motivation to pursue a DL JD?

What motivates people to continuously study four full years for the distance learning JDs?

Just wondering. It seems like a huge commitment for the sake of the learning opportunity, since there are limited opportunities to practice.

If it isn't a corporate legal job that motivates (that can't be it because they all want ABA JDs) then is it the improvement in job knowledge? And what job that would benefit from such knowledge is worth sacrificing four years of time for a marginally accepted JD degree?

If a person is that motivated to complete such an arduous task, why wouldn't they just complete an ABA degree and shell out the cash or get the loans?

 

Well, if you were a Californian, looking to change careers, and you didn't want to give up your current job and its income, a DL law program is a reasonable path to becoming an attorney. Some people may not have part-time law programs available to them, and are willing to accept the reduced utility of a DL JD to meet their goals.

Outside of California, I'm not so sure - there are those who push the Univeristy of London LLB - US ABA LLM path to the bar, but it seems to me that that's a really long way to go to become an attorney, and the LLM has to be done on-campus anyway. If you didn't already have a US undergrad degree, the LLB-LLM path might make sense for you, I suppose.

Then, of course, people might sincerely be learning for learning's sake. It's not too far out of the realm of possibility.

 

Before I went to seminary, I had my sights set on a dual JD/MBA program since I wanted both degrees and doors of opportunity and usefulness that the knowledge garnered from such study would've afforded. I will soon be doing the MBA. If I felt more comfy with a DL JD program, I'd do that in a heartbeat because I love the study of law. But the limitations on a DL JD are not worth the time and money invested. For fun....maybe someday after I finish my theology Ph.D. for the fun of it....but I digress.....

Your last question for me is answered in the fact that, though I could attend an ABA law school just minutes from my house, I would likely have to quit my job so that I can start all over again in 3 years salary-wise and job-wise. Nevermind also that I'd have to spend more time in a classroom, traveling to the classroom, and doing other things that take away from my spiritual life, family life, etc.

Believe me, if the limitations were not as stringent upon DL JDs, I'd do one tomorrow. I just don't have the time and money to study law full-time, even DL, unless I am persuaded the returns would be worth the effort.

 

Be converted into an Advocatus, and what is more, be part of the Togati.

 

A few years ago, I would have recommended against earning a Bar qualifying J.D. by correspondence unless the student was ready, willing and able to live and practice in California for at least five years after passing the Bar exam AND the student had absolutely NO other choice.

No longer. The student still needs to be committed to California because that is the key to using his D/L degree in twenty odd other states, but given that, it seems to me that any law student interested in a public interest career should give careful consideration to the D/L option. The reason is cost.

In California, the average tuition for an accredited ABA degree totals more than $75,000, and sometimes MUCH more. Even obtaining a J.D. from the cash strapped UC school system will run to $60,000 or so as well as requiring daytime, full time attendence and loss of wages.

It is very hard for a new lawyer to service that kind of debt on the sort of salary he can expect as a public defender, legal services lawyer, or beginning prosecutor or assistant attorney general. And he'll pay off those loans over DECADES.

There are loan forgiveness programs out there but they don't cover the bulk of the debt.

If I were a young Californian and wanted to be a lawyer, I'd think first of the CalBar accredited, non ABA, resident, part time programs. However, a D/L degree from, say, Taft or NWCU would run a fairly close second. There are even a couple of unaccredited programs that I'd look into before I'd hock my soul for an ABA degree.

 

Ah, yes, the money motivator.

Amazing how much money is necessary for such a crapshoot career.

I do find the law very interesting. Could I devote four full years? I'm not sure. That is a major commitment.

I'm still unsure of what the return on such an investment of time would be.

 

What I should have said was "I'm not sure what the motivation would be other than the thrill of learning a craft and being able to apply it to daily life."

The question is, is four full years of study worth that kind of fulfillment.

Perhaps only the individual knows.

I'd be interested in hearing about people who used the JD after the four years of distance study.

 

Law actually isn't a "crapshoot career" unless the student goes into it hoping to make a lot of money. There's plenty of work even in California for ordinary lawyers...if the lawyer is willing to relocate, there are state and even a few federal positions that pay a reasonable living for a reasonable amount of work.

But if money IS the object, DON'T GO INTO LAW! A few lawyers become millionaires, but most of us make a decent living doing interesting work. There are few genuinely starving lawyers and for the most part, these are folks who would have done better in a different field.

 

I meant "crapshoot" in the sense that if you spend $80,000 for the JD you are gambling that you'll be able to pay it back in a reasonable time frame.

I think law can be an admirable career.

If I were a lawyer I would want to help people, possibly family law or public defender.

Does the government hire DL lawyers? If so, this might be an interesting way to prepare for a career that might be good for me when I get past 40 years old.

 

By that definition, you're correct. It IS a "crapshoot".

The federal government seems to demand ABA degrees but I know from various friends and acquaintences that the State of California and the State of New Mexico consider the law license to be the main thing. Again, it depends on whether the lawyer is willing to at least start out in less desirable locales.

If your motivation is as you describe, you will find that there's work available and that you would find it personally very rewarding!

 

Hmmm.

All other things equal: is it worth it to pay the extra tuition dollars for the DETC JD, or no?

I see there is West Coast School of Law that is very cheap, compared to Taft.

Would the DETC JD mean more likely admission to an RA LLM?

 

I think the answer may end up being "yes, DETC accreditation is worth the extra money".

Here's why: More and more states are trying to place restrictions on people using unaccredited degrees. DETC accreditation is an "end run" around these statutes; the degree is nationally accredited and therefore legal to use in all states, even if it isn't accepted for licensure.

As to gaining entry to an LL.M. program; I think you will find that admission to the Bar is more important than DETC accreditation. Many programs SAY that they require an ABA J.D. but if you produce a law license and a few years' practice experience, I bet some of those schools would bend the rules a bit. Law schools can be more flexible with their LL.M. admissions than with their J.D. requirements because the ABA doesn't prescribe standards for post-J.D. degree programs.

 

Would earning the UoL law degree by DL mean you are eligible to practice law in the UK? or is there a bar there as well?

 

Not just a bar, but a law society for solicitors as well. In theory, solicitors now have the right to plead before the higher courts, but in practice most people still leave that to barristers.

Actually, I think nosborne would only need a couple of courses on top of his US JD (mainly the EU law module) to be eligible to apply for either the bar vocational course or the legal practice course. His UoL LLM wil not qualify him to take either the BVC or the LPC, as it doesn't cover the seven core courses required for entry to either course.

Angela

 

I would have to take or test out of three modules according to the Law Society. My LL.M. has not the slightest effect on this.

In answer to the question about the LL.B., no, there isn't a Bar exam in England any more; the LL.B. holder must instead complete a two semester professional course offered either by the Bar or the Law Society then complete a two year period of apprenticeship (articles) with a solicitor or twelve to eighteen months of "pupilage" with a barrister.

These post graduate requirements are the biggest reason that I maintain that the U.K. LL.B. is not the equivalent of the U.S. J.D.

The London D/L LL.B. is a qualifying law degree for professional training.