Ashworth college - Criminal Justice - Master degree anyone

ADDENDUM

When listing the ways one can become a lawyer in the U.S., I forgot to include apprenticeship in a law office, or clerking for a judge -- usually for at least four (4) years, in both cases -- as requisite to sit for the bar exam. These methods are rarely used and, when they are, the first-time bar pass rate is virtually zero percent; and not very many states allow it (California, however, is one that does).

I forgot to mention that, too, in my above posting. Sorry.

 

Re: Re: Law practice in Quebec LLB versus JD

It can cut not just both ways but many ways. On my first trip to Montreal, I asked directions from an Anglo fellow who struck a conversation ending with a comment about us being the same. I knew he meant as opposed to the French and didn't respond. He then repeated the comment with emphasis. I mumbled agreement to get rid of him. No way was I getting involved with local antagonisms. I was also a bit flummoxed as with my Italian name I was unaccustomed to being "us."

The French I found to be aloof and took that to be a defensive wariness. I found that a few words of my high school French followed by an apology for not understanding the reply served as a fine icebreaker. From aloofness to "mon Frere", just like that.

Similar exists anywhere with two distinct groups.

 

True on the costs but the monthly payment at Ashworth is only $100 while at AJU it's $200.

This may be a deciding factor for some.

 

With texts included in the $99, Ashworth is hard to beat.

 

It is a little more than five years...

Do you really thing that it takes only five years of higher education -- and only at the secondary level -- for Canadian lawyers?

We have five years at the secondary level, two or three years of College (CEGEP) depending on the chosen program. After these seven or eight years, we can go to the University. It takes three years to complete the LL.B. plus one year at the Bar. After the Bar exams are finished with success, we work six months with a practicing attorney. It takes 11½ years to 12½ to be admitted to the Bar with only an LL.B. for Quebec. I do not know for other provinces since there is no college (CEGEP) but they must have additional university courses. I have nothing against J.D. or the fact that American lawyers must have a bachelor before going into law. It is a good thing to avoid entering the legal profession too early. It took me 15½ years of schooling before I began my law practice. To work as a criminal prosecutor, the lawyer is on probation for two years after the initial six months.

 

It is a little more than five years...

Do you really thing that it takes only five years of higher education -- and only at the secondary level -- for Canadian lawyers?

We have five years at the secondary level, two or three years of College (CEGEP) depending on the chosen program. After these seven or eight years, we can go to the University. It takes three years to complete the LL.B. plus one year at the Bar. After the Bar exams are finished with success, we work six months with a practicing attorney. It takes 11½ years to 12½ to be admitted to the Bar with only an LL.B. for Quebec. I do not know for other provinces since there is no college (CEGEP) but they must have additional university courses. I have nothing against J.D. or the fact that American lawyers must have a bachelor before going into law. It is a good thing to avoid entering the legal profession too early. It took me 15½ years of schooling before I began my law practice. To work as a criminal prosecutor, the lawyer is on probation for two years after the initial six months.

 

Re: It is a little more than five years...

For starters, I mean undergraduate, not secondary. I was doing multiple threads at the time -- one of which dealt with secondary versus post-secondary and undergraduate versus graduate -- all the while trying not to over-microwave something -- and I made a mistake. Sorry.

But if you substitute "undergraduate" for "secondary" and "graduate" for "post-secondary" in my previous post, then I was, nevertheless, just going by what you wrote.... and I quote:

• To practice law in Quebec, also in other Canadian provinces, a person should be admitted to the Bar after completing an ... LL.B. (Bachelor of Laws) In Quebec, The law degree takes three years to complete followed by a year at the "Ecole du Barreau" (Bar School). Essentially, it is a bachelor in law. There is also the LL.M. (Master of Laws) and the LL.D. (Law Doctorate). In Canada, there is no J.D. We have LL.L, LL.B., LL.M., and LL.D.

