DL Law/Non-Bar Utility

Given that a person has an interest in law but is not sure about practicing law, is a DL non-bar JD useful?

For instance: I have an MBA and almost a PhD in Business. Assuming I finish my PhD in 2005, I have 3 years to finish an executive (or non-bar) JD prior to retirement from the Army.

Assuming that I want to seek employment in the academic or business world, will that degree increase the chances of being hired or will my resume' be closely scrutinized due to the JD being non-ABA? Will the employer know the difference? or care?

To further the discussion, will a DETC accredidation help? Is the price increase justified (DETC vs non-DETC)?

I've seen many threads discussing the utility of a California Bar JD, but few about the non-bar opportunities. Are any of you thinking about taking this route (non-bar)? Have any of you finished your JD and decided that you didn't want to practice and wish that you didn't have to pay so much for school?

Thanks,
Gary

 

I have shot off many jets of high pressure steam on this subject. I won't subject the board to my views again EXCEPT (wink) to say that a non Bar qualifying J.D. is no J.D. at all. Claiming to have a "law degree" on the strength of a non Bar J.D. could be viewed as misleading.

 

What he said.

 

So the utility of a non-bar or "executive" JD is practically non-existant. I can only think that it would be useful for somebody who simply wants to learn about the law but does not plan to use the degree for anything else.

Thanks for your candor.
Gary

 

Yes, but if you're going to go to att that trouble, why not do the rest and get a Bar qualifying degree?

Actually, David Boyd posts here fairly frequently. He runs Taft University. In one thread, I was grousing as per usual but he pointed out that there are TWO good reasons for his school to at least offer the non Bar J.D.:

1. Since you don't qualify for a new profession, the costs may be deductible from income tax; and

2. Since you don't qualify for a new profession, major corporations are more likely to be willing to pay their employees' tuition.

But neither reason is sufficient to GET such a degree, IMHO.

 

I have to disagree with my fellow posters this time. It has been stated on this very forum, and I agree, the law is a subject worthy of study in its own right and for the sake of enrichment. I think understanding law, or the legal system of various nations, its foundations, process, creation, development, implementation and impact, is indeed a worthy pursuit. Furthermore, a strong understanding of law can be quite useful in life and business. It can help guide decisions based on a broader perspective. It can alleviate misunderstanding when developing administrative policy, and it can accentuate other professional areas, such as business ventures, or assessing risk, or feasibility studies.

If I remember previous posts correctly, others have wisely stated that a person may study law quite cheaply without enrolling in a non-bar JD program, and garner many of the same benefits. While this is very true, there are additional benefits a non-bar JD program provides, that unsupervised independent study does not. A non-bar JD program provides a guidance and support system. Often unguided or unsupervised independent study can leaves gaps in our education, that we, from an inside perspective may not be aware exist. Yet, someone trained and practicing in the field we now study would more than likely see those areas of weakness and provide much needed critique and direction to fill in those gaps.

Additionally a non-bar JD program, while not of equal utility to a bar qualifying JD, would serve (IMO) as attestation to a certain amount of study and knowledge that might prove valuable in enhancing an individual’s professional pursuits. A person would not be able to give legal advice, or practice law, but it might show prospective employers that the holder has additional knowledge and insights that other job applicants simply can’t bring to the table. I myself, many years ago, took and completed an accredited and ACE evaluated paralegal program for very similar reasons. I have not worked as a paralegal, but I’d like to believe it has enhanced other professional pursuits and made me a more well-rounded person. Hence, a US non-bar qualifying JD has value and utility in my opinion. I feel it is more of a very advanced certificate or diploma than a professional degree in some aspects, since the JD is traditionally intended to be a first professional-practice qualifying credential, but it does have value.

Now in agreement with others on this forum, the utility of such a credential is quite limited when compared with bar-qualifying JDs, or even more so when compared with ABA accredited JDs. If there is even the slightest chance an individual might one day want to practice law professionally, then a non-bar JD program, to me, seems like quite a bit of work to undertake, only to be faced with the prospect of having to start from ground zero.

