Law School

Re: Why ABA students should be required to take the Baby Bar.

Bar pass rates obviously only reflect students who have graduated from a school.


The average Baby Bar student from an unaccredited school will have invested around $3,000 and 900 hours of study time.

I see many ABA students dismissed after 2 years of full-time study. They will have invested over $50,000 and two years of their life. The stated purpose of the Baby Bar is consumer protection. It seems to me the ABA students have more at risk.

 

So, these 2L's are dismissed for, what, academic deficiency? If so, would an exam at the end of the first year effectively ameliorate that situation? If so, how? By shoving the slackers out a year earlier?

 

It's true that the ABA students have more at risk financially, but at the end of your 2L year, you have taken at least 2/3 of the units you need to graduate; I would guess that any student in danger of getting academically dismissed at the end of the second year would have some inkling of that possibility much earlier in school. For example, I would expect that anyone in academic danger during 2L was probably in academic danger during 1L as well, and it was then their decision to go forward knowing that they might end up in big trouble.

I guess it is possible for someone to do okay in 1L, then totally crash and burn during 2L, but from my experience, most people end up doing as well or better later on than their first year -- at least at my school, the grade curves are relaxed significantly for non-first year classes.

The ABA and CalBar schools are assumed (rightly or wrongly) to pump out JD's who are capable of passing the bar exam and practicing law -- but if you don't have the GPA, you don't get the JD. Your GPA is not a secret, you know what it is, you know what you are capable of, you are an adult, you can make a decision to risk flunking out if you are a borderline case. My school has a pretty serious curve, and a reasonable percentage of first-year students end up on academic probation or end up getting kicked out after the first year (sometimes as high as 10%, usually less), but very few end up getting kicked out for academic reasons after the first year. There is attrition, of course, so maybe some at-risk students voluntarily choose not to continue, but it is not like a huge number of 2L's are academically disqualified by suprise every year. And BTW, my school has a very high California bar passage rate (75%-80% or thereabouts for first-time takers), so it seems likely they are doing something right.

Sorry that went on a bit long -- I guess I just feel we have enough tests and hoops to jump through already, and that adults can make their own decisions as to whether the risk of further debt and wasted time is worth it in borderline cases.

 

I couldn't agree more. I mean, three full days worth of testing including the MBE, six essay questions, and a two-part performance test? Enough already!

 

I wasn't really thinking about the Bar Exam, I was more thinking about law school as a whole. It's sort of a circular reasoning sort of thing: since people who manage to graduate from ABA schools tend to pass the bar at an acceptable rate, the bar examiners use whether or not you graduate -- which is largely based on grades -- to determine whether or not you can take the bar. At non-ABA or CalBar schools, the bar examiners are not confident that just graduating is sufficient, so they add in the baby bar as an additional hurdle.

So, in the ABA or CalBar case, your grades -- which are based on your law school exams -- are sufficient, in the bar examiner's opinion, to show sufficient education to take and pass the bar. In the non-ABA or CalBar case, the bar examiners do not find grades alone to be a sufficient measure, so they include the Baby Bar.

So, I guess you could equate your first-year law school exams at an ABA or CalBar school as roughly equivalent to the Baby Bar at a non-ABA or CalBar school. This probably isn't an exactly fair comparison, as I would guess that the first year exams are probably pretty tough at non-ABA and CalBar schools as well (but I could be wrong), but I guess that's the price paid for trying to bypass the ABA or California Bar -- when you have a monopoly, you might as well use it!

Actually, the use of the Baby Bar to supplement grades is probably a reasonable explanation -- although an ABA or CalBar grad who graduates is golden as far as qualifying for the bar exam goes, ABA and CalBar 1L's who end up on the edge of being academically disqualified ARE required to take the Baby Bar -- so some ABA and CalBar students do end up taking the Baby Bar.

 

Yeah, but if they **really** felt that way, wouldn't you think they'd dispense with the 3-day bit (at least for grads of ABA-approved schools)? I mean, the pass rate for those grads are right in line with the vast majority of other jurisdictions. Hence, I don't understand why they continue to futz around with 3 days worth of testing. It makes it appear as if they don't have much confidence in the education provided by ABA-approved schools.

 

I Recall...

Another option: I recall reading on the board, within
the past year (perhaps last Fall), about the University
of London external law degrees (LLB? Master's in Law)...
Now if I recall correctly, the degree is suitable for corporate
work or government work in international law--not courtroom law...

Why isn't this a viable route?
I.e., bypass the ABA requirements since one won't need them!--go stright to work?

What's wrong with this plan?

--Orson

 

Re: I Recall...

Depends on the jurisdiction but most states require a J.D. from an ABA-approved school. Some will permit grads of foreign law schools to seek licensure only after additional education (e.g. an LL.M.) is completed; only a few recognize certain specific foreign legal education programs.

Perhaps what you're referring to is the limited license offered by some states and referred to as a "foreign legal consultant". But typically, the holder of such a license is limited to rendering legal services which relate to the laws of the country in which the person is admitted to practice.

 

There are two more points to be made in connection with the foreign LLB route;
1) Most states that DO accept foreign law graduates require that the applicant be licensed to practice law in the foreign jurisdiction before applying to their state bar.
2) Ditto for the "foreign legal consultant", who is restricted to providing advice on his HOME jurisdiction's law and forbidden to advise on U.S. law.