A bachelors degree -- even if it's the second one that a person happens to earn -- is undergraduate post-secondary higher education. Period. I'm just callin' it what you called it: A bachelors degree... on top of which there is just one year of what you called "Bar School" which, because it's just a year long and doesn't seem to issue a degree, would not seem to qualify as "graduate" other than it occurred after the undergraduate education... but it's nothing like a three-year J.D.... is it? (A serious, and not a flip or sarcastic question.)

Okay... let's count...

So that's five years of high school (where we have just four)? Is that what you're saying? What... in Canada you have Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior and what? Or does "what" come before Freshman?

And, anyway... no one legitimately counts high school as part of one's law credential. If you are because I screwed-up on the "secondary" thing, I'm sorry. Let's only count what happens after high school.

By "two or three years of college," do you mean general, non-law-related college or university study, just like any college coursework or degree? If so, then two years of college in the U.S. will get you either an Associates degree, or half of an unfinished (and, therefore, worthless) bachelors degree. So do you mean something different than that sort of thing?

Okay, well, since we're not counting high school, you really only mean two or three post-high school years, right? And we haven't (yet) established what, if anything, those two or three undergrad-level years have to do with law instruction... though I'm hoping you'll tell us in your reply (again, no sarcasm intended... I'm really tryin' to figure this out).

Okay... by "university," then, you mean the place where you finally go to get the bachelors degree in law... the LLB, right? So that means that the aforementioned two or three years were not law school study and were just generalized college/university-type study?

Okay, so, then, you're saying that it takes the exact same amount of time to complete Canada's law degree -- regardless whether or not it's at the undergrad level -- just like it takes three years to complete the U.S. J.D. Okay. Got it.

I guess I don't really understand what that means... but, again, I'm hoping you'll explain it when you reply. What, precisely, does "at the Bar" mean, in Canada? Is it additional university coursework for credit; or is it some kind of seminar training or something? Or is it strictly intensive exam prep? What does "one year at the Bar" mean?

So is that what "at the Bar" means? If not, then you left that out earlier. If so, then I'm beginning to understand better. But, again, I know you'll clear it up when you reply.

I feel a realization that we've got a serious terminology problem coming on, here! [grin]

Let's just stick with your province for now... it's confusing enough as it is.

I didn't think you did... and any remarks I made which seemed to suggest it -- including the "borderline condescending" thing were me just screwin' around.

So -- and, really, I pretty much already knew this and am mostly just tryin' to make a point: As a practical matter, calling the LLB is sort of a misnomer, isn't it? Somewhat misleading, no?

What would be helpful, so we can all be on the same page, here, is if you'd lay it out (or link us to a site that does) starting with the day one leaves high school -- including formal college (and whether it's generalized or actually part of one's law school education); and then precisely where the actual LLB comes in, and how long that takes; then whatever "at the Bar" means; then whatever apprenticeships or seminars or additional coursework or training you must endure, etc. I have a feeling, when all's said and done, that it's about the same, in terms of the time it takes to complete it, as what a U.S. attorney must take to complete his/her training. And, if so, then maybe Canada should stop calling its law credential a "bachelors" degree, too.

And, if so, it would, after all, have just about everything to do with -- how did you put it, again -- "because [in your case, Canadian] Lawyers protested that other professionals earned [higher degrees] instead of bachelors," wouldn't it? And, if so, then maybe those silly Americans had a point, no?

 

It's been awhile since I've read their guidelines, but IIRC, the J.D. must be ABA-approved, and the Master's be RA.

 

So, then, they're not foolin' around. Good to hear it... even though I really like the body of non-ABA-approved, CalBar-accredited and/or registered, bar-exam qualifying California J.D. programs (and, therefore, wish one of them would be okay, too).

 

Leaving

Agree with Peaceforall & Squirrel - Leaving

I also agree with Peaceforall and Squirrel about their comments (*EVERY user, please read this thread NOW*). Yesterday was my first day on this forum also my first time on a forum in years. Today, I want to say goodbye to respectful persons.