As a last note: I concede that many here have far more experience and knowledge in the law and law programs, and are simply trying to dissuade others from enrolling in a program that might not suit their future interests or needs. Yet there must be a few who have no intention of ever practicing law, and could use the guidance and support that such programs must surely have. I personally would sooner enroll in a bar-qualifying program, since I'd rather do the extra year and take the baby-bar and later bar exam, and become licensed. However, there must be people that a non-bar program would benefit.

 

intro2life,

All the things you say are true enough. What I don't like, though, is that a non Bar J.D. has MUCH lower requirements than a Bar J.D. has.

Claiming to hold a J.D. is, I feel, to claim that one has completed law school. Law school is a professional program to train and equip lawyers for practice; that's what the J.D. MEANS.

A non bar J.D. holder hasn't completed any such program. Claiming to be a law school graduate under these circumstances strikes me as being more than a bit shady.

I really wish the non Bar J.D. schools (all of which are California correspondence schools, BTW) would rename their degree. Call it a Doctor of Professional Studies in Law or something.

 

I would certainly agree with the statement that "the law is a subject worthy of study in its own right and for the sake of enrichment."

But, I would have to agree with Nosborne that "a non Bar qualifying J.D. is no J.D. at all."

If you want to study law, great. If you desire an "attestation to a certain amount of study and knowledge that might prove valuable in enhancing an individual’s professional pursuits", also great. Just don't call it a JD. Call it a Masters in Legal Studies or such.

What would be the response if I indicated that I thought medicine was "a subject worthy of study in its own right and for the sake of enrichment." But I have no desire to ever practice medicine or become licensed medical practitioner in any way.

I undertake a course of study with subjects relevant to, and included within, a traditional MD program.

I also desire an "attestation to a certain amount of study and knowledge that might prove valuable in enhancing an individual’s professional pursuits."

Should a university be authorized to award me a "non-licensure" MD degree? Or should they award me a MS in medical studies.

The degree designations JD and MD, IMHO, would be too easy to potntially exploit by those individuals who have no intention to become licensed in their respective fields.

Study law and medicine if you want, and get the recognition of those studies. Just don't call it a JD or an MD.

Just my 2 cents.

 

Doctor of Professional Studies in Law, not a bad idea.

Osborne,

I agree with you on the proposal of renaming the non-bar qualifying JD. While I wouldn’t personally categorize it as “shady”, I do think the title “JD” can be, when associated with non-bar qualifying law study, misunderstood to a certain extent. Prior to my own familiarization with distance education programs, I (as I’m sure many must also) assumed that holders of a JD were all bar qualified attorneys. I agree with you that a change of title would more accurately represent the purpose of such credentials, and eliminate much misunderstanding.

Another thing I believe would be an excellent idea to distinguish non-bar qualifying distance and correspondence programs, which might add to their utility and value, would be to include a research requirement such as a thesis or mini-dissertation. Although I know that there already are research doctorates in the field of law, I think combining parts of the American professional JD, with aspects of a research credential would benefit the holder, and increase credibility of the credential. Also it would be in keeping with the purposes for undertaking the proposed “Doctor of Professional Studies in Law (DPSL)” program.

 

I know of a person in the NYC/Boston area who has a JD from an ABA law school (Ivy League) but he just never took the Bar exam. He runs a PR business which (in his case) means that he runs election campaigns for people seeking political offices in various places around the country. He is a rather famous person who appears on TV/radio news shows and makes more money in a year than I'll likely make in ten. Does his success depend on his degree? At this point the answer is clearly, "No." At one point, however, his JD was a prominent feature of his resume (I'm guessing) and contributed to his initial successes.
Having said all that, I can say without hesitation that I would never attend a law school that did not allow me to take the Bar.
Jack

 

Penguin,

I agree with your synopsis to a point. However, I don’t think your analogy pooling first professional degrees in law and medicine, to be valid in the respect that it would be similar to comparing apples and oranges. While both the MD and JD are first professional degree programs intended to lead to licensure exams, eventually professional practice, and both rigorous, that is where most of the commonality ends.

