Divisions among doctorates

Hi EsqPhD,

I am a trial judge in a court of general jurisdiction for the State of North Carolina. I come into this discussion between you and North to point out one distinction that must be made about the use of the title "Doctor" before an attorney's name. In all of the jurisdictions that I am familiar with it is forbidden to use in correspondence, advertising or communication of any type the title of "Doctor". This is a consumer rights issue that is addressed in the various state bars codes of ethics or conduct. Violation of these rules are punishable by censure/reprimand (minor sanction) to a period of disbarment (max. punishment). The ABA's position on this matter is merely a proposed or model statement that has no binding or legal effect on the state and territorial bars in the U.S. and the District of Columbia.

Warren

 

Warren:

Where is Ash, North Carolina?

Ashboro? Asheville?

Russell,
A Tarheel who has never heard of Ash.

 

And a BE in EE is a very rigourous degree (arguably more than a PhD in many subjects). Does that imply that the BE is Doctoral level? Not all all. The PhD is awarded after 5(+) years grad school plus 2-3 years of equivalent full time undergrad IN THE FIELD of the doctorate. The prototypical professional doctorate, the MD, is awarded after 4 years post graduate work plus 1 [or more commonly 2+] years full time equivalent studying basic sciences (required courses to enter med school). The JD is awarded after 3 years of legal study. There are no specific prerequisits. None. Nadda. Just required to hold a bachelor's degree in something. When most of these students entered, they had no previous legal education. Comparing the degrees based on "years post bachelor's" doesn;t make much sense.


As for my knowlege: I hold a PhD in a technical subject. My wife, who holds a PhD in literature, is currently a law student at a very good law school.

 

Hello Warren,

It is true that every jurisdiction (State) has their own ethical guidelines regarding the attorney's use of the title "Doctor" via correspondence, advertising and communication. The caveat is to always check with one's particular State.

Let me share with you a clipping of the materials I have in my files regarding this area below before giving my own comments. It is true, however, that whatever comments or decisions in the below materials--may not be binding on other jurisdictions.

-------
Another issue that comes up is whether a lawyer's professional cards may include the term "doctor." Originally, use of such a title was prohibited because it was considered self-laudatory. See ABA Informal Opinion 1064 (October 8, 1968) (lawyer may not use the title "doctor" on personal
stationery because it runs afoul of the prohibition against self-laudation); ABA
Informal Opinion 1001 (October 16, 1967) (lawyer may not use title "doctor" professionally or socially because it has a tendency to emphasize the importance of the lawyer's position).

In light of more flexible rules on lawyer advertising, an argument has been made that use of the title "doctor" should be permitted because it indicates training in the law and enhances respect for the
legal profession. See Doctor Wolfe, of Livingston, I Presume, 122 N.J.L.J. 3 (Dec. 1, 1988); see also ABA Informal Opinion 1152 (Feb. 25, 1970) (permissible for lawyer with LL.B. and LL.M. degrees to use title "doctor");

ABA Informal Opinion 1151 (Feb. 25, 1970) (lawyer may use title "doctor" and allow others to refer to him as such); Philadelphia Ethics Opinion 81-83
(undated) (lawyer with J.D. may use "doctor" designation); Suffolk County (New
York) Ethics Opinion 87-6 (undated) (lawyer with J.D. may use title "doctor" professionally and socially); cf. New Jersey Ethics Opinion 461 (9/11/80) (lawyer may use "J.D." and "doctor" but may not use any degree that does not indicate training in law such as "Ph.D. in Spanish").

On the other hand, some opinions have held that use of the term "doctor" is potentially misleading. See, e.g., Arizona Ethics Opinion 81-16 (5/26/81) (lawyer with Juris Doctor degree may not use "doctor" designation; use is "misleading, unseemly and undignified"); North Carolina Ethics
Opinion 5 (1/16/86) (lawyer with Juris Doctor degree may not state that he has a
doctorate or use "doctor"; such terms without explanation could be misleading).
----------

Notice I included lastly, the North Carolina Ethics Opinion (1/16/86).