I decide not to come back because I do not want to waste time with little political wars, linguistic, or misunderstood geographic and cultural differences.

I did not register myself on this forum to read that fellow citizens may not act properly or that they hate American or other English speaking people. Besides, I am not here to defend those living in my country if they conduct themselves incorrectly. I know who I am and that I am not against any person whenever his country or language. It is not either my desire to exchange on the subject of which country or people are better. I am not anymore in the childishness of “my father is better than yours." I had come here to exchange on distance education and not about politics and the hate that some have against other part of the world.

I didn't say that Americans were silly. I didn't say that American lawyers were wrong to ask for a J.D. Nothing was written to imply that they didn't deserve their diploma and not work hard to get it. I do not have a borderline condescending assessment of compulsory U.S. law studies. Nothing said on my part about Canadians being superior, even less Quebecois.

Someone doesn't like Quebecois and decided to show it:

Quote
“You did just fine... which, I dare say, is a whole lot friendlier of an assessment than French-speaking zealots from your neck of the woods tend to give English-only speakers. Tell your friends who are zero-tolerant of English just to make a point that they should remember that, as you've seen, it can cut both ways.

Sorry I got on may almost anti-Canada soap-box, there, for a moment... but some French language purist Quebecers, as I'm sure you know, can be insufferable -- ne, downright mean-spirited -- about the whole English thing. Since I had the floor for a second -- and since the subject had been broached -- I thought I'd briefly editorialize.” ---- End of quote.

Do you really know Quebec people? Did you form your judgment solely by monitoring the T.V. regarding the linguistic issue between French and English? Personally, I saw T.V. broadcast distributed in California and they were filled with mistakes. It is not a good thing to judge people from a distance.

My primary question was to know if someone was into the master degree. Did I ask: is Quebec better than the U.S.? Did I ask: are our law studies better than yours? Did I ask: are Canadians superiors?

Good bye and good luck with your forum.

 

Re: Leaving

But, obviously, not in this thread. If you post here in the future you might want to be more clear about your references so the reader doesn't become confused. Just a suggestion.

Oh... but wait... you're not here anymore to read that, are you?

Pity.

Agreed. Whatever made you think that I had; or that I was relying on said TV broadcast? I'm a little more careful than that -- and fair-minded, too. I've been to Quebec many times.

And no one, so far, has said they are... which I'm sorry about, by the way. I figure if you're going to expend this much energy, you should at least get your money's worth! But if you think that the rest of us should have just waited and written nothing until someone chimed-in and said they were, then this is, obviously, your first Internet forum experience.

No. Nor did I say that the U.S. is better than Quebec... even though I think it probably is.

[Just kidding... er... well... you know... sort of.]

No. Nor did I say that the U.S.'s is better than Quebec's. What I did try to do, however, was begin laying the groundwork for my later being able to point out the folly of calling Quebec's law degree a mere bachelor-level credential...

...especially after you seemed to go out of your way to point out that a J.D. basically is.

For someone who purports to be in such a fundamentally adversarial profession, you certainly seem to be sensitive to someone giving a little back.

No. Nor did I suggest that U.S. Americans were superior... even though I... well... you know the rest.

[Kidding, again. C'mon!]

And with that, ladies and gentlemen, we have a quintessential microcosmic illustration of classic Quebec-style impatience and tendancy toward making it all something it isn't and never was in the first place.

That is categorically untrue. But I'll tell you -- confess, even -- what is true in that regard, in my particular case (which is mine, and mine alone, I might add): I have had more than one costly trip to your province completely ruined (and I mean "RUINED," in all capital letters) by the arrogance and intentional mean-spiritedness of some of your fellow countrymen who, apparently, have become anti-English and pro-secession activists of some sort; and, in my experience, there seems an inordinately large percentage of them, given the whole of your countrymen that I have encountered. Though it is most certainly not accurate (or fair) to paint you all with broadstrokes and say that you are an unfriendly lot, generally, it is most certainly true that there are at least some among you who can be most unfriendly in intentional ways of which at least some of them seem to go out of their way to avail themselves and then to relish.

