London Institute of Legal Education

After months of searching, I have found the one program that meets my needs for a legal education.

No LSAT, reasonable cost, accredited university by British Royal Charter, quality education, and a way to practice in the USA after graduation.

I am attending classes in New York City and cross registered with a UK University for an LLB degree.

For those who are interested, the website is http://www.becomealawyer.com

 

How interesting -- NG31 posted a nearly identical message in the About Distance Learning forum http://forums.about.com/n/main.asp?webtag=ab-distanclearn&nav=messages&lgnF=y&msg=515

I noted in reply there that this entity appears only to provide third-party tutorials for the University of London External Programme and Holborn College of the University of Wolverhampton. And judging from English usage on their rather skimpy website, I'm skeptical of the value of this instruction.


------------------
Kristin Evenson Hirst
DistanceLearn.About.com
[email protected]

 

I got a queasy feeling looking at that website. Personally, I am not enamored of back-door, non-U.S. routes to practicing law in the U.S., because even the better U.S. correspondence law schools seem preferable in terms of substantive education & training. This "school" could turn out to be a waste of time and money for those who want to leverage it to practice law in the U.S.

 

Kirstin - I read your comments and I do agree that the website may not be as professional as other websites out there. I assure you that I did do my research before joining the program. You are correct that it is a tutorial program. Both Universities in the UK list the London Institute of Legal Education as their agent in the USA.

One website which lists the progam I am in is http://www.malet.com

I like to think that I made an educated choice and invite you to look into it further before placing your judgements.

 

LILE itself states "the London Institute of Legal Education is completely independent of the aforementioned universities and thus all applicants must comply with the requirements set forth in the universities [sic] regulations."

The University of London does list LILE in a directory of teaching institutions at http://www.lon.ac.uk/external/law/l11.htm -- it states "the External Programme only has an informal relationship with the institutions listed in this directory and cannot comment favourably or otherwise on the teaching and other services they provide. Each institution has informed us that it is actively teaching for the LLB."

I see nothing on the University of London or Wolverhampton websites that says either lists LILE as an agent.

------------------
Kristin Evenson Hirst
DistanceLearn.About.com

 

I don't agree. The variabilty, even within ABA accreditted programs, is truly enormous. The difference in knowledge between a graduate of, say Yale law, and one of a bottom ranked part time program is huge. Add to that the fact that except for the 1st year curriculum (and Bar-Bri ) 2 lawyers picked at random might have taken no courses in common (since almost all of second and third year is electives). A London degree is a respected degree and takes a good deal of knowledge to complete--probably a better degree than most US law degrees in terms of prestige.

To practice in NY or California the applicant will have to [additionally] earn an LLM from a school whose initial program is ABA accredited. At my local law school (a highly regarded one) and many other good schools, the LLM program for foreign law grads allows, requires or duplicates many of the first year courses (or all of them). Thus the graduate has all the courses that they would have had attending a US school (if, for example, they went to an ABA school, chose to do their elective courses on foreign and EU law, and maybe spent a semester abroad [allowed by the ABA]). Prof. Yamada would have us believe that one would be better off graduating from an unaccredited California school than UofL--I'm not even convinced one would be better of graduating from a low ranked ABA program (except for licensing issues--but that's mostly because the ABA is trying to protect its turf).

-me

 

What advantage could there be for a New York City resident enrolling in this thing instead of in a local law school?

The local school would provide an ABA accredited degree that would qualify you for the bar exam pretty much everywhere in the US. No worries about "back door" loopholes or subsequent LLMs. It would train you in American rather than British law, and would probably give you better practical training.

I agree that the University of London external LLB (or Holborn's) may be a better choice in some cases than one of those unaccredited California distance law schools. But I can't see an American who intends to practice law in the US choosing one of them over an on-campus ABA law school if the latter is a realistic option.

 

I took a look at their web site. It is pretty open ended on the acceptability of their degree. It takes pretty much the same approach as any other unaccredited law degree program offered in theU .S. except that it is a foreign program.

They list the requirements to become a barrister or solicitor in the U.K which is essentially stated as taking additonal course work (among others). Is this the same requirement as someone who would graduate with an LLB from a traditional U.K. school? Maybe someone with knowledge of the U.K. legal system could comment.

In addition, why go for the evening classes. Save $2000.00 and earn the same degree through their correspondence program ($5,995.00 vs. $3,995.00). I also thought the $1000.00 fee required to hold your place in the program was high.

John

 

<quote>
They list the requirements to become a barrister or solicitor in the U.K which is essentially stated as taking additonal course work (among others). Is this the same requirement as someone who would graduate with an LLB from a traditional U.K. school? Maybe someone with knowledge of the U.K. legal system could comment.</quote>
I'm pretty sure it's the same thing. I dont remember the details off of the top of my head, but one required a series of classes (one yr full time or 2 years PT) and the other requires a year apprenticeship. Additionally there are law degree-less ways to qualify for those with degrees in other fields. A much more reasonable system than ours (where a person spends 3 years, gets no practical experience, and can practice as soon as they pass a test).

Because for the $2000 you get classes. Some people are good at learning stuff from books, some aren't.