I would say that a growing number of the jurisdictions would allow a Juris Doctor to use the title before and after the attorney's last name if it is not "misleading." I am in California and though we do not have any specific ethical restrictions or guidance with an attorney using the title "Doctor," it really isn't used much among the general legal culture here. I would only assume that if a J.D. were to use it in a dignified and non "misleading" way--whatever that means, the State Bar of California would probably not object.

I have checked another issue with the California State Bar--that being, what about attorneys with multiple doctorates in other fields (i.e., physicians, scientists, and yes, even me--an Episcopal priest and theologian). They told me that any title can be used (i.e., Dr.) as long as it is not misleading (i.e., gives the impression of greater skills in the law than one actually has). I have known quite a few physicians, dentists, and physicists who earned the law degree and held dual licenses. They continued to use the title "Doctor" socially and in practice (but not in court). I do not believe the California State Bar will reprimand or disbar them (but North Carolina may--I don't know). I personally do not think that a physician or scientist has to give up his/her title just because they are practicing in a dual capacity as an attorney also (i.e., medical malpractice, intellectual property, etc.) (of course, understand that I only mean this outside the court forum--for in the court, the attorneys' titles should be neutral--especially during litigation as to avoid any hint of outside character advantages).

I have digressed, but in regards to the general Juris Doctor using the title of "Doctor," I think that it is archane to refuse the option of title usage when one has earned a valid professional doctorate in law (now, whether one wants to debate if the doctorate should be granted is another issue). I don't see how it can be misleading or undignified. A lawyer is a lawyer...whether you call him/her counselor, Mr./Ms. or Dr. In Europe, attorneys with doctorates are called "Doctor" all the time--there are no general public outcry of undignity or unfair advantage. I think then that the North Carolina and Arizona positions are not as persuasive as their counterparts. I think that New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the ABA's views are more applicable to the changing social environment.

The above being said, I think that like England's surgeons (who use the title of "Mr"), the legal culture of the U.S. would probably stick with "Mr." as a title even if they were given free reign in every jurisdiction to use their doctoral titles. Like I indicated in previous posts, I do not think that the learned or upper eschelon are concerned with someone having a "doctor's" degree as much as with what the degree allows that person to do.

You will see more dual licensed attorneys with licenses and doctorates in other fields (i.e., medicine, science, etc.) who will use their doctoral titles socially and professionally. I don't think that there is anything wrong with that at all--as long as it will not mislead people to think they are more competent in the law than they are.

EsqPhD

 

I'm a BSEE myself but wouldn't equate it with a law degree.

Is your argument essentially saying that in order to be granted a doctorate, be it professional or academic, one must spend a minimum number of years in that field of study? If so, who determines how many years--you?

In England, one normally finishes a BA in three years. Assuming one does well, one goes on to a D.Phil./Ph.D. and do a degree wholely by research--which usually is in the same area as their undergraduate but doesn't have to be exactly. The average time for the research based Ph.D. is approximately 3 years for the good students (i.e., graduating with a First in the undergraduate). I know of some friends at Oxford who studied Political Science, Philosophy, and Economics (PPE) in their undergraduate. As you can see, the three majors had to be balanced in the three years of undergraduate--giving at most, a full year in each area. This one particular friend went on to finish a research D.Phil. (no other coursework) in Economics in three years.

The point is, who determines what should be at the doctoral level or to grant a doctoral degree? I think it is the people who oversee those programs.

By the way, I have a sister who finished a Ph.D. in Computer Science from U.C. Berkeley. She did her undergraduate and masters in EE. For some reason, she chose to do a Ph.D. in Computer Science--probably because of marketability these days. Obviously, the EE wasn't exactly the prerequite for the Ph.D. in Computer Science. She then took approximately 15 units of prerequisite CS coursework, entered the CS department, and finished the Ph.D. in three years. It is true that some took 4 years, others may have taken 8 years if they were on a "part time" schedule. If we do not count her EE, which having similarities in basic lower division GE's, her Ph.D. (CS) program was a little less than 4 years. Should we on your learned advice, tell Berkeley that they should make her stay another 2-3 years?