Stereotypes usually don't happen by accident. I did not dub thee this thing. There is a problem. That you are not part of that problem (to your credit), as you allege (and which I wish to believe about you), speaks well of you, personally; but it does not adequately mitigate said problem, in any case. You would do better, I think, to acknowledge the unbridled arrogance and mean-spiritedness of some of your fellow countrymen and, in the same breath, point-out that you're not one of them -- which I suspect is true about you, I might add -- than you would be to flash to anger and then just take your ball and go home, as you're now saying you intend to do.

That would be a loss, I suspect, to this forum.... and I mean that.

Jean... by the way, does it happen to be "Jean Claude" or "Jean Luc" or something? I mean, that would just be so much more fun! But, as usual, I digress...

Jean, listen to me: I am sorry (and I mean that) for my part in our getting off to a bad start, here... I really am. I implore you to reconsider; and to become the valuable asset to these forums that I know, given your obvious intelligence and your interesting and admirable profession, that you can and would quite likely be. Please. Don't go away mad... or at all, for that matter.

But do remember that this place is about discourse; and making discourse interesting, on top of that, sometimes means that one's blood pressure will occasionally spike. I know mine certainly has a few times around here... and yours, obviously, just did. If you decide not to like me -- and, believe me, the feelings, if you do, will not be mutual -- then that's fine. Regrettable, but fine. There are plenty of people here who don't like me -- or at least what they know of me from what I've written here -- and vice versa. And that's exactly as it should be... else this place would become excruciatingly boring.

But, one way or the other, don't just throw-in the towel after but one little, inconsequential skirmish with a knucklehead like me. This place has lots to offer someone like you and, moreover, you it. Please don't deprive us of your viewpoint and potentially worthwhile contributions. You and I can agree to try to avoid tangling with one another if you wish. I'd prefer we didn't, mind you; but if that's the only way you'll agree to stick around, then, fine... I'll play, if you insist.

So, whatsay we just bury the hatchet, here...

...er... you know... in something other than in one another's skulls, I mean.

I apologize for getting your back up. But if you're going to post in a place like this, you've probably got to develop a little bit thicker skin... or so it is my opinion. And therein lies the truth of this and most other fora: It's about opinion most of the time. We really value opinion in the U.S.; and this is not the first time that I've seen someone who lives in a country where that value is not held so near and dear become a bit unraveled when they end-up in the thick of the U.S. version of it. Please don't let that happen to you because of me. If you really are a prosecutor, then I'm guessing you're a whole lot tougher than that! So, step up and show it. We'll like you better... and I dare say, so will you.

So... shall we finish our little discussion? I really would like to get it clear in my mind precisely how Quebec's legal education differs from the U.S.'s from someone who's actually been there; and I think we're (you and I) on the verge of you helping me do precisely that...

...that is, if you'll just cool down and say to yourself, as you shake your head in disbelief, "man, that DesElms is a jerk" (but in French, of course), as so many others here do (in English); and then get back to the task of typin' and tellin' me how it all works.

Okay? Whatd'ya say? Who knows, maybe we'll even end-up friends...

...you know, so that if I ever come to visit you your fellow countrymen can go out of their way to piss me off by pretending they don't understand or speak English when, in fact, many of them not only speak it, but are capable of doing so without a French accent when and if they so desire.

[C'mon! Laugh! It was a joke! Oy.]

 

I am an ...

You made your point. I am an idiot and I have a boiling character. Even litigators have that kind of character. It makes good cross-examination. I must learn the culture of discussion forums. Do not even know how to insert smilies in the post. I was not prepared to commentaries regarding my fellow citizen though I know how some can be. It is certain that we have our shortcomings like all countries. I could discuss certain points on the United States! Oh, I found how with the keyboard...

