States that will or will not accept the California distance learning JD

It IS the cold; Montana ALSO refuses to recognize D/L J.D. degrees

but they also require all applicant to take their Bar exam.

www.montanabar.org

I give up; the best advice is, unless you are SURE you will never leave California, get an ABA degree.

Too bad.

 

Nosborne - I sense a Bear(')s Guide in the making.
Jack

 

Or at least a chapter.

Did I mention Idaho?

Yep. It's the COLD alright.

 

Re: MARS has a better climate!

Elect feather-boa-wearing, prostitution-loving former-pro wrestlers to the governorship.

 

Part 1 of 2

Okay... now you've done it! You're forcing me to publish -- before I'm ready -- a summary of that table I mentioned (in another thread) that I've been working on which lists how California DL JD holders are received in each of the states. If anybody's gonna' get any damned chapters around here, it's gonna' be me! (just kiddin' around)

I have not verified every state in the way that I'd like. My preliminary run through the entire list of states was using information from selected state bar or supreme court web sites where the information was easily available; plus tables from the ABA's bar admissions guide; plus a now-available-only-by-subscription online guide to relocation for attorneys; plus a state-by-state summary table on the web site of one of the California-accredited (but not ABA-approved) law schools. My last step was going to be circling back into each state's bar or supreme court web site on which the information was not so easily discovered the first time around... but I just haven't found time to get to that step yet. Nosborne48 would now appear to have done so for Colorado, Minnesota and the Dakotas -- and maybe Idaho -- right here in these fora. Perhaps others would like to chime-in, too.

Here's my "thus far" state-by-state summary (of which I'm half-sure that, for example, Florida's not quite right yet):

• [*]ALABAMA: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; but may petition the Supreme Court for permission to take the bar exam.
  
• ALASKA: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; but may sit for the bar exam if s/he has practiced law in California, continuously, for the five (5) years immediately preceding application.
  
• ARIZONA: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; but may sit for the Arizona bar exam as long as s/he has practiced law in California for five (5) of the seven (7) years immediately preceding application.
  
• ARKANSAS: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; nor may s/he sit for the bar exam.
  
• CALIFORNIA: A California D/L J.D. holder may sit for the California bar exam as long as s/he graduates from one of the 12 (at this writing) distance learning schools listed here; and as long such study is completed in accordance with these rules.
  
• COLORADO: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; but a graduate of a state-accredited (no mention of state "registered") law school in another state may take the Colorado bar exam if s/he has been admitted to practice in the same state as the state-accredited law school s/he attended; and if s/he has practiced in said state for five (5) of the seven (7) years preceding the application.
  
  NOTE: Because the word "accredited" and not "registered" is used, it is unclear if a California D/L J.D. holder would be permitted to sit for the Colorado bar exam. I suspect that one could petition and make the argument that Colorado rules make no provision for the unusual "registered" status; and that, therefore, since a "registered" California D/L J.D. holder may practice in California, the applicant should be allowed to sit for the Colorado bar as long as s/he has practiced for five (5) of the seven (7) years preceding application.
  
• CONNECTICUT: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; nor may s/he sit for the bar exam.
  
• DELAWARE: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; nor may s/he sit for the bar exam.
  
• DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: A California D/L J.D. holder may be admitted to practice law in the District of Columbia, on motion, without exam, as long as s/he has practiced law, full-time and continuously, for the five years leading-up to the application; or s/he may sit for the bar exam after successfully completing at least 26 additional semester hours of study in the subjects tested in the bar exam in a law school approved by the ABA.
  
• FLORIDA: A California D/L J.D. holder may not sit for the Florida bar exam. However, she may be admitted to practice law, on motion, without exam, provided s/he has been actively engaged in the practice of law in, and has membership in the bar of, any U.S. jurisdiction for at least ten years. A representative compilation of the work product (confined to the most recent ten years of practice) in the field of law showing the scope and character of the applicant's previous experience and practice at the bar must be presented for evaluation by the Board of Bar Examiners.
  
  NOTE: I don't think I have Florida exactly right... and I haven't had time to really research it properly. After writing the above, I found some language (that I haven't had time to confirm or clarify) which suggests that a California DL JD holder may take the Florida bar exam after all, but that the motion part is the motion s/he must make in order to do so; which motion must show the aforementioned 10 years of practice, and must include the compilation of work product, etc. If so, then a California DL JD holder may not be admitted on motion, but may be permitted to take the bar exam on motion. Anyone who could nail this down for me would be a huge help!
  
• GEORGIA: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; nor may s/he sit for the bar exam.
  
• HAWAII: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; but may s/he sit for the bar exam provided s/he has practiced law for five (5) of the six (6) years leading-up to application.
  
• IDAHO: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; nor may s/he sit for the bar exam.
  
• ILLINOIS: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; nor may s/he sit for the bar exam.
  
• INDIANA: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; nor may s/he sit for the bar exam.
  
• IOWA: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; nor may s/he sit for the bar exam.
  
• KANSAS: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; nor may s/he sit for the bar exam.
  
