legit JD route using distance learning

I believe that with just the science degree or the qualifying courses, you can become a patent agent. In order to become a patent attorney, you must have the science background and be a member of any state bar. The patent office is a federal organization. That's why you would be able to practice in any state, as long as you are a member of any bar.

 

I forgot to mention that I'm not sure if I'm going to go for tax or estate management, so I thought it would be a good idea if I went for tax to understand the law, and in the event I do estate planning/personal finance, I would have the JD for vanity's sake, I suppose. I'm getting too old to "wait and see" how things fall into place.

Plus, without serious research, I won't really know what I'm missing. The money for the first year of DL JD won't kill me while I sort out the future, right?

You of course, have found the weakness in my plans; I don't know what the future holds because I'm changing careers, which I thought I'd never have to do again.

Hohum. I would much rather stay in the IT field, but the indicators are telling me to kill that dream.

 

Originally posted by wannaJD
I forgot to mention that I'm not sure if I'm going to go for tax or estate management, so I thought it would be a good idea if I went for tax to understand the law, and in the event I do estate planning/personal finance, I would have the JD for vanity's sake, I suppose. I'm getting too old to "wait and see" how things fall into place.

I hear you loud and clear on the latter; no one seems to be getter any younger. But for the area in which you appear to be interested, I'm not sure a JD, alone, will carry a lot of weight. In my experience, many people think "CPA" when they think "taxation" and "CFP" or "CFA" when they think "personal financial planning".

The JDs I know that work exclusively in taxation handle big deals; few deal with individual matters unless they also happen to be CPAs (which may be why they get that type of business in the first place). I know a couple of (solo) lawyers who have very lucrative T&E practices but it took them =years= to build (as in around 15 years).

Plus, without serious research, I won't really know what I'm missing. The money for the first year of DL JD won't kill me while I sort out the future, right?

Probably not but those bucks (not to mention the time) might be better spent elsewhere, considering your focus. I mean, you seem to want something along the lines of estate/tax/financial planning but, going through a full-blown JD program (DL or otherwise), you're going to pick up a lot of relatively extraneous stuff like torts, criminal law, constitutional law, etc. along the way.

 

Thanks for the thoughtful response.. You are making me think a great deal about things, not just the JD.

I haven't been completely forthright about everything. Rather than expose my insecurity and scattered approach to the mess that my career is going to become soon (I'm still working full time thank goodness), I left out the fact that I'm taking courses at a local brick and mortar in accounting and finance right now. Most normal people would finish these courses before starting yet another intense goal.

The school is expensive, and you have to take courses in a certain order, so I can't take more than two classes, at a time, and the coursework is so easy that I'm bored. CPA-dom requires 24 hours of credit in accounting. Slowly but surely I'll get there.

I have a full weekend available for something to do because my significant other is now working weekends and going to school part-time (career shattered by the economy). We don't see each other nearly as much as we used to, and I'm not sure the time for the additional self-reflection is all its cracked up to be...!

I suppose I could train for a triathlon or something instead



On further inspection, I am envious of the knowledge that lawyers have. I suppose it was a childhood dream that got deferred by life events.

The geo-political events since the 9/11 tragedy have also influenced my thinking for the past two years. I've never been more aware of the economical and political implications of our administration, and I'm feeling lost as to how to direct my anger about the mis-handling of things.

In short, I'm a budding political activist (I fantasize that I'm Angela Davis, on occasion), and I've been handicapped by my lack of knowledge.

So there's more to my story than career focus. I'm a very angry person right now, who's career is being interrupted by things out of my control. Perhaps this JD initiative is my attempt to ameliorate those feelings.

By now you've guessed, I'm female and a tad bitter about the control that the establishment has over issues that are dear to me.

So the JD would serve to extend my utility a bit, and provide personal stimulation that this accounting/finance stuff doesn't seem to provide, though I'm at a loss as to what other avenue to pursue for career change.

I"ve thought about a part-time gig in an accounting/tax office, but those seem difficult to find in light of the economy. I've thought about spending some time at H&R Block (yuck) and I already volunteer to do taxes for the poor after work once or twice a week.

Confused? Me too.

Perhaps this is all a manifestation of my angst. I probably incorrectly perceive that the law is my way to understanding. Next, I'll be studying economics and trying to feed the world.