It is not more normal that an English person refuses to speak French when she knows the language very well… In my case I have a very strong accent and don't speak very well English. It is a consequence of the bill 101 who forbid the French-speaking to study in an English language school. It is a discriminatory law and I can recognize it (some improvement here - no).

Almost entirely by myself, I learned English. No, I am not a saint or a virtuous person but I took vocational correspondence courses in your language. Still, I am not very comfortable with everyday language as opposed to formal educational writing & reading. Do you know that I will have to send my daughters to a private school if I want them to learn effective English. Not proud of that bill 101 but I am proud to be able to speak French and little English. There are some interesting things in my part of country as there are some less interesting like everywhere else. We are not all anti-English as not all Americans are anti-French.

Links to Supreme Court judgments (March 2005) relating to the 101 Bill:

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2005scc016.wpd.html

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2005scc015.wpd.html

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2005scc014.wpd.html


Do you want to continue our keyboard discussion about studying law while drinking a Canadian beer? Canadian beers are the best.

 

Re: I am an ...

I don't know about the others but I always want to be friends with the Prosecutors so I raise a beer to you, sir.

 

Welcome back!!!

Whoa! No one ever said (or meant anything like) that! Go easy on yourself, there! And glad you came back!

Ohgod... I'm not sure if this is, necessarily, the right place to do that, generally. Although, that said, I guess this forum probably is about as agood a place as any.

I'll bet I could make a longer list of U.S. infirmities than you could!

Wow. Interesting. Lawyers would have a field day with such a law in the U.S.

Now, that is quite an accomplishment. I'm impressed.

Well, I gotta' tell ya': You're doin' exceptionally well in this thread. Some of the casualness and intentionally conversational nature of some of my replies may give you pause, I realize, but that you're understanding it and replying so clearly is unbelievably impressive under the circumstances.

Actually, if you think about it, you'd only have to do that if you wanted them to get alot of practice at it. But with you as teacher/overseer, and with the help of products like this or, better yet, this (click on the previous, underlined words "this" to pop-up a new browser window with good stuff in it), you could most certainly teach them English. But, as you know, once learned, unless one speaks any language more or less every day they never really get very good at it.

Good point. Boy... that bill 101 kinda' sucks, doesn't it? Sheesh!

On that point, you and I are of one mind. I'm not a big beer drinker -- for example, the sum total of days in my entire nearly 50-year life that one or more beers have ever been in my refrigerator is probably less than 100 -- but I will agree that from what of beer I've had in this lifetime, Canadian beers rank among the world's finest. I've always been a bit partial to Moosehead, myself... among others.



As for the law thing, here's what I'm trying to understand:

So, just for completeness's sake, high school for you guys is how many years? Three? Four? Five?

Then, after that, what, precisely, is what you called "college," or "CEGEP"? Is that what we, in the U.S., call regular, ol' college? In other words, is CEGEP basically the equivalent of what most U.S. students do right after high school? And, if so, is CEGEP (and what does "CEGEP" stand for, by the way?) basically a two, three or four-year program? And with what degree or credential, if any, does one emerge from CEGEP? Where can I read more about it... in English, I mean?

So, then, after CEGEP is when you enter what you called "university," which, apparently, is where you earn the LLB, is that correct? And that's a three-year program which, I presume, is pretty much like the three-year J.D. program in the U.S., right?

Then, after that, you're saying that you spend one additional year "at the bar." What, precisely, does "at the bar" mean? What do you do "at the bar;" and where, precisely, does one do it?

Finally, you're saying that you spend another six months in what seems like some kind of apprenticeship with a practicing attorney... is that correct? Is it, in fact, an "apprenticeship" of sorts; or is it like an internship or something? And what, precisely, happens during that six months?

So, after all that, can you then go into either private practice or work for a prosecutor's or public defender's office... right?