• KENTUCKY: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; however, s/he may sit for the bar exam if s/he has engaged in the practice of law for at least three of the last five years immediately preceding application; and also provided that his/her legal education was substantially equivalent to the legal education provided by approved law schools in Kentucky (an additional fee to verify applicant's legal education is required).
  
• LOUISIANA: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; nor may s/he sit for the bar exam.
  
• MAINE: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; nor may s/he sit for the bar exam.
  
• MARYLAND: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; however, the ABA-approved legal education requirement may be waived, and a mere attorney (as opposed to a full bar) exam may be taken, if the applicant has been member of the bar of any state, and has passed a written bar examination in that state, and has engaged in the practice of law there for a total of ten years, or at least five consecutive of the last ten years immediately preceeding the application.
  
• MASSACHUSETTS: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; nor may s/he sit for the bar exam.
  
• MICHIGAN: A California D/L J.D. holder may be admitted on motion, without exam, provided s/he has practiced law for three (3) of five (5) years preceding the application, and provided, also, that s/he has an LLM from a school approved by the State Board of Law Examiners. Similarly, California D/L J.D. holder may sit for the Michigan bar exam if s/he also has an LLM from a school approved by the State Board of Law Examiners. In Michigan, virtually no school that is not either ABA-approved or provisionally-approved is ever approved by the State Board of Law Examiners. Absent the ABA-approved (or provisionally-approved) LLM on top of the California D/L J.D., the applicant may neither be admitted on motion, without exam, nor permitted to sit for the bar exam.

Continued in next post...

 

Part 2 of 2

...continued from previous post

• MINNESOTA: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; nor may s/he sit for the bar exam.
  
• MISSISSIPPI: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; nor may s/he sit for the bar exam.
  
• MISSOURI: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; nor may s/he sit for the bar exam.
  
• MONTANA: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; nor may s/he sit for the bar exam.
  
• NEBRASKA: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; nor may s/he sit for the bar exam.
  
• NEVADA: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; however, a California D/L J.D. holder who has practiced law for at least 10 years, continously and actively, may apply for an education equivalency evaluation to determine if the applicant's legal education is truly equivalent to one provided by an ABA-approvede Nevada law school. If it is evaluated as equivalent, the applicant may sit for Nevada's bar exam.
  
• NEW HAMPSHIRE: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; nor may s/he sit for the bar exam.
  
• NEW JERSEY: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; nor may s/he sit for the bar exam.
  
• NEW MEXICO: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; however, s/he may be permitted to sit for the bar exam if s/he has engaged in the practice of law in another state for at least four (4) of the six (6) years immediately preceding the application for admission, and is in good standing with the bar of that state. New Mexico is one of only two states (Washington being the other) that require its lawyers to grasp the basics of Native American tribal sovereignty and, as such, has, since 2002, had at least one question about Indian law to its bar exam. Bone-up, Kemosabe!
  
• NEW YORK: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; however, s/he may sit for the bar exam provided s/he has practiced law in another jurisdiction for five (5) of the seven (7) years immediately preceding the application.
  
• NORTH CAROLINA: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; nor may s/he sit for the bar exam.
  
• NORTH DAKOTA: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; nor may s/he sit for the bar exam.
  
• OHIO: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; nor may s/he sit for the bar exam.
  
• OKLAHOMA: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; nor may s/he sit for the bar exam.
  
• OREGON: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; however, a graduate of a any law school in the U.S. who has been admitted to practice before the highest tribunal of another state, the District of Columbia, or Federal territory, where the requirements of admission are substantially equivalent to those of Oregon; and has been actively, substantially, and continuously engaged in the practice of law for at least three (3) of the five (5) years immediately preceding the application, may sit for the Oregon bar exam.
  
• PENNSYLVANIA: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; nor may s/he sit for the bar exam... that is, unless s/he happens to come to Pennsylvania from one of its reciprocal states (Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming); and s/he has practiced law in one of said states for five (5) of the (7) years leading-up to application.
  
• RHODE ISLAND: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; nor may s/he sit for the bar exam.
  
• SOUTH CAROLINA: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; nor may s/he sit for the bar exam.
  
• SOUTH DAKOTA: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; nor may s/he sit for the bar exam.
  
• TENNESSEE: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; nor may s/he sit for the bar exam.
  
• TEXAS: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; nor may s/he sit for the bar exam, because Texas specifically excludes distance education law degrees; however, an applicant who otherwise qualifies but whose (non-correspondence school) law degree is from an unapproved law school may take the Texas Bar Examination if (s)he has been actively and substantially engaged in the lawful practice of law in any State as his/her pricipal business or occupation for at least three of the last five years immediately preceding the application. Weirdly, a California D/L J.D. holder who has passed the California bar and is admitted to practice there may be permitted to practice Federal law (and only Federal law) within the state of Texas, as long as s/he is very careful not to so much as utter a word of state legal advice, or prepare so much as one single document related to state law.
  
  GREGG's NOTE: As a former employee of NOLO.COM, I can tell you that Texas, generally, is not to be trifled with. Though NOLO ultimately won the case, several years ago NOLO spent many, many thousands of dollars defending itself against multiple counts of "the unauthorized practice of law" on account of the self-help law books that it publishes and were sold in that state. More...
  