 

economics of the legal profession

Interesting study...

http://dukiedoggie.tripod.com/cornell/Courses/Econ101/report.html

A monopoly has the power to set price in a market. In the legal profession, this market power manifests itself through the actions of its main player. The American Bar Association has a significant effect in determining the price of a legal education. As the ABA drives the fixed costs of law schools up, tuition prices increase. The supply and demand model in figure 1a can explain this increase in tuition. In the short run, the supply of legal education decreases, driving up price and reducing the equilibrium quantity of law degrees. Loan default rates rise because the price of a legal education rises, as the demand for lawyers remains constant. At the same time, more big companies are hiring in-house lawyers instead of outsourcing to private firms. The demand for lawyers falls in the long run as companies become more efficient handling legal work. The combination of high loan default rates and decreased demand for lawyers in turn decreases the demand for law degrees (the number of people who want to become lawyers). In the long run (figure 1b) demand shifts left, further reducing the equilibrium quantity of law degrees in the market.

 

Are you tweaking or what? I've read a lot of your posts thus far and you are all over the map. Perhaps rehab is in order before another degree.

Christian
CGEN, USQ
SCPM, Stanford
MBA/JD (in progress)

 

Glad to see that my law school was well above "average"-- at least for tuition!

 

I find it interesting that you cannot do law by distance learning and practice law in America other than in California.

In the UK, you can do a law degree with the University of London, Open University, and other institutions and then practice law. Most common law countries accept the University of London Degree, although it would appear that the United States is different.
In my country (Australia), distance learning law degrees are quite common. Actually here, in most states, you can do the bar exams or be admitted to practice by undertaking a university course which means you don't have to do an equivalent of the bar exam. I am doing mine via the University of London. They know that they have some United States Citizens as students. I don't know how they get on when they finish.

Why has the ABA gone such a different path to other common law jurisdictions? America appears to me to very innovative in most things, including education, yet on odd occasions it seems not to be.

 

Yes, I am tweaking. My current career (software development) is being trashed by offshoring and immigration and the unemployment rate is around 20%.


I spent time in study for this career since 1993, and I finally got a job programming in 1998. I'm really good at it, but if I ever get laid off from my current job, I'm likely not going to find another programming job.

So, yes, I am trying to change who I am. Yes, I probably need counseling. I think you would too if you had to change gears so drastically.

But anyway, I am enrolled in the legal program at NWCU (awaiting the materials), and I reserve the right to change my mind about that, too.

 

Because the ABA is a guild and, as such, is very interested in raising the prices for its labor. It does that primarily by reducing the number of people practicing the craft (the law). And it does that by two main methods: keeping a lid on the number of law schools it approves and adjusting the passing score on the Bar exam to maintain its desire entry numbers.

Or if the ABA was truly interested in determing the efficacy of learning the law via distance learning, it could commission a study of it. If it proves to be an inferior method, they have their justification for limiting it. But you don't see them rushing out to determine this, do you?

If the ABA were to open up the study of law to distance learning, a great number of people who were unable to enter the profession before would then be able to do so. And that would drive down the membership's prices.

Existing lawyers have a great stake in limiting the number of new lawyers. And who makes those decisions? The ABA. And who's in the ABA? Lawyers. Neat, huh?

 

Okay, the laugh is on me. You are in San Francisco, the HEART of the technology bomb.

You would have to be utterly retarded not to see the carnage around you related to the lack of IT jobs. People there must be depressed as H. IT jobs do not translate well to other jobs.

Go to the nearest StarBucks to see your neighborhood geek making 90% less than he/she used to make. This would have a very negative impact on a person's psyche.

 

Because the common law jurisdictions tend to break down into two camps: the "Commonwealth" camp and the "American" camp. The US has been evolving in its own way (more accurately in 50 closely related ways) since the late 18th century. Most of the other former British colonies and dominions seem to have remained closer to British legal practice.

I think that legal practice and rules of court evolve, just like case law evolves in common law countries. In America's case it has progressed further towards speciation because of a longer period of political independence (reproductive isolation in evolutionary terms), and because the US is larger than most of the other common law nations and reacts more to internal developments as opposed to following developments back in the home country.

