Concord Law School eJD - ??

Soooo....what exactly is the "professional up" one could possibly get from an non Bar qualifying "JD"? And, while I am grousing, why buy an EXPENSIVE useless "JD" when there are much cheaper but equally useless "JD"s out there?

 

Clarification

Just a question from an outsider in law:

Does Concord's JD program entitle one to sit for the bar in CA?

Will Concord's external JD ever be ABA accredited?

Even though my background is in divinity, I, too, am highly skeptical of useless degree programs. There are many out there. Life is too short.

 

Concord is one of several correspondence law schools which offer a CA bar-qualifying JD. The program requires four calendar years of study. In addition, one must pass the FYLSX or "Baby Bar" administered by the State Bar after the first year of study.

What is confusing is that Concord, and most of the other correspondence law schools in California, also offer "executive" JD programs, requiring somewhat fewer credits, that do not qualify you to sit for the CA bar exam.

Two levels of unaccredited JD degrees is confusing to many.

What some students do not realize is that they CANNOT apply "executive" JD study to a bar-qualifying degree, even if the courses were identical, and offered by the same institution.

I chose to take a bar-qualifying DL JD course. I have taught for several RA and professionally accredited colleges. One of them made it clear that an unaccredited degree was worthless, but a professional license could be worth quite a bit. That's one reason I will be taking the CA bar exam.

 

For the record, Concord is accredited by DETC.

 

All great comments. I'm pretty solid, now, on NOT getting an eJD degree, and see why a Concord JD + CA Bar = a "real" law degree. However, since I DON'T want to practice and am only really interested in criminal law (though I like the word "Torts" ), I'm really interested in adding then a Ph.D./DBA to my masters, with some kind of focus on Criminal Law/Justice. This would fit with my real interest in systems theory, organizations, teaching & writing.

So, that's the good news, the bad news is that UNLIKE brick-and-mortar Ph.D. programs, I can't find any that would let me do the above. There's lots on criminal justice administration, and that focuses more on the big systems involving crime. Not one (that I can find) includes even one course on criminal law. I find that odd, since all the interesting stuff that happens in my job is in some way driven by law/legal decisions.

If I was going to Harvard or something (don't laugh, I have a PBK key, you know), then, like many Ph.D. programs, the requirements are fairly loose: if I wanted to go take some Criminal Law courses, or something, fine. That makes for interesting dissertations.

Any further advice would be helpful. Thanks in advance.

 

David Boyd brings up an excellent point that turns the already muddied waters opaque.

Concord is DETC accredited. It is not ABA accredited.

I recall a previous post describing an RA law school (I don't recall the name) which did not have ABA approval. Despite being "accredited," it's graduates were very limited in where they could apply to practice.

It is my understanding that DETC accreditation of a JD does not confer eligibility to sit for the bar exams in any additional states. What utility DETC accreditation may have to a person seeking employment/advancement with a DETC JD seems a relative unknown at this point.

So...here we go with a new list of DL law degrees:

State approved CA bar qualifying DL JD
State approved "executive" (non-bar) DL JD
DETC accredited and state approved CA bar qualifying DL JD
DETC accredited and state approved "executive" (non-bar) DL JD
GAAP law degrees from the UK (such as the University of London LL.B.) which are normally not accepted as qualifications to sit for US bar exams.

 

Mini JD

I wonder when we'll see a "Mini JD" like Tulanes MBA Certificate or this one from the University of Richmond's, Robins School of Business Management Institute.

http://www.richmond.edu/mgmt_institute/minimba.htm

 

There are only 2 accrediting bodies accepted for US Law Schools, they are the ABA (American Bar Association) and the AALS (American Association of Law Schools).

All other DL type accreditations mean nothing in the legal profession.

While Concord may offer a "backdoor" way of getting a JD and possibly even becoming a licensed attorney (CA is the only state that allows non-ABA law school graduates to sit for the bar), ABA accreditation is the US law school standard, the same way the 6 regional accreditiation agencies are the standard for US colleges.

