non-bar JD

Right now in Canada there are 3 schools where you can get a JD from.

1. University of Toronto

2. Also U of Windsor and U of Ottawa now have a joint JD/LLB program. Where by spending an extra one year in law school the student will graduate with a Canadian LLB and a US JD.

 

Perhaps I was mistaken; I thought that the Ottowa and Windsor programs resulted in a US JD but that the enquiry concerned a CANADIAN JD.

 

I have no idea about the UK, however I read law and recieved my LLB in Ireland (ROI).

No one save a solicitor may give legal advice for fee (or perhaps a barrister, but that is generally not the case). Barristers must be instructed by a solictor and in non-adversial matters they may be instructed by Chartered accountants, Registered Surveyors, Architects and some tax experts who are neither solicitors or Chartered Accountants, or qualified non-Irish lawyers. Barristers are also allowed to practice without instruction from solicitors if the work is outside Ireland or the UK.

Solicitors deal directly with the public and instruct (although Barristers are if you will a step above) the Barrister. Solicitors may appear in court, but generally do not do so in complex matters. Barristers, almost exclusively deal with solicitors and not members of the public.

However I am neither a member of the Bar Society in Ireland or the Kings Inn as my Irish language skills need work. ( However I have represented one friend pro hoc vice in Florida - more trouble that it was worth for a traffic citation but he emerged unscathed.)

There are some DIY legal forms kits for sale in Ireland so no one need consult with counsel for routine matters.

 

Does Ireland (ROI) preserve the jury system in criminal cases?

From what little reading I've been able to do, I got the impression that the jury system had been used to insulate certain evildoers during the occupation (there really is no other word for it; my apologies to my fellow U of London students) creating widespread resentment in the Irish population.

Also, how would you charactorize the Irish legal system? It isn't really common law OR civil law, is it?

 

Ooops.

I thought York U was where people went when they couldn't get into a real school. I guess that was a flawed assumption.

I changed planes in Toronto once so I thought I knew it quit well.

 

In California, bonded legal document prepares are now covered under the Cal Bus & Prof Code. The change came as part of the larger paralegal regulation legislation that passed here a couple of years ago.

6400. (a) "Unlawful detainer assistant" means any individual who
for compensation renders assistance or advice in the prosecution or
defense of an unlawful detainer claim or action, including any
bankruptcy petition that may affect the unlawful detainer claim or
action.
(b) "Unlawful detainer claim" means a proceeding, filing, or
action affecting rights or liabilities of any person that arises
under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 1159) of Title 3 of Part 3
of the Code of Civil Procedure and that contemplates an adjudication
by a court.
(c) "Legal document assistant" means:
(1) Any person who is not exempted under Section 6401 and who
provides, or assists in providing, or offers to provide, or offers to
assist in providing, for compensation, any self-help service to a
member of the public who is representing himself or herself in a
legal matter, or who holds himself or herself out as someone who
offers that service or has that authority. This paragraph does not
apply to any individual whose assistance consists merely of
secretarial or receptionist services

 

I have heard that this type of degree may be helpful for someone who is in the business field or is looking to get in the business field, but otherwise I don't see where it is of much benefit. I don't believe that a person with a non-accredited JD degree can take the state bar exam to become a practicing attorney (although I may be wrong.)

Have a great day,

Sara

 

Sometimes yes, sometimes no, depending on the state, the school, the previous Bar experience of the applicant, et.

 

Okay, here's the skinny...

In the state of California, suggesting to someone while standing with them on the street corner that a certain thing is or isn't illegal without, pretty much in the same sentence, advising them to see a lawyer, constitutes the "Unauthorized Practice of Law" (UPL). Whether or not you "represent" anyone in court has nothing to do with it. Utter a sentence or write an email or letter that could be construed as legal advice and you've committed UPL. The statute is so narrowly-worded that, technically, most of the contents of this very paragraph is UPL.