Depending on what State you are from and until your wife finishes her program and actually passes the Bar, I wouldn't equate the 3 years of legal training so lightly. Most academic doctorates in America only require 60-72 units (masters work and dissertation units included in that figure) of course work (in Europe, usually no coursework)--with a flexible time schedule up to 8-9 years to complete. The J.D. requires from 86-90 units plus the Bar to follow post undergraduate--and most of the time, required to be done in three years--not the kickback oh I have up to 8-9 years to complete. I think if medical and law school allowed people 8 years to complete, a lot more people would then have the "intelligence" to go through and finish the programs.

To return to the question of who determines what is doctoral level and so forth...I would think it would be the accrediting and governing bodies of those fields. You may think of your field or degree as superior (in academic rigours) to other fields or degrees--that is your perogative. One day you might have someone with a Harvard Ph.D. say that a State school or distance learning degree is a walk in the park and not worthy of true doctoral level--and I guess that is their perogative.

In addition, if you truly think that your wife is unworthy of a Juris Doctorate if and when she finishes, she can petition and ask to be granted either an LL.B. or Certificate of Completion without the J.D. (they will give her the others if she really raises a valid conscientious objection). I doubt that she or you will actually do that. But again, wait until she finishes and passes the Bar first before being so confident.

EsqPhD

 

Greetings EsqPhD,

After such a rapid and insightful response I am of the opinion that there is but two things that I might be able to add to this discussion. First, the information that you have included in the previous post can also be found on www.legalethics.com. This is a searchable database for most U.S. jurisdictions and where the model ABA code can be found. Secondly, this is an ongoing issue in the legal community. The responses from the various ethics authorities are generally a reflection of what those authorities feel that the public's perception is of the legal profession. I also agree with you that even if allow to do so very few practicing attorneys would professionally use the title in the court room setting. I could just as easily be wrong. This is evidenced by the flock of attorneys that "upgraded" their LL.B.'s to J.D.'s when given the chance in the late 1960's and early 1970's.

Warren

 

I am the District Public Defender for a chunk of southern New Mexico. Years ago, I wondered about the use of "Dr." by attorneys with the J.D. degree. I ran across a statement by someone, (Dr. Bear, maybe?) that queried why attorneys would want to share a title with so many other professions when we have the unique title of "Attorney and Counsellor at Law". LOTS more syllables!!
joybaum

 

The thought of lawyers using the term "Doctor," especially in a courtroom, sends chills up my spine! "Doctor Jones, would you like to cross-examine?" "Doctor Smith, do you have your witness ready?" "Doctor Allen, do you need a recess?" Oy!

But seriously, to the degree that a J.D. and bar admission signify a special expertise, the title "Esq." (as in John Jones, Esq.) is perfectly sufficient.

As to the interesting thread concerning the rigor between law programs and other degree programs, I'll weigh in with a few observations.

In terms of analytical rigor, law school can be pretty rough sledding. People I know who have done joint J.D./MBA programs have freely volunteered that most of their MBA courses were easier than most of their law courses.

On the other hand, many law courses are evaluated with a single written final exam at the end of the semester or year. For students who learn well the art of legal reasoning and writing and who are quick studies in terms of learning the law, it's possible to put in a pretty low effort during the semester and come out with a high exam grade.

For what it's worth, I've noticed that many law students who enter with very strong and accomplished backgrounds in math, engineering, and the hard sciences sometimes have difficulty adapting to legal reasoning and writing. And many strong law students are positively phobic about math and science and freak out at even elementary calculations related to certain legal rules.

Comparing law school to traditional graduate school is an apples & oranges thing, in my opinion. I hope the Ph.D.s won't take me wrong when I say this, but I've seen more people who come to law school with strong graduate school records have trouble succeeding in law school than the other way around. Nevertheless, a good grad school program surely isn't a picnic -- there are built-in stressors that aren't present in more structured law degree programs. And negative aspects of the culture of grad school training can feed on themselves -- only unlike law school programs of 3-4 years, this typically lasts from 6-8 years.

End of meanderings . . .

