Law School Legislation

Looks like there is legislation pending in California to transfer oversight of unaccredited and correspondence laws schools to the State Bar.

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_home.jsp

 

Probably a good idea

A very interesting article! Thanks for posting it!

I have seen no research on the question of whether graduates of unaccredited or correspondence schools get into trouble more often than graduates of CalBar or ABA schools. I doubt if they do, though; legal ethics isn't rocket surgery and there's a separate multi state exam (MPRE) on the subject.

I disagree with the gentleman to this extent, anyway: CalBar accreditation is not at all "rigorous" compared with ABA approval. Though, I suppose, it looks pretty demanding next to BPPVE standards...

There really isn't much excuse for allowing resident law schools to continue unaccredited year after year. At some point, you have to ask whether the school is taking the students' money knowing full well that they will never become lawyers.

CalBar accredited school students over all do much better than correspondence or unaccredited school students...but it would be a step backward to end correspondence study. Can you imagine shutting Concord down??

 

Re: Probably a good idea

I suspect you have some schools who bank on taking a year or two of tuition and the student dropping. Prospective students should do a little more homework before deciding to lay down a bunch of money at a school with little or no success in students passing the bar.

 

This again raises the question of admission standards. If there were a DL law school that required a bachelor's degree with a 3.5 GPA and a decent LSAT score, I wonder what their bar pass rate would be?

California only requires 60 credits of preprofessional training for would-be law students. Many DL and non-ABA schools accept any applicant with 60 credits, regardless of GPA, and do not require the LSAT.

As for the Baby Bar, remember that all the folks sitting for the General Bar Exam who are from non-ABA or CA accredited schools passed the Baby Bar. Perhaps pass rates would be even worse without it.

 

Doesn't Concord require a B.A?

David Boyd, owner (I guess?) of Taft, posted here some time ago that the most successful Taft students were those who qualified for admission through CLEP exams. The least successful tended to be transferees from other law schools. Anecdotal, to be sure, but interesting.

 

nosborne--

You are correct.

I just checked, and Concord requires a bachelor's with a "recommended" 3.0 GPA. http://www.concordlawschool.com/info/custom/concord/admissions/index.asp?GUID=BC7288EE82C445F99AC3D34F7B5D64ED922214657912603552
I wonder how long this has been their policy. When I was shopping for a school about 6 years ago, my recollection is that this was not the case.

At Taft, the other DETC accredited DL law school, persons with associate degrees may be considered as "special applicants."
http://www.taftu.edu/lw1.htm#Policies

This is an interesting trend. I visited the web sites of the DL schools listed on the Calbar roster, and found the following:

U of Honolulu requires a bachelor's. West Haven does too, but admits "special" students without.

The following require only 60 semester credits:
Northwestern
Newport
St. Francis
SCUPS
Lincoln
Oak Brook.

Esquire's site wasn'y working, and I couldn't find specific admission requirements for American Heritage.

Interesting aside: Laurel University, which sported essentially the same faculty as British-American, is no longer on the list.

 

The term, "special students" apparently has a technical meaning to the California Bar.

Every general Bar applicant (meaning a person who is not already a lawyer in another state or country) must satisfy the California Bar that he possesses the minimum pre legal education.

General applicants must possess a bachelor's degree, an "academic" associate's degree (A.A. or A.S. but not A.A.S.) or 60 semester hours of post secondary academic credit that is of a sort and quality that it would be creditable toward a bachelor's degree.

Applicants who don't meet these requirements can gain admission as "special" students on the basis of CLEP scores.

CalBar places a limit on the total number of "special" students a CalBar accredited school may accept, one third of the total students admitted. "Special" students at CalBar accredited schools must take the FYLEX even though "general" students are exempt.

I am not sure what the terms "general" and "special" mean in the context of unaccredited B&M and D/L schools since all of these students must take the FYLEX and I know of no rule limiting the number of "special" students these schools may accept.

But I seem to remember David Boyd saying that Taft had to give up accepting "special" students in order to qualify for DETC accreditation.

 

An a side note, I have considered doing a DL JD from a CA school.

I wonder, what are the traits that are most needed to do this?

To pass the CA Bar or any Bar for that matter; what skills do I need?

Who are the most successful personality and academically-wise?

After passing the CA Bar what are my career options out of state? I'm sure there aren't many options if I didn't live in CA.

Maybe nosborne or others will chime in.

 

prospects for D/L law study

From a strictly numbers standpoint, your chances of completing the first year, passing the FYLEX, completing the remaining three years, and passing the GBEX are tiny. Of course, that really doesn't say much about how YOU, YOURSELF would do.

Your state, Texas, will not allow you to become a Texas lawyer based on a correspondence J.D. degree. EVER. www.ble.state.tx.us

If you are unwilling to live and work in the Golden State for a few years, you will never practice state law anywhere. If you are willing to relocate, eventually you will accumulate three to five years of experience and twenty-odd states will welcome you to take their (our) Bar exams.

