attorneys what they need to know in less than two years? And what about the possibility of allowing people to study on their own, without ever setting foot in a law school?

To find out more of George’s view, read the entire piece here.