 

I wonder how long this will last (teaching with only a JD). I just did a very quick survey--looked at the faculty from the local law school. Of the first level faculty (assistent prof equivalent) fully half of them hold a JSD, PhD or are late stage PhD candidates (ABDs actively writing) [As an aside--most of the faculty seems to have Harvard --I guess that's what happens when you are so much larger than the other 2 or 3 top schools] remember--40 years ago an MS was sufficient to get a faculty position in all but the best schools (there are still a few of these left in academia--I interviewed with one when I was applying to PhD programs). The impression I got was that those who didn't have advanced degrees, had a good deal of high-level legal experience (ie. running big cases for large, influential interest groups) although I haven't looked through the CVs to verify this.

 

I wonder how long this will last (teaching with only a JD).
[/B][/QUOTE]

I was a Ph.D. before going to law school, thus like you, I was very perplexed at how few law professors had anything higher than a J.D. I would see the occasional Ph.D.--but usually in a different field altogether. Of course, the tax law professors were usually LL.M. in Taxation.

I didn't understand it completely until practice. In practice I reflected a bit more and was clearer on why a traditional graduate research degree is not really necessary in most of the law fields. Law, like medicine, is more "clinical" than it is theoretical. The practitioners, be they criminal to taxation must be on the cutting edge of knowledge in their fields in order to practice effectively. Law is an ever evolving system--hence, the practitioner, by the time they philosophize the nature of the current data, it probably has changed--hence, their theoretical analysis are out of date. This is the difference between clinical research versus the traditional research (traditional/theoretical--things are slower to change).

Lawyers typically are not too interested in studying historical issues such as the transition of Roman to Canon to English law etc. if it will not apply in helping them adequately represent their clients. I love history and have an LL.M. in Taxation--and though I would love to sit down and review the historical transitions of the tax codes, I probably won't because there are so many changes in new laws that I probably won't even get through those any time soon. Additionally, my paying clients, at a billing rate of $275 per hour only care about my knowing the most up to date laws and procedures that will best help them.

If and when I do decide to enter the safe haven of teaching tax law (at the J.D. level) at a law school, I will assume that my cutting edge knowledge of the tax codes and laws and success in practice are more important than my LL.M. thesis on a tax issue that is no longer an issue.

In law school, we study case law (changing constantly), which though serves as a foundation to developing our abilities to analyze, leads us eventually to clinical research and practice. I agree with Professor Yamada that comparing traditional graduate degrees with the professional law degree (medicine also) is like comparing apples and oranges. Their focuses are different. While the traditional academic entry programs leave room for their academics to become doctors (highest level of training) for their fields in time--the clinicians (law, medicine, etc.), must be "doctors" (having the most up to date and comprehensive knowledge) of their fields as soon as they begin practice. If not, they would have very few clients, face malpractice and become poor. As such, the professional programs in law and medicine, at least in America, gives (or purports to give) the top academic level training at the entry level. There are further specialist programs (i.e., Taxation) that allows further training but they only cover a minority of the fields of legal practice. For me, the LL.M. in Taxation is helpful, but not necessary for being a practitioner or specialist in tax law. There are other avenues to gain competency in those areas similar to residency in medicine--but I won't bore you with specialist certifications in different areas of the law.

I hope this clarifies some differences. Maybe the other practitioners can explain it better than me.

To answer how long teaching with only a J.D. will last?--I think permanently for the professional law degree program. Like medicine, it is very hard to get high quality and successful J.D. practitioners to leave private practice and enter full time teaching or the bench. Theoriticians of law with little practice experience aren't really sought after to teach areas of the law that need clinical expertise. That's why, at least in most of the law schools I know in California, the starting salary for the entry professor of law (equivalent to an assistant professor) is approximately 80-95K per year. Believe me that this is not high considering first year J.D. graduates going into Intellectual Property law can command a beginning salary of anywhere between 80K (smaller firms) to 125K+ (larger firms) in the first year alone.

EsqPhD

 

An interesting reading, but that's not what "doctor" means. It means "teacher" as in "(s)he added to the worlds knowledge and taught us something"

interestingly this is less than the starting salary of any of my PhD friends in academia in the last few years (at least the ones whose salaries I know).