What about continuing education (CEU)? Do you have that requirement, too? If so, what is it?



In the U.S., you go to high school (secondary) for four years. It doesn't matter what you study in high school. All one is trying to do is get out of it as fast as one can and with the highest grades one can. But for most high school students, the study of law isn't even a consideration yet.

Then you either go to a post-secondary, undergradutate two-year college or university for an associates degree; or you go ahead and begin a four-year bachelors degree. If you opt for the two-year associates degree first, then the bachelors degree program, after that, is only two years long. If, on the other hand, you skip the associates degree and go straight into the first of four years of study which will culminate in your having earned your bachelors degree, the two years that you would have taken to earn the aforementioned associates degree becomes the first two years of your four-year bachelors degree program. But, in any case, not one single bit of either the associates or bachelors degrees need to have anything whatsoever to do with the study of law... and usually don't, I might add (although, that said, some bachelors degree students get what some call "pre-law" majors in their bachelors degrees, but, technically, that has nothing whatsoever to do with one's official, bar-qualifying law studies).

The very beginning of law studies in the U.S. cannot (under most circumstances) begin until after one has gotten one's bachelors degree -- in whatever subject s/he wishes, whether it has anything to do with law or not.

Once the decision to study law is made, the bachelors degree holder then enters law school -- a three-year program that results in the graduate receiving the "Juris Doctor" (J.D.) degree. Thereafter, the J.D. degree holder may sit for his/her state's bar exam. If s/he passes the bar, s/he is then sworn-in and may begin practicing law. Thereafter, the only educational requirements, if any, are state-required continuing education credits (CEUs).

So, in summary, that's:

1. Four (4) years of high school (secondary level) in any subject one wishes, including subjects that have nothing whatsoever to do with law; and then,
   
2. Four (4) years of college (university) (post-secondary at the undergraduate level) to get a bachelors degree (or two years to get and associates first, and then two more years to get a bachelors) in any subjects you like -- including subjects that have nothing whatsoever to do with the law; and then,
   
3. Three (3) years (or maybe four, depending on the program) of bar-qualifying law school (post-graduate level),[/list=1]for a grand total of only seven (7) years at the post-secondary level... only three of which have anything whatsoever to do with the study of law! So, in other words, in the U.S., three (3) years of actual, bar-qualifying law study (or four years, if you're in certain special types of law prograsm) is all that's required to sit for the bar exam. But that three years is part of at least seven (7) years of post-high-school study. If one counts high-school, too, then we're talking about twelve (12) years. But no one here counts high-school or college as bar-qualifying "law study."
   
   Despite the presence of the word "doctor" in its name, the J.D. is not really a doctoral-level credential... although the American Bar Association sure wants everyone to treat it as such. Rather, a J.D. is, in reality, more of a graduate-level first-professional-degree that is closer to a masters degree, although it's certainly not called that, or considered that by most people. And, in fact, if a JD holder actually wanted to get a law masters degree (and, by the way, that would be purely optional and is not required in order for him/her to practice of law), s/he would get the LLM.
   
   To get a true doctoral-level law degree in the U.S., one would need to get the S.J.D. degree... and even that is considered by many to be nothing more than a terminal professional degree -- like a DMin would be for a minister -- and not, therefore, on par with a real PhD degree. Like the LLM, the S.J.D. would be optional, and would not be required for the person to practice law.
   
   Lookin' forward to your reply. Don't drink too many Mooseheads.

 

Re: Re: It is a little more than five years...

In Canada, we don't use those terms. High school begins at grade 8 through to grade 12. In Ontario (I believe), high schools go up to grade 13, so that is 5 years.

But like you said, what on earth does that have to do with anything? High school is pretty much irrelevant to law school education, it is based on your undergraduate degree marks (3.5GPA+) and your LSAT score (160+) with some variation. It is assumed that ANYONE with those qualifications has obviously graduated from high school!