Concerning innovation generally:

The practice of law traditionally was kind of a seat-of-the-pants operation. Most attorneys learned their trade through apprenticeship. The trend over time in the United States has been towards the increasing professionalization of law.

I think that all social organizations tend to elaborate and to reify in this way. As each skilled trade becomes a profession regulated by an ever growing body of detailed rules and procedures, creative responses to changing situations are gradually replaced with ritualized performance.

There are political implications there, but I'll let them pass.

 

I have to add my two cents here

WannaJD,

I am in Chicago as well...

I’ve deal with the “law school question” for some time now. I, like you, have the same feelings toward the establishment. Plus, I’ve worked for law firms as a paralegal (in Chicago and in FL) for 3 years now, and I have a good feeling as to the practice of law.

With that being said...

I tried the backdoor approach. I was enrolled in the University of London’s External LLB program. I went through an entire semester, but I found it to be useless for an American. I haven't been able to find one person who actuall used their LLB as their ticket to American Bar admission. I also enrolled win SCUPS California Bar program but withdrew. In short, I think I’ve been there and done that, so to speak. I don’t want to get into the specifics of my experience here, but I will expound if you’d like.

I ultimately came to the conclusion that I was limiting my career options. I didn’t know if I wanted to spend the rest of my life in California, or to try and find a way to squeak in to the State Bar by a loophole.

I spent countless hours reviewing and analyzing how it can be done. And it can be done.
But I did not think it was worth it.

I then decided that an ABA education would be worth it for me.

I have a VERY good chance at being accepted to John Marshall Law school. My GPA isn’t bad. I have several glowing recommendations from Judges, etc., I work with two internationally known lawyers (mother and son), and the father and ex-husband of my employers is a senior faculty member at the Law school.

BUT....

I looked at the price. It’s too expensive... I don’t think I want to be a lawyer that much to justify spending that kind of money.

Right now I am looking at other graduate school options. Perhaps some grad work in Psychology or business...

But I don’t want to be a lawyer anymore.

 

Re: I have to add my two cents here

 

Part 2

WannaJD,

You seem to be going through the same soul-searching I did about 4 years ago.

There is a lot of bad information out there.

1. Regarding Commonwealth LLB's and New York---you will be hard pressed to find any Americans who have been recently admitted via this route. Most Americans who went this route were either admitted before the 70's. Also, you will find a large number of people having been admitted in the U.K. prior to being admitted into the New York Bar. Further, the New York Bar has the EXPLICIT requirement that one's first law degree cannot be through distance learning. Alternatively, if one has a distance law degree and 7 years ( I think) practice time in another jurisdiction, then one can be admitted.

I’ve often heard that the most usefulness use of the DL LLB for Americans is to use it as an undergraduate degree and simply apply to an ABA approved school.

Now, I have heard about one or two Americans who have earned a U.K. LLB, and then went on to earn an LLM from an American school to be subsequently admitted to the Cali Bar. I don’t have any specific names.

An interesting note, though, is that the ABA doesn’t accredit LLM degrees.

But an DL LLB being used as the only tool for Bar Admissions (outside of the exam)? Haven’t heard of one yet.

2. I heard that 25 % of California lawyers did not attend ABA schools. But out of that 25%, how many attended law school via DL. I know of one in particular, as he documented the process online. His name was Ed Denton, but I can't seem to find his page right now.

But regardless, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the bulk of the 25% of non-ABA educated California attorneys went to Brick and Mortar Schools. And of those schools, many of them are actively seeking ABA accreditation.

I would recommend you contact the Cali bar and ask for a list of attorneys who have graduated form DL law schools. Then, I would contact those graduates and see what they had to say.

Also, you can go to martindale.com and do a search for attorneys who have attended certain schools. I’d contact them as well.

Keep in mind you are seeking entry into a profession with very elitist attitudes. Doing it on your own, via an untraditional medium, won’t make it any easier. It would help if you got in contact with some of the trailblazers who come before you.

Oh, yeah, and I wouldn’t trust anything the schools tell me. Verify, verify, verify.

I wish you the best of luck.

 

Thanks James!

I will follow up properly with real lawyers as you suggeset.