I wonder if part of the disagreement is because law schools essentially have a 2 tier system. There are those on law review (who, depending on how it is done, might be required to write a substantial scholarly work) and those who are not. Of the law professors I've looked at, as far as I can tell almost all where on law review. I would posit from this that a plain JD might not be an acceptable qualification for a teaching position at a good school.

As for the request for fields--I'll try to look and check it out. As I remember one was a JSD, one a variant on a JSD and most of the rest where in sociology and humanities of various forms.

 

It's true that more law schools are hiring faculty who have both J.D.s and Ph.D.s, but having some sense of what the general faculty recruiting situation is today, I can verify that it's a mini-trend rather than a mega-trend. More generally, however, I agree that it's becoming the norm to expect what I'd refer to as a "J.D.+" -- that "+" being one or more of the following: a judicial clerkship, an LL.M., a Ph.D., a law review article either published or accepted for publication, and/or previous full-time teaching experience in a visiting or legal writing position.

Personally, it disburbs me. As we see in many other employment sectors, those who have "made it" into the academic club happily continue to set the credential bars higher and higher for anyone else who wants to become part of it -- many of them would be unable to meet those standards, back then or now.

 

I agree that the word doctor means teacher or in the Latin, learned. I placed the "doctor" in quotes there because I didn't want to get into a definition but would assume that comprehensive knowledge (or attempt to be comprehensive) in a field is a part of being a doctor of something.

If starting Ph.D.'s in the engineering or hard sciences are beginning at 80-95K as an assistant professor first year then I guess things are changing, at least in the East Coast, more quickly than the data shows. In California, Ph.D.'s (engineering & hard sciences) starts after Fellowship, at between 36-50K the last time I checked (2000).

As for Law Review, it is mainly a law student organization for members who have good gpa's in law school and are invited (usually 3.0 or higher--note that for most law schools, having a 3.0 (in LS) is actually equivalent to between a 3.5-4.0 in most other disciplines--essentially, it is very hard to have high gpa's--thus the ranking system usually is class rank--like 1st, 2nd, etc.). The Law Review members (students) and some faculty members oversee the publishing of Law Review articles--which usually are submitted by post J.D. legal scholars--rarely students. Thus, Law Review students do not normally submit "substantial written work" as a condition to having membership in Law Review. They do, however, review the written work submitted. If a Law Review student happens to be able to submit something, the article is no longer than 10-30 pages--otherwise, too long for a Law Review magazine.

I guess it is prestigious to be in Law Review, especially if one becomes an editor. For me, though I was a member, I did very little--except went to a few meetings and read some articles submitted. What's more prestitious is if one can graduate in the top 10% of one's law class (and I would assume most Law Review members do) then clerk for a judge or work for a high powered law firm.

Professorships in law schools do typically come from the top 10% of J.D. graduates, those who have clerked for the higher courts, former judges, and/or successful in practice. I think that is more important of a criteria for law professorship employment in most law schools than say someone without one of those credentials and happens to have a Ph.D. or S.J.D. after the fact. The Ph.D. or S.J.D. unfortunately means very little in academic legal employment if one does not have one or more of the above criteria. And as someone has previously pointed out, if one has one of the previous criterias, one probably doesn't need to do any more degree attainment to land a law professorship.

I think the difficulty then really is academic/professional subcultures. You may be judging American legal academia by traditional academic standards. Hence, to be a "doctor" of a discipline, one should at minimum submit a substantial piece of written work (i.e., dissertation) that encapsulates years of research, etc. I think this type of worldview is limited (not meant to offend). We should all be open to other avenues, especially in different cultures and subcultures, that has similar (but not exact) equivalencies.

Why don't we pick on the theologians or M.D.'s for change!

EsqPhD

 

It that's in patent law it sounds kind of low considering you also need a tech degree to take the patent bar. Well, for first year I guess it's not too bad.

While my friends are still on the east coast, I'm actually living in Los Angeles (if you are here we can go flying sometime--I'm part owner of a plane at one of the local airports). Fellowships are required in Bio and other sciences, but most Engineering and CS PhDs I know have been able to get faculty positions right out of the gate.

Actually this varys. At the local top law school GPA is not counted at all. All students do a production test and write-on seconds semester. This has the perverse effect that a number of the law review members are some of the weaker students. Conversly the grades approach is not that great since you might get people with no writing skills. Some sort of combined index would seem to me to be the best approach.