Nosborne, JD

 

Good ones, too. The foreign LLB route simply isn't a viable alternative.

 

But you're missing the point!

But you (Homer) are missing the point! In practicing in a corporate
legal position, there is no need to have a license--corps have legal staffs, they work in teams of specailists, there is no need for a license when you'll never set foot in a courtroom--and if you bring a needed specialty, e.g., international law/foreign language,
your field of play is world wide commerce--NOT some silly local jurisdiction!

In short, your're confusing the need of sole (or small) legal practicioners with the specialized wolrld of cporporate law!

--Orson

 

WHOA!!

This is NOT ACCURATE! If you are advising a corporation as in-house counsel, not only MUST you be a member of the Bar but many states you must registyer with the State Bar where you are working if it is a state other than one in which you are licensed.

You may NOT practice law, even in house, even if you stay out of the Courtroom unless you are a licensed attorney!

The penalties are both criminal and contempt of court.

Nosborne, JD

 

I think I may have mentioned this in an earlier thread (maybe a few months ago), but in my law class there is a woman with an LLB from Scotland who is pursuing a JD because it is easier (and quicker) to get an ABA JD and take the bar here than it is to try and get licensed in the UK then come here and study for the bar. I think the UK takes a couple of years of post-graduate training after the LLB before you are allowed to sit for the bar there.

 

One more thing I forgot -- when I was talking to the Scot LLB holder, she mentioned that having an LLB and being licensed in Scotland would not have sufficed for her to take the bar in any state in the U.S. without a U.S. LLM -- England (or UK, I always get the jurisdiction of these confused) is one of the very few countries where an LLB, combined with a license to practice law in that country, will allow you to sit for the bar in a U.S. state (and probably only NY and CA at that).

Not only that, but the Scot LLB alone was insufficient for her to simply take an LLM -- she had to do the JD.

I'm writing this from memory, so I may be off on a detail or two, but that was the gist of our conversation. From talking with here, the LLB route -- if you intend on actually practicing law in the U.S. -- is a longer route than simply getting an ABA law degree.

 

Re: But you're missing the point!

First, see Nosborne's post.

Second, there are literally **thousands** of lawyers who would absolutely kill for an in-house position including those who graduated from top-ranked, ABA-approved schools. Do you honestly think a lawyer with a DL law degree from a foreign country has even a remote chance of being hired by any decent-sized corporation in this country considering the competition? Please!

 

Richards:

That is the second time you've mentioned your Scottish friend, but it's a good story and bears repeating.

Probably the reason she needed to do a JD is because Scotland, as opposed to England, is a CIVIL law jurisdiction. Usually, states which recognize foreign legal training require that the training come from a country where the "common law of England" forms the basis of the jurisdiction.

(Sooo...a Louisiana lawyer wouldn't qualify??)

Nosborne, JD

 

Hi Nosborne,

I couldn't remember if I posted that story or not, I guess I did!

I agree that the Civil law thing is a barrier, but what I thought was interesting was the permutations:

Scot LLB + license to practice in UK -> may be able to take bar in CA

Scot LLB + license to practice in Scotland -> must take LLM to take CA bar

Scot LLB alone + ABA JD -> take CA bar

Again, I am not sure if that is 100% correct, but that is what I remember! So, if you have a Civil Law LLM (Scot), but manage to pass a common law bar (UK), then you can take the CA bar, but Civil LLB + Civil Bar = no CA bar without further education.

You do raise a good point, though -- what about folks from LA ABA schools? I guess maybe they get enough common law through federal cases, but I wonder if they get hammered on the multistate exam?

Richard

 

Nosborne--

We're getting bit off topic, but I recently met a Louisiana attorney who is clerking for a judge. I asked her if law school training (which was not in LA) prepared her for practice in LA.

I was surprised when she brushed off my question with, "It really isn't very different." When I asked specifically about how Napoleonic law differed from British common law, she again stated that modernly, LA law wasn't much different from the rest of the USA.

Being involved with professional licensing, I found her answer unsatisfying. Before chiropractic was licensed, chiropractors in common law jurisdictions generally practiced without any problems, provided they did not engage in the practice of medicine. This is not the case where civil law is operative. In fact, even today, the practice of chiropractic by persons not licensed as physicians is illegal in France.

A few years ago, while unlicensed French chiropractors were prosecuted, their unlicensed colleagues in the UK practiced without interference. (UK chiropractors must now be registered).

Interestingly, Louisiana was one of the last states in the US to license chiropractors (early 1970s). Prior to that time, they were often arrested.

So...I thnk there is a BIG difference between civil and common law jurisdictions.

But then....I'm not in an ABA law school.

Christopher

 

Law schools in Louisiana offer common law Property and civil law property as first year alternatives. I think they do the same with Obligations, so at least THEY think there's a dfference.

Law schools in Puerto Rico teach in SPANISH but are common law schools accredited by the ABA, so maybe there ISN'T that much of a difference.

Here in New Mexico, our law governing domestic relations is essentially civil code but the rest of the country has adopted civil law concepts to a considerable extent.

I don't know. People borrow legal concepts across jurisdictional lines, so I guess that the systems are getting closer.

Nosborne, JD

 

Nope! Louisiana doesn't administer the MBE.