Northwestern California University School of Law has an actual alumnus with a link to his bio from a government website:

http://www.ots.treas.gov/pagehtml.cfm?catNumber=34

The site for Ed Denson, which you mentioned, is here:

http://www.asis.com/~edenson/lawstudy.html

His name is listed at Taft's site as being an actual graduate in 1999, just like he states on his web site. I enjoyed reading about his court battles on behalf of marijuana scofflaws. Something like that is right up my alley. Smoke it if you got it!

I've looked up numerous folks on the internet that claim JD's from NWCU Law. I've noted that most of them were in one profession and their legal education served to extend their capabilities. My personal goal isn't necessarily to be a courtroom lawyer.

I haven't put my finger on it yet, but I would feel a certain sense of pride by not being suckered into spending $80,000 for the same credential that the "elite" have. I would enjoy it immensely. In fact, the more those folks might remind me of my sub-standard education, the more I would be happy to remind them of the $80,000 I have working for me in my 401(k).

I hear what you are saying. This whole JD thing is like the apple in the garden, so to speak. I must have it! At least, that is the way I feel TODAY. Tomorrow, I may feel differently.

Ya know, maybe I'll just rack up degrees and see what happens. The worst that can happen is I'll go to an ABA law school knowing it all already. Is that so bad?

I have no idea what I want to be. For those who think I'm a complete nitwit (probably true), I self-studied my way to my current career as a programmer. I'm so very glad now that I didn't spend 4 years in school and $20,000 that I was going to spend on a brick and mortar MS IT.


Back to your main point though....limiting myself by choosing a non-traditional path: every company owner I've ever dealt closely with has generally been a non-conformist. I suppose this is where my attitude comes from. My end goal is company ownership, not true blue legal practice.


P.S. Mayor of San Fran, Willie Brown, probably went to an ABA law school, but he was a schlock lawyer from the beginning, representing prostitutes and drug dealers. I can imagine he was derided by his colleagues.

 

Not to belabor this issue...but I have to post it...

I find it almost hilarious that the patent bar or whatever they call it is just as "exclusive". They don't accept correspondence or home study for patent law license applicants. I suppose the arm of the ABA has a very long reach, indeed.


http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/oed/grb0403.pdf


Typical Non-Acceptable Course Work:The following typify courses which are not accepted as
demonstrating the necessary scientific and technical training:anthropology;astronomy;audited
courses;behavioral science courses such as psychology and sociology;continuin g legal education
courses;courses in public health;courses relating technology to politics or policy;courses offered by
corporations to corporate employees;courses in management,business administration and operations
research;courses on how to use computer software;courses directed to data management and
management information systems;courses to develop manual,processing or fabrication skills (e.g.
machine operation,wiring,soldering,etc.);courses taken on a pass/fail basis;correspondence courses;
ecology;economics of technology;courses in the history of science,engineering and technology;field
identification of plants and/or animals;home or personal independent study courses;high school level
courses;mathematics courses;one day conferences;patent law courses;paleontology;political science
courses;repair and maintenance courses;radio operator license courses;science courses for non-
science majors;vocational training courses;and work study programs.Also not accepted are college
research or seminar courses where the course content and requirements are not set forth in the course
descriptions;and courses which do not provide scientific and technical training in patentable subject
matter.Further,not accepted are courses that repeat,or which are substantially the same as,or are
lesser-included courses for which credit has already been given.

 

If you go to page 6 of the bulletin, look under "Other Education." I believe correspondence courses are all right, as long as they are from an accredited university.

 

Hmmm. It does seem to contradict the previous paragraph(s). I wonder if by "other education" they mean all courses unrelated to the scientific/engineering courses. And then some of the science courses required must have a lab component...

Confusing...good catch...I'm still not sure what they mean though.

 

If I can throw in a little information, it may clarify the position of US law schools and Bar admissions.

Law schools use the Socratic method of teaching. The professor states and point, asks a question and open discussion ensues. More questions, different points added and subtracted and different results appear. An entire class period can be spent on discussion of and dissection of, one case.

DL would rely more on the old "hornbook" approach to law, which tends to rely upon statutory law more than on argument.

Now, law schools will be the first to tell you that they are not teaching "law" but rather how to THINK like a LAWYER. How to think on your feet, to analyze complex issues and be able to see both sides of the question.

Until DL schools can create such a means of teaching, they will not be an accepted means of legal education.


Wes