I'd modify this to say "equivalent to between a 3.5-4.0 in many other disciplines"--there are many disciplines with at least as strict grading curves. At the local school the curve is approx 20% A, 60% B 20% below B IIRC (with the +/- up to the discresion of the instructor)

here there are 2 tracks, with one more involved in editing and cite-checking and the other track more involved in production of comments. Students are required to do a good deal of writing in either track (to fulfill the writing requirement)

And I really think you are off on this. The local school is a top 20 school--things might be different at the small, lower ranked schools, but here it's still publish or. To get tenure, the profs are still expected to publish some law review articles in prestegious law reviews. Exactly how is this different than other fields? It isn't.


As an aside, a comment to David Yamada:

That's the way of the world. Requirements keep going up. What is required in my field, in terms of publications, to get a faculty position would have sufficed to get tenure 25 years ago. I always get a laugh at the MDs who graduated in the very early 90s (when med school admission was relatively easy in the late 80s due to the AIDS scare) who look down their noses at people graduating with Osteopathic medical degrees (DO). Many/Most of those MDs probably would have trouble getting into the DO programs now )

 

Just just side comments:

In the mid-80s when my wife was in law school (ABA Accredited) at a public land grant institution the tuition was just under $600.00 per semester. At the time it seemed like a lot for struggling students but is a bargain today. For her J.D. she had to complete two extensive writing requirements in addition to all of the course work. For a professional degree I think that the J.D. is the appropriate title and the coursework equivalent of professional doctoral studies.

On the D.O.'s, as far as I know they have all the same rights and privleges as an M.D. It was a Nova D.O. who replaced the lady doctor that was air lifted from Antartica.

John

 

Based on your comments in the above paragraph, I don't know if we are discussing the same things. You seem to be moving towards tenureship (and the expectations of a tenured professorship) in teaching while I was just commenting on how the American legal system taught on the doctoral level and the preliminary requirements to be initially employed as a law professor.

As for M.D.'s, why aren't there more comments on how M.D.'s should all get Ph.D.'s in order to teach clinical courses? Probably, because it's not necessary. Why all the fuss about the requiring of J.D.'s to have Ph.D.'s in order to teach people on how to be lawyers? Let the professional degree people do what they do best--and that is to train their own people to be professionals within their fields. I don't hear M.D.'s and J.D.'s telling theologians, engineers, etc. how they should teach their own and what qualifications to have in order to teach. While most of the professions today were in "diapers," the physicians and attorneys were changing the world, respectively bringing healthcare and framing constitutions and laws that helps protect people's rights.

The M.D. and J.D., regardless what one may call them, are the highest professional and academic training for professionals who want to PRACTICE and to TEACH the PRACTICE of those fields--and can only really be enhanced by continued and skill enhancing practice, not by a philosophical dissertation. One can have an SJD in legal analysis of Roman Law or a Ph.D. in the History of Medicine, but it really does very little to help one practice or teach others to practice the fields of law and medicine.

EsqPhD

 

I just took a quick look at four of the assistant profs without the doctorate (I don't have the faculty rank list, so got to them by randomly picking faculty web pages). Every single one had multiple law review/Journal articles BEFORE being hired as assistant professors. I stand by my statement that it requires significant scholorship beyond the JD to get a faculty position, at least for first and second tier schools. I also think that if this is required today for first and second tier, it will be required soon for third and fourth tier.

Huh? Who's talking about clinical courses here? How many clinical courses did they require in your school. Here they require 1 two-semester course--that's it. The faculty who teach it are not the regular faculty, but the clinical faculty (who's CVs are far less impressive that those of the regular faculty). Most law school courses are not "clinical courses. Now go look at your local med school. Guess what you'll find--MDs teaching the clinical courses, but many or most of the non-clinical courses taught by researchers-PhDs mostly, some MD and MD-PhD researchers. David Yamada has already admitted that a plain JD will no longer get you a faculty position, you need a JD+ (JD+ [clerkship/LLM/Doctorate/law review]). My experience here tells me that the local school isn't even going to hire a JD+, they want a JD++ (law review plus either a really good clerkship or some significant impressive credentials plus some scholorly writing).