Law has a direct relation and bearing to most professional endeavors. Whether it is business, teaching, nursing or nearly any other field, law plays a role in some aspect of it. Therefore the study of law, especially in direct relation to one’s own profession, has a purpose, and a strong argument can be made for its value. Thus, a non-bar JD, or other law related degree, is pertinent outside the actual practice of law as a profession. While medicine, unless one is in a medically related field already, or intends to be a medical researcher, has no direct relation or bearing on most other fields. Because of this, I can see no purpose other than personal enrichment to undertake a hypothetical “non-licensure MD”.

I agree that the degree title should reflect its nature and purpose. I too think the non-bar JD title should be change. My only contention is the comparison between the MD and JD you've used in your analogy.

 

I have thought about a DL law degree but I think explaining it is not ABA approved so I can only sit for the Bar in CA would be like explaining - Yes I was arrested once but it was really a misunderstanding. No matter what, it will make people doubt your JD and probably just steer clear of you.

In the movie Two Weeks Notice, there is a scene when someone says, "Have you ever heard of On-line Law School?" and it was meant as a joke.

For everyone that thinks a non-bar or non-ABA law school is a bad idea, would an MS in Law be a better choice? It would allow the student to lean about the law and never need to explain why they are not able to sit for the Bar in almost every state.

 

nosborne:

One of the schools where I teach business law, Friends University in Wichita, has a Master of Studies in Business Law degree. http://www.friends.edu/academics/GradSchool/msbl.asp It's exactly what you describe.

I'm unsure of its value or use in the marketplace--as I am of non-Bar JDs--but it exists nonetheless (perhaps to give paralegals an additional qualification or to act as a bridge to law school and a bolster to the credentials of those seeking to gain admission, much like the graduate certificate and MLA programs that give those striving for med school the science, chemistry and biology courses they need).

 

SCUPS (of all entities) used to offer a whole slew of master of science degrees in law. They got rid of them at the same time they dumped their LL.M. in taxation and their psychology doctorates. Now, I guess, the psych degrees are back but the various law degrees seem gone for good.

Alas for the passing of all good things!

 

SCUPS MSL lives!

No, by heaven, I just checked! The M.S.L. program lives! You can earn an M.S.L. in Legal Studies in either criminal justice or dispute resolution. No first degree in law is required.

 

Actually this program can have significant benefit to government acquisition professionals, especially if the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) were taught as a part of the curriculum. Some other universities are capitalizing on the acquisition area and the requirements for continued training. Any chance tht it will be a DL offering or did I miss that area?

Regards,

 

I think that a Masters degree program in Law could be a great advantage for many people. There are numerous applications. Business people might like it, people involved in Ethics work (business, medical, etc.) My own interest in such things as Human Rights or Intellectual Property would be enhanced. I'll never need to litigate anything and hope to stay out of courtrooms so I don't need a degree that allows me to sit the Bar. I'd be interested in learning about such programs, if they exist (I'm not so interested in SCUPS as an institution).
Jack

 

I don't believe they have any plans for DL in this program in the future. I'm just an adjunct, though, so they don't tell me any more than I need to know, so it might be a possibility. I'll raise the issue at the next in-service faculty meeting that I attend in about 6 weeks. They do offer degree completion programs and the like for UNDERgraduates, but they're offered similar to UoP and the like, with cohorts at satellite locations--confined, however, to Kansas, mainly at CC campuses.

 

I found an interesting masters program (100% online, but $327 per hour):

http://www.cup.edu/graduate/legal/

California University of Pennsylvania is accredited by the Middle States Association.

Curriculum (3 hours each):

Core Courses: Twelve (12) semester hours
LAW 600-Law and Public Policy
LAW 601-Law and Ethics
LAW 602-Law, Civil Liberties and the Constitution
LAW 603-Law and Legal Method

Law and Public Policy Electives: 24 or 25 hours
LAW 605-Law and Police Process
LAW 606-Law, Punishment and Corrections
LAW 607-Law and Criminal Conduct
LAW 608-Law and Civil Litigation
LAW 609-Law, Culture and Society
LAW 610-Law, Justice and the Family
LAW 700-Law and the International Community
LAW 701-Law and Administrative Agencies
LAW 702-Law, Science and Forensic Applications
LAW 703-Law and the Environment
LAW 704-Law, Business and the Workplace
LAW 730-Independent Study in Law and Public Policy
RES 849-Thesis

 

The Cal-Penn program is superb.