I have no personal experience with the employment prospects for D/L J.D.s I'd say that the degree is pretty worthless without passing the Bar. WITH Bar membership, however, I'd say you could reasonably expect to work in small to medium sized law firms, local and state government agencies, and public interest organizations. And, a law license being a law license, you could always go solo.

In fact, I'd speculate that your prospects wouldn't be much different from that of most ordinary law grads. The biggest difference would be that the federal government DOES seem to demand J.D.s from ABA approved schools.

The legal academy would be closed to you but damned few of us could get in, anyway so that's no big deal.

A handful of non-Californians seem to be offering certain limited legal services in connection with federal administrative matters such as IRS, immigration, Social Security, and the like. You might be able to work a practice limited to federal courts IF the local U.S. District Court doesn't require you to be a member of the local State Bar. (i.e. New Mexico DOES require this; Colorado does not.)

As to what sort of person you need to be to succeed, I don't really know. Driven, I suppose. And bright. cbkent, who posts here, has actually DONE it. Maybe he'll say something.

 

Thanks for answering, nosborne.

I noticed that some schools (like Taft)offer a non-Bar JD for careers only. In light of this, I was assuming that there was a need for this type of degree somewhere in the corporate world.

Does one need to live in CA to practice law in that state on a limited basis? In other words, can you be a part-timer of the state and do limited work from a foreign state office? I know this seems crazy...I just hapen to be one of those that like to look at every possiblity from every angle. Even if it is a little crazy.

Hmm...maybe I need to do a little research.

 

Why is it that legal practice in South Africa, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and a host of other Common Law Nations, can be accessed by distance learning, but not so in the States?

I also understand that in some States, in the United States, you can learn law by a process of apprenticeship with a practising lawyer. This is also available in common countries, although to a lesser degree than what it once was.

I was present in the Supreme Court of New South Wales and witnessed a U.S. lawyer admitted as a Solicitor, authorised to practice in that state of Australia. He completed his conversion to Australian law by distance ed. mode. No doubt one of the increasing number of US immigrants.

The question to my mind is not that law cannot be effectively learnt by distance learning ( because evidence from the home common law, England, suggests otherwise), but the quality of the school. The University of London has been providing lawyers to the Commonwealth by distance education since 1858. The quality of this university's education is beyond doubt.

There is also a huge market for non practicing lawyers. Business and government need executives competent in legal analysis, not necessarily as advocates in the court. Hopefully, if you get the legal analysis right, you will avoid the latter.


Legal education needs to be cost effective and accessible by busy people who cannot get to a "bricks and mortar" university. The alternative is to kick the family out, sell the house, leave the job and attend a bricks and mortar ABA school.

The California Senator is suggesting, if not implying, that distance learning produces inferior lawyers. I don't think most of the Common Law Countries agree with him. Surely, the focus should not be on removal of distance learning law courses, but on making the schools more accountable for their product. The same ethical or competency failure has not been demonstrated in other Common Law Countries. The issue is the quality of the school, not the mode of instruction.

 

skidadl--

Distance law study for bar qualification is an arduous process. A student should plan on spending at least 20 hours per week studying.

The key to success is self-discipline. It is easy to fall behind, and make promises to yourself that you will catch up. If you need others to motivate you, the prognosis is poor.

Unless you plan to practice in California, I strongly advise would-be lawyers to get an ABA approved JD if at all possible. Check out state schools with part time programs.

With a DL JD and bar admission in CA, you have limited options. Wisconsin will let you sit for their bar exam with no practice experience. As nosborne said, after 3 to 5 yars of practice in CA, some states will allow you to apply for admission.

Some DL grads have gone on to practice federal law in some jurisdictions. This is tricky at best. What is tolerated in some states is prohibited in others. Regardless, one must be ever cautious of not crossing a line and advising on matters of state law.

A few states, such as NJ, provide for limited licensure as in-house corporate counsel if you are admitted in another jurisdiction. Of course, you can't "hang a shingle" and accept clirents; you can only work for your corporate employer.

As for the utility of a non-bar JD in the business world, I do not know.

Whatever your decision, best wishes.

Christopher

 

No, it is NOT correct to say that one can qualify as a barrister or solicitor in the UK entirely through distance learning. This point is often made as an argument against the US model but the comparison is invalid.

You CAN earn a "qualifying LL.B." by D/L but then you must complete either the Legal Practice Course (for solicitors) or the Bar Vocational Course (for barristers), each lasting an academic year and neither (to my knowledge) available via D/L.

Even then, the fledgling solicitor must "article" for two years in a law office and the would be barrister must work as a "pupil" under a junior barrister for a year to eighteen months before receiving a practice certificate allowing independent practice. These things (obviously) cannot be done via D/L.

California is the ONLY common law jurisdiction that I know of that makes it possible to complete ALL of the requirements for admission to the Bar via D/L.

 

Well, and Wisconsin, too, I guess, if you are willing to take the California Bar exam first...

Talk about doing it the HARD way!

 

In my opinion, every state bar in the union should gladly welcome anyone bright enough to pass the Cal bar.