Here it's one. Ask any MA student--they also have a writing requirement. That doesn't make it "doctoral"

I hope no one took my comment as disparaging the DOs in the least. They are equivalent to the MDs. I was making a comment on rising standards, where someone who got an MD 10 years ago might not be able to get into a DO program now.


I guess I have more fundamental problems with legal education in the US. Here are some of them (I'd love to hear comments from some of you--especially David Yamada)

1) Not enough clinical work before licensure: To get a CPA in most states you must have the courses, pass the tests, and then work on a litany of accountancy experience for a year or two under supervision. To get a medical license requires the degree, the test, and at least two years of supervised clinical training. To act as an attorney requires the degree and the test. You can represent a client without having ever been in a real courtroom (apparently how to become a public defender in Texas). The UK requires supervised clinical intership for Barristers and Solicitors before licensure.

2) Legal education is unneccessarily long. In the UK someone with a BA or BS can do the academic portion of an LLB (or just a certificate that allows them to join the bar) in 2 years. Why do I say unneccesarily--back to med school. Look at the curriculim at your local med school-it will look like this (more or less, many now have some clinical in the first two years)

year 1&2:required basic science and intro to clinical med.

year 3&4:rotations

the rotations will be partially elective, but about half? or more required (some surgery, some internal medicine, some phych etc).

Now go to your local law school. The curriculum will be something like this:

year 1: required
year 2&3 electives

there might be a required legal ethics course, a required practical course, or maybe a requirement that you write a paper or two in your electives.

Take to physicians and they will have about 3/4 of their med school in common--this is the core of the field that all doctors will need to know to get licensed. Take two lawyers and the first year (and BarBri) might be the entire extent of the training they have in common.
So why make the student do two years of electives (when they might end up practicing something unrelated anyway) [A surgeon does not learn "surgery" during med school. (s)he learns medicine, and learns surgery during the clinical portion of his/her education. Does the law student taking immigration law think that will qualify him to be an immigration attorney?]

It seems that the british legal and the medical education systems make much more sense for a clinical program. An "academic" period not too much longer than required to impart the knowlege followed by enforced apprenticeship. The only purpose for the three year requirement seems to be to keep the number of attorneys artificially low.

 

We're almost at an impasse. There are too much background materials that you as a non-legally trained/non-lawyer lack for us to continue a beneficial and productive discussion of legal education. Learning about the legal system or programs from 3rd parties or web sites may be a beginning but unfortunately it cannot serve as a strong enough foundation for deeper discussions (no insult intended).

I only want to clarify the definition of clinical. Coming from an academic discipline, I viewed most of the law courses as clinical due to the fact that they intended to prepare the student for the practice of those fields--by very practically training on how to legally analyze those areas/cases and understanding its precedents. The emphasis is for eventual practice whereas a course in the philosophical thoughts of Immanuel Kant is not intended for professional practice in the same way that 95% of the law school cirriculum is intended to be--regardless if the student ends up practicing that field or not.

Because I didn't go to a 1st or 2nd tier law school for my J.D., I must have been spared from a more philosophical approach to some of the law school courses--which I do hear goes on from time to time, depending on the professor and course. I did, however, go to the top LL.M. (Tax) program at a first tier law school and it was pretty clinical/practical--perhaps it was just the nature of the specialty--but who knows, I've only graduated from two law schools.

I will end my discussions with you in this area for now since for the reasons stated previously, it may no longer be beneficial. I do, however, look forward to potential discussions in other areas in the future.

EsqPhD

 

[That's the way of the world. Requirements keep going up. What is required in my field, in terms of publications, to get a faculty position would have sufficed to get tenure 25 years ago. I always get a laugh at the MDs who graduated in the very early 90s (when med school admission was relatively easy in the late 80s due to the AIDS scare) who look down their noses at people graduating with Osteopathic medical degrees (DO). Many/Most of those MDs probably would have trouble getting into the DO programs now )

[/B][/QUOTE]

This is probably a silly question. I've never heard of a DO. What is a DO and how is it different from an MD?