Distance Learning Law Schools

True but the incidental expenses of a D/L J.D. and Bar admission are trivial next to the $140,000 in tuition a UC law school now charges for resident students.

 

Yes, and 95% of that money came to the school through the federal student loan program.

We taxpayers are potentially on the hook for it.

Grrr.

 

[ No wonder they could afford to rent the entire National Air and Space Museum for an evening for the annual Deans' reception![/QUOTE]

Wow. Just wow.

 

The Stafford loan program is profitable for the U.S. Government, so much so that advocates like Senator Warren are suggesting a re-fi option to lower rates.

Very few people fully default on Stafford loans, also. They're not generally dischargeable in bankruptcy proceedings, and collections are aggressive. You pretty much have to die to get out of paying it back. The bottom line: taxpayers make out just fine.

 

The taxpayers make out just fine SO FAR.

The J.S.D. Degree is rare for a reason. Foreign trained lawyers who wish to teach law in the United States or their home countries will find the degree useful. But U.S. trained lawyers will find that there is very little call for the doctorate, either inside academia or outside. So well established is this peculiar pattern that a large proportion of the few U.S. law schools who offer the degree restrict admission to foreign trained lawyers, or at least, did before the funding crisis following the Crash.

I'm not sure what the current situation is at Stanford, for instance, but at one time that school restricted not only its J.S.D. to foreign lawyers but its LL.M. (J.S.M.) Programs as well. To Stanford Law, I guess, a Stanford J.D. is all the law degree anyone should ever need for any purpose whatsoever. Being that it IS Stanford, they're probably right about that.

Yale Law likewise doesn't think U.S. lawyers should get their J.S.D. But Yale now offers a Ph.D. in Law to U.S. applicants which is, incredibly, FULLY FUNDED.

I am intrigued by Arizona University's fairly recent addition of the J.S.D. to its graduate offerings. They offer it to anyone in two fields, Tribal Law and International Trade. I have no idea how many U.S. lawyers apply.

 

A very quick glance at their faculty revealed only 1 (ONE) S.J.D credentialed Professor. That particular individual is a retired Military Judge who completed her LLM at the JAG School in Charlottesville.

 

Off-topic but I wanted to respond to it. Your comment is true but it is misleading. The only reason that the loan program is profitable is because historically loans to graduate students have subsidized loans to undergraduates. The undergraduate loan program has always lost money but the losses there have been offset by substantial profits in the graduate student loan portfolio.

Student loan profits: The government makes its money off grad students.

However, recent trends in college education mean that this historical experience comes with a big asterisk that past performance is no guarantee of future performance. The law is not the only program where professional education is not producing the return it once was. Medicine is also struggling. Meanwhile, more and more people are attempting undergraduate education. In my view the Slate chart is inaccurately reassuring--it's painting the rosy scenario.

My own view is that unless the economy can reestablish itself oe a long-term course of success the nation's student loan portfolio is almost certainly going to need a taxpayer funded bailout. Increasing losses at the undergraduate level and shrinking profitability in the graduate portfolio is what is going to happen.

 

Question for our attorneys on the board. If someone is licensed to practice law in California and they live in another state can they represent a California company or non profit organization on line (in house counsel)? I know they cannot offer legal advice in the state they live in or risk running afoul of the law regarding the unlicensed practice of law.

I am just wondering with all of the online opportunity and potential these days whether that is possible.

 

I thought lawyers licensed in any State or Territory could practice law in any Federal Court, IRS tax law and FAA administrative law (Represent pilots), military,etc?

 

That is a different jurisdictional issue. My understanding as well is that you can practice law in certain federal settings (eg Federal Court where you were recommended by another practicing attorney, or Patent Attorney if you have a engineering type degree as well). I think another is immigration lawyer (but you would have to stick to strictly immigration issues (could not do up a prenup for them as well).

My question has more to do with being a CA licensed attorney and living in another state. I know you likely could not practice law in that other state without being licensed. However, could you live in the other state and represent a CA organization (company, etc) as some sort of in house counsel. It would seem with modern technology it would open up a lot of possibilities.

 

It sounds as if one needs to pass the bar for the State they will be practicing in. I wonder if there are temporary permits for out of state lawyers to do their thing?

 

If you were licensed to practice law (or some other profession) in California, you could legally work from some other state where you were not licensed, as long as you limited your practice to California issues. You could also work on issues involving Federal (rather than state) law, like patents, immigration, IRS, etc.

But -- in this (unusual) situation, you would probably be required to put some kind of disclosure on your business cards and other marketing materials. For example, suppose you were a California-licensed attorney with a Nevada address on your business cards, letterhead, etc. In that case, Nevada would likely require those materials to explicitly disclose that you are not licensed to practice law in Nevada, despite the Nevada address.

The logic here would be that the general public is going to (reasonably) assume that a lawyer with a Nevada address is empowered to practice Nevada law. If that's not the case, then it needs to be spelled out explicitly.

 

Very helpful CalDog!

At one point I thought I read that the ABA was working on trying to make law licensure more portable. I suspect that is an uphill battle since most states guard their autonomy in areas of licensure and some are very protectionist. With a glut of attorneys I do not imagine there would be a lot of desire by those already in a state to have easy reciprocity if it meant increased competition in a tight market.

 

This issue exists for all state-licensed professionals (doctors, CPAs, engineers, etc.), not just lawyers. It's inherent in the US system -- the US Constitution delegates professional regulation to the states, which means 50+ licensing boards (including DC, PR, etc.), which are unlikely to have completely consistent rules. There are a few professionals that are licensed by the Federal government to practice nationwide (like pilots or patent attorneys), but those are rare exceptions.

In practice, the state boards often come to general agreement on things like qualifying education and licensing exams. So for example, an ABA-approved JD degree is bar-qualifying in all states, and nearly all states use the same "Multistate Bar Examination" (MBE) for part of the Bar Exam process.

In general, state licensing boards aren't unfairly "protectionist" -- they have exactly the same requirements for in-state and out-of-state applicants. If you have an ABA law degree, or have passed the MBE, it doesn't matter whether you did it in-state or out-of-state.

One interesting exception is Wisconsin, which offers "diploma privilege" to graduates of the two Wisconsin law schools. In-state JDs are automatically exempt from the Wisconsin Bar Exam, while out-of-state JDs are not. But that's extremely unusual (the practice is a holdover from the 1800s).

 

Multi state practices are the wave of the future. My own state will adopt a reciprocity rule by next summer and that's a long fought for change.

Most states grant a limited license for in house counsel.

 

The ABA has been working on that for years. It will probably happen but I doubt I'll ever see it during my lifetime. There's no real/strong reason for the states to agree to a "one stop shop". In some states that would require a massive overhaul. Reciprocity is a growing trend though. Every state that I know of requires at least few years of practice though before they will allow you to take advantage of reciprocity. The main exception is DC and their "waving in" process.