You are absolutely correct. It is a matter of fact for a jury to decide.

Make it a loser pays game where the plaintiff can be personally responsible, and I’m all in!

How do you know if you want a blind/mentally handicapped lawyer until you give them a shot? Just because mental acuity and capability would likely make for a successful lawyer/trial in your favor does not mean that you should shy away from those who are deficient does it?

Your mistake is assuming that law school has a whole lot to do with being an attorney. They taught me very little of what i use today, and the skills needed in class were very different.

The fact is you can’t judge this sort of thing unless you have all of the facts. Its that simple. disability prejudice exists, and schools and bar associations put up barriers that prevent otherwise qualified people from achieving their goals. but obviously lawsuit abuse exists, too. So you can’t know who is right or wrong without a much deeper evaluation.

Rather than saying we should want this school to “save us” from a potentially incompetant lawyer, why not make our own judgments about his competancy? Bar associations, for instance, have at times refused to put their tests into braille, that is how interfering they are. Shoudln’t we be the ones to decide whether we want a lawyer who is blind or not? Or in this case, learning disabled?

This may be a case of rather than us being overlawyered, we are overregulated.