 

If you're happy with a UK qualification, why not try the London LlM (nosborne48 can tell you a lot more about that ;-) or the MSc in Criminal Justice from Leicester?

http://www.londonexternal.ac.uk/postgraduate/panel/llm/index.shtml

http://www.le.ac.uk/scarman/msccj.html

Angela

 

Usefulness of an eJD, yes sir

I would like to put in my 2 cents.

Cannot an eJD be of real use in Insurance Management, in Politics as a legislative aide to some Senator or Mayor ?

It can also be of good use in the Mortgage or general Real Estate field ?

I have met some people who studied for SIX years to get a medical professional doctorate and never practiced medicine but used it the same way some people study for a Master degree in Liberal Arts, for general education.

Nosborne48 seems to take away academic freedom or liberty to study a field just for the sake of it, just for general education. What is wrong with this approach ?

 

furashgf, have you checked out California University of Pennsylvania's MS in Legal Studies?

(http://www.cup.edu/graduate/legal/ )

It's a one year online program and (from their FAQ page) costs around $10K for the entire program.

Since you stated that you don't want to practice or teach law, this could be a good option for you.

 

Vinazaire:

Academic freedom?

No, I am giving practical advice. It's a free country, at least for now!

I have never stated that non ABA JD degrees are somehow intrinsically inferior or ought to be outlawed. I am hostile to the so called non Bar JD, though.

Consider these things:

None of the functions you list require any sort of law degree but I promise you that in politics or government the use of a non Bar JD as a professional credential will result in public embarrasment and why? Because a non Bar JD is not really a JD.

Think about this. Suppose there were such a thing as an MD program that seriously reduced its study requirements but could never be used to support a medical license. Don't you see that for such a person to claim to be an "MD", while strictly speaking accurate, is misleading because in fact he did NOT complete a course of study that would qualify him to practice medicine? That is to say, by claiming to be an MD, he is by implication claiming to be something that he in fact is not, a medical school graduate.

Now, the parallel to the JD is not entirely complete. One big difference is that a physician customarily uses his degree initials to reflect exactly what sort of physician he is, such as MD or DO or DPM. Lawyers rarely, but occasionally, do the same. Nevertheless, to claim to hold a JD is, I believe, to imply to the public that one has completed the course of study required to practice law. Thus, unless he somehow qualifies his representations, he who claims a non Bar JD is by implication claiming to be something that he is not.


Besides, the holder of a non ABA degree can do much to bolster his credential by becoming a licensed attorney, if only on one state. A lawyer is a lawyer. The non Bar JD doesn't have this option.

"Marvin, to YOU you're a captain. To ME you're a captain. But are you a captain to a CAPTAIN?" -Borscht belt routine of great antiquity.

 

Vinazaire:

What Nosborne said.

 

eJD versus Bar

Nosborne48

Your arguments are well taken but it is besides the point.

What is the point ? Studying for a law degree has nothing to do with going for the Bar.

In Europe( Italy, France, etc.) and probably in other countries , to read or study law has nothing to do with wanting to become a lawyer. As a matter of fact, that is the reason why in Canada there is special year for those who decide to become lawyers and it is the same in France.

You can get a Law degree and have no care about going for the Bar. In Canada and in many other countries, you get a Law degree BUT that does not mean you will be AUTOMATICALLY accepted for that extra, special year for the Bar. You have to apply to sit for the preparation for the Bar and you have to meet many tests : test of citizenship, test of morality, test of becoming behavior ( some criminal acts committed in the past or while studying for the Bar would disqualify you), etc.

In the U.S. at the moment, there are Americans of European origin holders of a Law degree but not Lawyers. Are they going to say they have no Law degree ?

To conclude, it is for the market to decide based on the law of supply and demand what a Faculty or School of Law should offer ,not for somebody to pontify and holler about. This is a FREE country, let the market decide !

 

No, that is not correct. In the UNITED STATES, going to law school has EVERYTHING to do with taking the Bar.

You are correct when you say that law is studied in England and, I suppose, Europe, in the way you describe. Not here.

In England, law is an undergraduate academic subject like chemistry, mathematics, or French Literature. It has the same degree structure and basic requirements of any other subject.