Rarely, someone with only 2-3 years of undergrad gets in, but that is exceptional. There are only about 12-14 law schools in Canada so the competition is very stiff.

 

Re: Re: Re: It is a little more than five years...

Of course, Quebec isn't Canada... just ask anyone who lives there.





Okay, okay, I'm sorry. I just couldn't resist.

 

No - You did not say or mean it but I act like one sometime. I am glad too since I think I will like it here.

Thanks to you for the links, I appreciate – I will review these more carefully this week. Right on the problem: I cannot speak everyday. Living a little less than two hours from Montreal, besides television, there is no English activity in my town. It was during my vacation in your beautiful country that I spoke English for the last time. Beginning Monday, I am taking three grammar courses on vu.org. Believe it or not, I am the only one in the office speaking English. A little office composes of five persons.

To be honest, I am not really a beer drinker. Occasionally during a fishing trip or during summer but I prefer wine.

Secondary school is five years. It is just before the CEGEP. CEGEP stands for “College d’Enseignement General et Professional” (In French – of course). I may translate CEGEP by College of general and professional teaching.

Right, it is three years.

I must look up the difference between apprenticeship and an internship in the dictionary. It is practical training. During that six months (not long), the trainee works under the supervision of a lawyer. He will do the same thing a real lawyer do: meeting clients, giving opinions, preparing courts papers and briefs (lawyers do it in their briefs) etc. They can even go to court.

Evidently, the kind of office in which the future lawyer will evolve influences the diversities of tasks he will do. A student is less likely to go to court when he is within a private law office while another doing his training in a district attorney or a legal office will go often to court (even doing trials) since there is no “paying client”. By change, I did my practical six months training within a prosecutor’s office where I pleaded cases two weeks after my arrival. Of course, we begin with speeding tickets or other provincial offences to continue eventually with criminal cases (theft – assault – DUI etc.)

Yes, if the lawyer reported to the Bar that we succeed with our six months training. We have to wait approximately one month to be registered with the Quebec Bar (after paying professional dues). Personally, I never heard of someone being reported to having failed though everyone knows of incompetent lawyers. When we are registered, we can call ourselves lawyers and use the two letters' Me before our name. Me means “MAITRE” (in French – of course). There is an accent on the i of maitre but I did not include it here not remembering the Html code for it. There is no English translation for this term (literally it is Master). In English, I think counsel is used.

Unfortunately, there is no obligation for continuing training unless there are big changes in the civil code. Around 1995, we had to undergo a week of courses to learn the new civil code. It was mandatory to retain our professional privileges. What a week for me since I only do penal and criminal law since 1990. Therefore, there are many courses available every year for lawyers willing to learn but theses courses are not mandatory. Fortunately, district attorneys have three days of courses almost every year.

I think it is like that in other Canadian provinces.


Here what I had written before reading your two last posts:

First, it is preferable to be on the same waves’ length and using the same terminology. Both, we must forget the secondary term. Also, when comparing the J.D. and the LL.B., I spoke of the American degrees. It was not comparing between our LL.B. and yours. Therefore, I mean that a LL.B.-U.S. is similar to a J.D.-U.S. I think it is just to pretend that a student who gets a J.D.-U.S. walked through the same path (scholarly speaking) as a student studying for a LL.B.-U.S.? I never had the intention to compare our LL.B. to the one of the U.S.A. because I know that number of years or schooling is different.

In my province, we have the CEGEP (college) but that is not a University. It is between the secondary (High School) and the university. Those wanting to go to the university must get a general diploma of two years or three years technical degree. Those wanting a “technical” diploma studied for three years. It is the case for nurses. Following the CEGEP we can enter the university.

Three years to get an LL.L (Law license) or an LL.B. (Bachelor of law) Essentially, LL.L. and LL.B. are the same but. If I recall well, those wanting to become a notary took the LL.L. After, there is the notary school to become a public notary. Here, public notary and law's counselor are two distinct professions. Someone with an LL.L” can also become a lawyer.

