In a recent opinion piece in *The Washington Post*, NYU adjunct professor Max Raskin critiqued the bar exam as a cartel-like gatekeeper that inflates prices and excludes potential legal talent. His views highlight a growing debate about the necessity and fairness of traditional legal licensing exams. But the conversation takes an unexpected turn when Kim Kardashian becomes the focal point of the argument, not as a victim of the system but rather as its best justification.

Raskin argues that the bar exam does more than just test legal knowledge; it filters out those who haven’t demonstrated a certain level of dedication and capability through traditional academic pathways. This perspective gains complexity when considering celebrities like Kardashian, who, despite her vast resources and public influence, has struggled with the bar exam. This struggle underscores a key point: if someone with her advantages finds the exam challenging, perhaps it does serve a critical vetting function.

Moreover, Kardashian's endeavor into law, primarily through "reading the law" — a practice rooted in historical precedents where apprenticeships were common — revives discussions about alternative legal education routes. However, the public's mixed reactions to her legal pursuits suggest that traditional barriers like the bar exam might still have a role in maintaining professional standards and public trust.

The debate extends beyond individual cases, touching on broader systemic issues. Critics of the bar exam argue it’s antiquated, overly broad, and not reflective of the specialized skills needed in today's legal environment. They point to innovative licensing models, like those in Wisconsin and Utah, which combine diploma privileges with practical assessments, as more aligned with modern legal practice. These models suggest that rigorous law school curricula followed by monitored practice could replace traditional exams, ensuring competency without unnecessary gatekeeping.

Further complicating the landscape is the rise of artificial intelligence in legal services. AI's growing capability to perform tasks traditionally reserved for human associates poses new questions about the nature of legal expertise and the true requirements for competent practice. This technological shift could make traditional exams even less relevant, pushing the legal profession towards more dynamic and adaptive licensing models.

In conclusion, while Kardashian’s journey might not represent every aspiring lawyer’s struggles, her high-profile case highlights significant issues within our current legal licensing framework. It prompts a reevaluation of what constitutes competence and how best to measure it in a profession that is rapidly evolving. The ongoing debate suggests a shift towards more practical, tailored, and technologically integrated approaches could better serve the legal profession and the public alike.