And you're right, Osborne, that's taking the tough way to be sure. I think an aspiring Wiscionsin lawyer would be better advised to just buck up and find a way to attend law school and go into debt rather than try to do the thing by DL from a Cal-only, then take that blasted bar out there. Sheesh, you might take more than 3 years of bar studies to just pass the thing--you might never pass it. And it's not like it'd be a lot of fun to study for the bar while working full time. I really can't imagine it could be done for the Cal bar unless you had the brains of O.W. Holmes or Cardozo (or, of course, Scalia).

For just the little 'ol Arizona bar (at the time about a 70% first-time pass rate, much higher than Cal), I studied about 12-14 hours per day for a solid month. Even after three straight years of full time B&M law school, when I first looked at what we'd be expected to know, I though "How am I gonna pass? This is like taking every test from the first 18 months of law school over again, all at once, at the same level of detail!" The most stressful two days of my life, like going to the principal's office every half hour for two days straight. The twisting in the stomach, the dripping under the armpits, the utter collapse at the end. And then, a month or so later, that letter arrives with the "State Board of Law Examiners" in the upper left corner, and I was back at the principal's office again. I passed just fine, but then the real trouble. I had to find a job!

 

Thanks, little fauss, you officially scared the sheet out of me.

 

Here is some links about distance learning legal practice courses. Admittedly,some require short residency of about a month. The completion of the course allows admission to practice law as a solicitor.

The point being made in the earlier post was that the legal education component in England and Common Law countries can be completed by distance education. The LLB or Juris Doctor is the pre requisite education to be allowed to enter the professional phase of training.

The professional phase of training in the US appears to me to be the Bar Exams. Elsewhere, it is the Legal Practice Course, articles or pupillage. In Australia, the articles situation has almost been eliminated.

The failure to successfully meet the professional component of legal education by graduates relates to the quality of the institutions, rather than the distance learning mode. Surely, you don't throw the baby out with the bath water.



http://www.dmu.ac.uk/Subjects/Db/coursePage2.php?courseID=2775

http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/articles/DA/0C0267DA.asp?Type=55&Category=850

http://www.ipls.org.nz/courses/professionals-online.htm

http://www.collaw.ac.nz/documents/2006%20Courses.pdf

 

Yes, but whilst it's not possible to qualify entirely by distance learning, it is possible (as Ebbwvale has mentioned already) to do a qualifying law degree entirely by DL (and has been for over a century) and one of the most highly regarded providers of the LPC and the BVC now provides combined DL/on-site tuition that means one only has to do face-to-face once a month. http://www.bpp.com/law/left_menu/Ft_pt_dist_pages/distance_learning.htm

Compared to the monumental hurdles that the ABA puts in front of the potential DL law student, the UK system is a miracle of accessibilty by comparison!

Angela

 

We've had this conversation before.

The American J.D. is NOT the equivalent of an LL.B. from (near as I can tell) any other common law jurisdiction. Canada comes closest, though.

The J.D. is awarded after all academic and professional training is completed. Nothing remains but the Bar exam. Not even the London LL.B. comes even close to this. Indeed, in the U.K., a would-be solicitor still has THREE YEARS of training; the fledgling barrister has a minimum of TWO YEARS of training after completing their degrees. Now, an American J.D. represents three years of education and training after the B.A.

I repeat; the only common law jurisdiction (that I know of) that permits attorny training to be completed entirely by D/L is California.

 

Not the equivalent?

Nosborne,

Just out of curiousity, do you truly believe that the DEGREES themselves (and education received) are not the equivalent, or are you merely stating that the systems of legal education are different?

From a first glance I have to argue that the degrees themselves are equivalent for several different reasons:

1.) Both are first professional degrees in law.

2.) Both take the same time to complete (three years of full time study).

3.) Both seem to study many of the EXACT same subjects and differ with courses on their respective legal systems.

I am aware that many American law schools will admit graduates of a British LL.B. program into LL.M. programs when entrance requirements explicitly state that a J.D. or its equivalent is required for admission.

From my perspective, it seems that just because entrance requirements and/or paths to licensure may be different, the degrees themselves could possibly be considered equivalent.

For example, my wife is an architect from Brazil. She graduated from an accredited Bachelor of Architecture program in that country and subsequently became a registered architect there upon payment of fees to the licensing authority of that country.

Since her foreign license was no good to her here, we llooked into requirements needed to obtain licensure for her in our state. We found out that these requirements were much different from those of Brazil. In most U.S. jurisdictions an architect needs a period of internship of three years and passage of a series of nine ARE (Architectural Registration Exams) examinations in order to become licensed. Before she was eligible to take the examinations, we had to have her degree evaluated on whether or not it was considered equivalent to that of an American Bachelor of Architecture (which it was found to be even though the two systems of licensure were different).

It is obvious that our system of legal education is different from that of other common law jurisdictions, however, I am not convinced yet that the formal degrees are not equivalent. The J.D. is a postgraduate and British LL.B. an undergraduate degree, but I am not convinced yet that the education received in each program is substantially different. Would your opinion be different if the entrance requirements of the LL.B. program included a bachelor's degree?

I was just wondering what your thoughts were on this.