After the law degree, someone can choose to be a lawyer by going to the “Ecole du Barreau” [My Translation “School Bar”] for one year of formal courses. These courses are similar to those of a university but some are centered more on practice. It is necessary to undergo exams to become a member of the “Barreau du Quebec” [the Bar] and to be allowed to exercise law.

There is no CEGEP in other provinces. They consider our courses of college (CEGEP) as undergraduate courses. Here, an undergraduate degree (Bachelor) is generally of three years. In other provinces, I think, undergraduate degrees are of four years considering that they don't have a CEGEP. If I remembered well, it is the case in Ontario where an undergraduate degree is four years at the university. They credit me one year when I did my bachelor degree in criminology since I had two years of CEGEP.

I hope it is clearer this time. My case is a little different since I studied for, and obtained, and undergraduate degree in criminology (bachelor) before entering law school where I get my LL.B. Someone may decide to get an LL.B. without wanting to become a lawyer. In such a case, they do not have to go the “Ecole du Barreau” (my translation “Bar school”) but they cannot use title like counselors or lawyers.

Do not think that I do not agree with your fellows who obtained LL.B. wanting a J.D. instead. I understand their demand. Why calling it J.D. for some and LL.B. for others when the schooling is the same.

Do I disapprove the system wanting lawyers in your country to have undergraduate degree before entering law school? I cannot pronounce myself on that subject because I do not know every reason for such a requirement. Therefore, I know that I would do the same thing again to become a lawyer. I did not have to get a bachelor degree before going to law school but I did, and gain some more personal and educational experiences before being a lawyer. Getting a law degree is one thing. To practice law is another thing. Practicing law too soon or “being too young” may not be suitable for everyone.

You are right, there is a difference between an academic doctorate and a professional one. A medical doctor does not have a doctorate degree in the academic sense unless he pursued doctoral studies. Understood, they must work hard and longer to obtain their diploma. Here, we have now a chiropractor school (university level). They will be called chiropractors' doctor (or something like that) but they did not study until the “academic doctorate”. Do not misunderstand me, they work hard and they deserve their professional title.

I will summarize on the next post (this message is too long)

 

To summarize

To summarize:

To get a law degree (total 5 years):

2 years of CEGEP (College)
Why do we have a CEGEP (College) while other provinces don't have one? Maybe because some of my fellow citizens are saying that we are a distinct society!!! Maybe, like you said, Quebec is not Canada!!!

3 years of university (Law degree - LL.L. or LL.B.)

To become a lawyer in Quebec:

LL.B. or LL.L.
1 year of “Ecole du Barreau” (Bar school)
Pass the Bar exams
Six months of practicum internship
Admission to the bar

Total: six years plus six months practical training.

Thank you for not having held resentment and having continued to write down messages. I am going to hold on a leash my boiling character.

A small anecdote. One day a judge left the court room in fury during a law argument on whether he should resign or not from hearing a case. My boiling character made him lose his cool. Previously, his lawyer entered a guilty plea but the judge refused it! He asked the defendant “do you feel guilty?” Someone can be guilty without feeling guilty or having remorse. He heard his side of the story and refused to accept his guilty plea since the guy did not feel guilty… I asked to assign the case to another date since he had heard the accused story. He asked me if I though he was incapable of being impartial. I just repeated that it was preferable to adjourn the case. After being asked three times, I finally replied that he was not impartial. He left in a flash. He did not resign and heard the hit and run case. Naturally, he acquitted the defendant just to get even with me. I was a beginner. Also, I left the office for a little less than three years for private practice. Trials were animated when I was against an old colleague. The judge used to say: stop, my two lions.

Now, I deserve to go to the bar... bar saloon.. tavern...

 

No beer

Horror, I do not have any beer left. Decimon, Drink one for me. Do not drink and drive.