As an aside, I've met a number of members of the bar who skipped tons of classes in law school. I even knew one who showed up for the first few classes and then cut out until the final in at least one class. If a teacher is bad, you can often learn as much reading from a book

 

My wife went to law school in the 80s and it was pretty clear that if you did not keep up with your studies you were unable to pass. The school even had limits on the hours spent on employment in order to keep the student focused on the study on law. In her 3rd year, the law school and the state had a senior practice rule whereby students could do limited practice under the guidance of an attorney. She spent this time as an intern with the District Attorney's office.

Thus, she had theory, practice, and a focused committment to law study for three years at the University of North Dakota before taking her bar exam.


John

 

<QUOTE>My wife went to law school in the 80s and it was pretty clear that if you did not keep up with your studies you were unable to pass. </QUOTE>
there's a difference between "pass" and "do well" from looking at stats and talking to current students I can see that you need to work to do well, but very fdew people fail out of most schools.

<QUOTE>The school even had limits on the hours spent on employment in order to keep the student focused on the study on law. </QUOTE>

Actually they have that rule because the ABA demands it. No more than 20hr/week of work.

<QUOTE>In her 3rd year, the law school and the state had a senior practice rule whereby students could do limited practice under the guidance of an attorney. She spent this time as an intern with the District Attorney's office. </QUOTE>

And my wife (who, like me, has an RA PhD) is a law student at a top school and does vol. work at multiple legal clinics. But here's my point--she got the experience, as your wife did, but it wasn't required. I've met plenty of 3Ls who are graduating now who have not gotten the experience, yet they can take the bar and practice after passing a test. Without requiring certain experience or internships, I think the standards are lax.

I'm sure your wife is a fine attorney and had a great experience--but to equate her experience with every ABA law school grad is somewhat like saying every accredited PhD is doing world class work--it just isn't so--there is enormous variability.

 

Let's try this again.


BTW-this BBoard software can be configured to allow the author to edit posts. Maybe we should try that:

there's a difference between "pass" and "do well" from looking at stats and talking to current students I can see that you need to work to do well, but very fdew people fail out of most schools.
<QUOTE>The school even had limits on the hours spent on employment in order to keep the student focused on the study on law. </QUOTE>

Actually they have that rule because the ABA demands it. No more than 20hr/week of work.

And my wife (who, like me, has an RA PhD) is a law student at a top school and does vol. work at multiple legal clinics. But here's my point--she got the experience, as your wife did, but it wasn't required. I've met plenty of 3Ls who are graduating now who have not gotten the experience, yet they can take the bar and practice after passing a test. Without requiring certain experience or internships, I think the standards are lax.

I'm sure your wife is a fine attorney and had a great experience--but to equate her experience with every ABA law school grad is somewhat like saying every accredited PhD is doing world class work--it just isn't so--there is enormous variability.

 

Very true and I did not equate her experience with every ABA program. I specifically focused on her expeience at UND which is an ABA accredited school.

You will note that the post I responded to suggested that the U.S. system did not have practice in the curriculum. It is obviously incorrect to assume that this is applicable to all law schools in the U.S. and hence is a flawed argument against the U.S. system. Stating that there is variability in curriculum amongst ABA programs would have been a fairer statement.

John

 

But it is a flaw of the system. The system allows an ABA school to have a curriculum where the only requirements are a legal ethics (oxymoron) and a legal writing course. The system is the licensing system in the states, not the specific law school. I'm not saying that US legal education is bad--we do have some of the best law schools in the world--but that it is too variable and specifically that our practice standards are too lax at the low end. I think we'd be better off with the british system--two years academic (post degree) and then apprenticeship or practice course for a year.

 

John,

 

John,


Just re-read the post you are replying too. It was unclear--change

to read QUOTE](where a person can spend 3 years, get no practical experience, and can practice as soon as they pass a test).[/QUOTE]

 

Gerstl,

I would agree with the change and in many programs this would be true.

John

 

To all those who have posted here or have an interest in distance education with institutions in England and Wales, recent issues of the National Jurist magazine has numerous advertisements of ABA approved law schools linked to law schools in the United Kingdom. There are those who have commented that an education from a UK school could be a waste of time but the ABA approved schools themselves have acknowledged the worth of a UK legal education.

This year Columbia University Law School began a combined JD/LLB with a UK university in a 2+2 program for both degrees. You can find out more about it at http://www.law.columbia.edu

 

This is a bit off-topic but the audience of this thread seems right for my question: what do you think of the University of Strathclyde LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law? I recall that Steve Levicoff excoriated Emir Mohammed for using this degree as a qualification for teaching without the underlying LLB. In my case, I'm more interested in it as an engineer with a lot of telecommunications and intellectual property experience. (I've passed one of the two USPTO patent bar exam tests and am working on my fifth patent.) I think that some large telecomm companies might my BS engineering, MS CS (soon) and LLM an interesting combination either on the technical side or in their IP department. (In Steve's kinder-gentler days, I'll even say it would be interesting for a patent-law-for-engineers type teaching qualification.) Any opinions, ye barristers and lawyers?

 

Is anyone else disturbed by the fact that the authors of this website (http://www.becomealawyer.com) apparently don't know the difference between the possessive and plural forms of words?

Perhaps the facultyof this school should study 4th grade grammer before teaching the law.