Would allowing non-JD degree holders to take the bar help?

Yes, but the legal profession has incredible sway and power, so that won't happen.

It would absolutely be possible for someone to specialize in just a single specific kind of law, become very knowledgeable about it, and make normal skilled professional money in the $25 to $75 per hour range. This is prohibited by regulation and licensing which amounts to a huge windfall for the legal profession.

But it's unlikely to change, because the last thing any legislator wants is to be on unfavorable terms with the legal profession.

The thing you're talking about is actually done already by embedding non-lawyers in legal groups or having non-lawyers on payroll at law firms.

Depends on how you define "help". The reason there are so many unemployed JDs is that there are too many lawyers, and allowing people who didn't go to law school to take bar exams would make that problem even worse.

On the other hand, if people could become lawyers without taking on $100,000 in not-dischargeable-under-any-circumstances debt, they would be able to make a living at a much more reasonable salary than is currently necessary, which would allow the market for legal services to start correcting itself.

What really needs to happen is that the bar pass rate needs to be lowered significantly in markets that are over-saturated (pretty much any big city). It should probably even be lowered to zero (ie stop offering the bar exam) for a couple of years in states like New York.

Somehow I think you'd get into a pretty big fight with the New York law schools. Not to mention how much it would suck to have taken on $100,000 in not-dischargeable-under-any-circumstances debt and then not be able to get a job because you aren't allowed to take the bar. How would this help anything?

High barrier to entry and costs are part of the cause of the problem: If more people were allowed to qualify to practice, lowering rates and expanding the search for a better business model, the legal industry would be more flexible, cheaper, and accessible for the public.

That's a good point. In law school, a whole year was spent taking classes on subjects I would never use, like criminal and family law.

Maybe they should break down the legal education to allow a degree in a certain topic and limit the law license to that.

Or, allow certifications in certain topics that non-lawyers could receive, like divorce.

Something like this is already established practice. In some states you need a lawyer involved with every real estate transaction, because it's considered "practicing law."

In some other states, like Colorado, a lawyer does not have to be involved in a real estate transaction. In these states real estate agents have been granted the right to practice this very limited segment of law. They don't take the bar, they just go through real estate school (easy and minimal), take a test (easy), and keep up minimal continuing education.

So that's a very narrow slice of law, practiced by non-lawyer specialists.

In these states you can, if you want, still involve a lawyer, and in some cases it's probably a really good idea. In most suburban lot/block transactions it's probably not necessary, but IANAL.