For anyone who thinks they might one day become an attorney in California, fooling around with UPL is very dangerous because one of the things that can stop one's getting a new license to practice law in California, but quick, is a previous UPL arrest or conviction. A UPL will be discovered in the ethics investigation and, moreover, if you don't disclose it on the form and make the investigators find it, you're in even bigger trouble (and, therefore, less likely to be allowed to become a lawyer).

A California bar-eligible J.D. from a non-ABA-accredited school will permit its holder to sit for the California Bar (only); but only as long as the school from which s/he got it is authorized as a degree-granting school by the California Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (BPPVE), and is also registered with the California State Bar's Committee of Bar Examiners. The Bar exam is the great equalizer. No matter where one gets one's J.D., once s/he has his/her Bar card in his/her wallet, one could reasonably ask what difference it makes. Once admitted to the Bar, one can practice almost any kind of law s/he wishes.

NO OTHER STATE will accept a J.D. from a non-ABA-accredited California school -- even a bar-eligible J.D. -- as requisite to sitting for its Bar exam. Period. Not a single one. If you get a J.D. from a non-ABA-approved but nevertheless authorized by the California Bar school, you can only sit for the California Bar exam and that's the end of it.

However, after you've practiced law for from typically five years to usually not longer than seven years as a California attorney in good standing with the California Bar, several states will allow you to petition their Supreme Courts and/or their Committee of Bar Examiners to practice there. In nearly all such cases, one must still submit to an ethics/background investigation and submit his/her MPRE scores, pay the Bar fees, etc. Occasionally, they must also take a special lawyer's exam (a "Baby Bar" of sorts), too. Usually, however, it's a non-exam, reciprocity sort of arrangement. There are rumored to be around 13 states for sure that will allow this -- possibly as many as 10 more, depending on how one reads the various states' rules -- with another three or four state who swear they'll never allow it under any circumstances, but it turns out they actually will if you catch 'em on a good day. Basically, however, the easiest way to keep from giving yourself an ulcer over it is to just resign yourself to the knowledge that if you get your Bar card via a non-ABA-accredited, California-approved, LD law school, you're pretty much gonna' be stuck practicing in California. Worse things could happen.

It's been mentioned in other threads, so I'll cover it here: There is not a single state which normally doesn't accept a non-ABA-accredited California LD bar-eligible J.D. that will suddenly change their minds and accept it if one subsequently obtaines an ABA-accredited LLM, too. In other words, a later-acquired, ABA-accredited LLM doesn't trump the earlier-acquired non-ABA-accredited J.D. -- contrary to what's in the literature of some California LD law schools. All states want an ABA-accredited J.D. requisite to sitting for their Bar... that is with the following state-specific exceptions:

Like California, some states have state-approved but non-ABA-accredited law schools which issue J.D. degrees that are bar-eligible in that state only. Unlike California, none of them are DL schools. Nevertheless, bar-eligible J.D. graduates from those schools may sit for the Bar in those states (only). Massachusetts and Tennessee are examples of two such states. There are a couple others.

To the question that started this thread: Non-Bar eligible J.D. degrees from the state-approved California LD schools which grant them actually do have some value under certain circumstances. There are lots of people who get law degrees from ABA-accredited law schools who don't end-up taking the Bar. A non-Bar J.D. graduate from a California LD school would be in a similar situation -- but with certain irritating limitations (such as not being able to teach, as mentioned earlier, herein). Such persons use their J.D. degrees in all sorts of ways -- such as working for public interest or lobbying groups where a knowledge of the law could come in handy. There are all sorts of situations wherein a person could use a decent legal education in one's job without also representing anyone, giving legal advice, or preparing pleas and motions.