You don't have to study law in England to be a lawyer and an English law degree, LL.B., LL.M. M.Phil, Ph.D., whatever, does not do more than BEGIN to qualify the student to practice law. The actual post graduate training is in the hands of the General Counsel of the Bar or the Law Society. Holding an LL.B. says nothing except that the student studied law.

In the U.S., the J.D. is the TOTAL PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION for the Bar. All the J.D. graduate has to do is pass the Bar exam. Therefore, you must see that claiming a J.D. has a very different meaning to an American than claiming an LL.B. does to an Englishman. The exact equivalent in England would be to claim completing pupilage or articles but not ever being able to practice as a barrister or solicitor.

Besides, all D/L English LL.B. programs are "qualifying law degrees" but that's neither here nor there.

 

Oh, and yes, I would say that an American with a non Bar JD does not have a "law degree". A "law degree" both commonly and professionally means "educationally qualified to take the Bar and practice law".

As to the other requirements such as charactor and criminal background, I am taking about DEGREE PROGRAMS not persons in individual circumstances.

 

eJD versus BAR

Well, I am not going to comment about the JD in the States as I am not cognizant of the scene there.

But I can say that in Canada, as well as in France and other countries in Europe, going for a Law degree has nothing to do with becoming a Lawyer.

You still need to have a Law degree to be considered for Bar preparation ( one year after the degree in Law in Canada, and in some countries in Europe more than one year preparing for the Bar).

If the discussion was restricted to the U.S. , I respectfully claim ignorance.
My point was more general and not strictly limited to the U.S.

My apologies for the misunderstanding.

 

Then let's talk about England, shall we?

As I said, claiming an LL.B. in England means only that the holder studied law. It says nothing about professional qualification.

Note, please, that there ARE NO watered down, non Bar qualifying LL.B. programs from English Universities. The LL.B. is the LL.B.

I will qualify this somewhat by admitting that it is possible, through poor examination performance, to END UP with a non qualifying LL.B., but that is an individual circumstance and not the product of a deliberately created non qualifying degree PROGRAM.

Nor are there any non Bar qualifying LL.B. or J.D. (yes, they have them) programs in Canada. In fact, there are NO residential non Bar qualifying J.D. programs in the United States! It is strictly a correspondence phenomenon, and one that, as you may have guessed, I deplore.

My final, loudest objection to the so called non Bar JD is that it is not the ACADEMIC equivalent to the Bar qualifying JD, yet it bears the same degree title. Three years instead of four calander years, subjects like evidence that need not be taken beause the student won't be PRACTICING law, no Baby Bar, meaning no outside evaluation either during or following completion of the program...

 

Baccalaureate in Law in Canada, NON BAR

Nosborne48

I won't venture in the U.K. field as I do not know the terrain.

But in Canada where I reside, you can do a B.A. Honours in Law, NON BAR :
www.carleton.ca/cuuc/programs/law.html

OR , if your french is O.K. you can go study for an LL.B. at Universite du Quebec a Montreal :

www.carleton.ca/cuuc/programs/law.html

http://www.websysinfo.uqam.ca/regis/pkg_wpub.affiche_prog_desc?P_prog=7118

The degree at the U. du Quebec is for people who want to study law and not necessarily spend one more year studying for the Bar BUT want to help disadvantaged groups ( unions, women's groups, visible minority groups, etc ) to fight for their rights.

Please, your comments are welcome after visiting those TWO websites.

 

As to Quebec, well and good. Now it is I who must admit ignorance. BUT, please notice that the BA (hons) in law is NOT called an LL.B.! In Canada, the professional degree is the LL.B. (or J.D. froma school or two.)

Look. You are quite right; people can call themselves whatever they want. If they actually COMMIT a fraud, then the law steps in. Otherwise, who cares?

You are also correct when you say that law can be studied out of intellectual curiosity; after all, I am working on an LL.M. that I simply don't need!

But you must see, don't you, that the degree one claims should be legitimate? That it should be what it claims to be, and not something less? Certainly not something less out of convenience? You wouldn't really like to go through life saying "I have a law degree but no Bar will allow me to practice because my degree falls below the recognized minimum standards for a law degree."?