But, more than that, there are actually situations where non-Bar J.D. holders can represent others. Certain administrative agencies and tribunals will permit an individual to practice before them either on motion of the person whom they're representing, or by virtue of their having completed a proficiency examination or some other similar qualification. Without being a member of the California Bar or being licensed to practice law in California, a person holding one of the LD non-Bar J.D.'s may, in effect, practice law (usually as what's termed an "agent") before the United States Tax Court, The United States Patent Court, the Workers' Compensation Board, the Federal Communications Commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, the American Arbitration Association, the National Labor Relations Board, the United States Department of Energy, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Federal Maritime Commission, and the Federal Aviation Administration... just to name a few.

There are other parts of this thread to which I wanted to reply, but it's late and I'm tired and I got the most important things said, so I'm done. Seeyalaterbye.

 

All perfectly accurate but I would emphasize that passing the California Bar serves somewhat to "legitimize" the non ABA degree.

 

Occupation? And I thought it was the democratically elected government maintaining the peace.

I would suspect there was only resentment in a MINORITY of the population. Mind you, a common opinion among some of the Irish is that the people who moved to Ireland about the time New England was settled are foreign occupiers.

 

That's exactly what it is. It seems that many of my fellow US citizens have a collective case of amnesia when it comes to the situation in Northern Ireland. Of course, to the terrorists of the IRA, the will of the people doesn't matter one bit.

Dennis....you and I agree on something? I think I better go back to bed....

 

ABA and LLM

>ABA-accredited LLM, too. In other words, a later-acquired, ABA->accredited LLM doesn't trump the earlier-acquired non-ABA->accredited J.D. -- contrary to what's in the literature of some >California LD law schools. All states want an ABA-accredited J.D. >requisite to sitting for their Bar...

Unless the ABA policy has recently changed, the ABA does not accredite LLM programs. It does not approve or review them except in so far as they may effect the JD program.

Certainly this is one reason that states do not accept, as a bar candidate, one who holds a LLM from an ABA accredited school without a JD from an ABA accredited school. Perhaps there is a rare exception but, as correctly pointed out, one should not count upon it.

 

The exceptions aren't all that rare. The ABA issued a letter years ago asking, in essence, that state QUIT accepting LLM and SJD degrees as adequate education to take the Bar.

This won't happen, though; too many law schools (mostly private and expensive) make too much money selling LLM degrees to foreign trained lawyers for the exact purpose of allowing them to qualify for one or another state bar exam.

 

Perhaps you agreed a little too soon?

Nosborne and mdoneil were discussing the Republic of Ireland.

Before 1920, the British occupied all 32 counties, they were not democratically elected. Occupied was the correct word.

Loyalist terrorists are responsible for far more crime and violence.

 

It's not clear what time frame was meant.

On a European scale, nationalism awoke in 1848 but was universally ignored or crushed until 1918-1921.

Pre independence Ireland was a democracy within the UK. Were its national ambitions recognized? No. Were anyone's national ambitions recognized? No.

Quote
"Loyalist terrorists are responsible for far more crime and violence."

The key word being "are." If "are" includes the period starting in 1969, you are totally wrong. If "are" means today, you might be right.

 

I know I'm bad at math, but I'm pretty certain that the year 2004 is after the year 1920. I guess the will of the people who now live in Northern Ireland means nothing to you?

Really?

Who claimed responsibility for planting a bomb in the toy section of Harrod's department store just before Christmas, thereby killing many children?

HINT: It wasn't any sort of loyalist group.

The "Irish Republican Army" is a bunch of cowardly, loser terrorists who get their jollies by killing innocent women and children.

Yeah, something to admire.

 

Please see Nosborne's initial post on this subject. He was specifically discussing the legal system in the Republic of Ireland.

Just for the record. I do not admire the Irish Republican Army and never said that I did.

You, like many others, who have not taken the time to educate themselves, assume that terrorism in Ireland only eminates from nationalist organizations.

Loyalist organizations such as the Ulster Defence Association (UDA) and Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) and their splinter organizations are no better than the Irish Republican Army. Additionally, British security forces are known to have colluded with loyalist terrorists for many years.