• UTAH: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; nor may s/he sit for the bar exam.
  
• VERMONT: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; nor may s/he sit for the bar exam.
  
• VIRGINIA: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; nor may s/he sit for the bar exam.
  
• WASHINGTON: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam unless s/he is already licensed to practice in another jurisdiction where the common law of England is the basis of its jurisprudence, and has been so for at least three (3) of the five (5) years leading-up to application; and -- and this is where it gets a little strange -- s/he must show the State of Washington what would be required of a Washington attorney in order to be admitted on motion, without exam, into his/her state bar, and then s/he must submit to similar procedures (i.e., jump through similar hoops), paying additional fees, where necessary. To sit for Washington's bar exam, the California D/L J.D. holder must already be admitted to practice in a jurisdiction which requires a bar exam in order to do so, and where the common law of England is the basis of its jurisprudence, and s/he must be in good standing with the Bar there -- of this for at least three of the five years immediately preceding application. Washington is one of only two states that will soon require its lawyers to grasp the basics of Native American tribal sovereignty and, as such, starting in 2007, will add one question about Indian law to its bar exam. Bone-up, Kemosabe!
  
• WEST VIRGINIA: A California D/L J.D. holder may be admitted on motion, without exam as long as s/he is coming to West Virginia from Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, or Wisconsin; and as long as s/he has already passed the bar exam, has been admitted to practice, and is in good standing with the bar in his/her state of practice, and has practiced for five (5) of the (7) years leading-up to application. A California D/L J.D. holder may take the bar if s/he has passed another U.S. jurisdiction's bar examination and has been admitted to practice in such jurisdiction.
  
• WISCONSIN: A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; but s/he may take the Wisconsin bar exam as long as s/he has already taken and passed the California bar exam, and has been admitted to practice in California.

Please... anyone... everyone... please chime-in with corrections!

 

I think what disturbs me most about this is that I seem to remember a Concord representative telling our own Dr. Bear that all states but one would accept the Concord J.D. under certain circumstances. Concord does NOT say any such thing on its web site and my memory isn't what it used to be but IF this was so, it was a rather serious misrepresentation.

 

Rather a disturbing table, at that

DesElms:

Combining my threads was a good idea.

Your table reveals something I suspect certain California online law schools with lots of money who make major but seriously debatable claims about being the first of their kind would rather not admit. It isn't just the ABA that keeps their J.D.s from being licensed in many, many states; it's the individual state licensing authorities. I wonder what effect your table would have on applications from non Californian law students.

Your table appears to be accurate as far as I can tell.

So are you going to write the "Law Schools" chapter of the next Bears' Guide?

My basic advice to would-be law students remains unchanged. Middle aged Californians interested inpublic sector careers who cannot imagine living anywhere else EVER should consider CalBar accredited programs, all other things being equal. Everyone else should go ABA or forget it.

 

This has been, is, and no doubt will continue to be, a most excellent and informative, well-researched, and reasonably objective thread! Thanks, to all posters herein.

Gregg, your state-by-state desription and analysis is most engaging and interesting. Thanks for that as well. Nosborne's posts and CalDog's factual presentations are all "off-the-hook!" as our youngsters are predisposed to say, these days.


I live in Maryland and work in Washington, DC, and it would seem that were I to be from California with a D/L-educated CA JD degree, I "may be admitted to practice law in the District of Columbia, on motion, without exam," but have no such luck a few miles, nay a feet or yards, across the border, in the State of Maryland.

As chance would have it, fortunately (or unfortuantely, as others may perceive it) more Maryland educated lawyers than not, at least from Southern, suburban Maryland, work for the government or practice law in DC, the nation's capital, and are thus not hampered by this ever-so-slight regulatory / licensing / legal practice knot.

A few miles south of here, in the great state of Virginia, it appears to get even harder for the D/L CA legal eagle: "A California D/L J.D. holder may not be admitted on motion, without exam; nor may s/he sit for the bar exam."

If any state can organize to lead the way to urge other US states to streamline this lawyer acceptance cornucopia, I am certain that CA can!

Thanks, all.

 

LL.M. for foreign lawyers

Apparently, the applicant can submit his proposed study plan to the D.C. Bar Examiners in advance for approval.

I should think that one of the "foreign lawyer" LL.M. programs would meet all requirements for D.C. Bar eligibility. In fact, I suspect that those programs were DESIGNED with that end in mind.

But if the California D/L J.D. can pass the California Bar and work for a few years, he can be admitted in D.C. with neither additional education nor Bar exam required.

www.dcappeals.gov/dccourts/appeals/coa/faq.jsp

D.C. is WARM, you see!

 

Re: D.C.'s requirement

Yes... I know; and no, those 26 hours cannot be from LLM studies. They must be JD studies hours.

How do I know this when the DC rules don't seem to address it? Oh, but they do address it... in the phrase, "...approved by the ABA." The ABA only approves JD degrees. An LLM is not ABA-approved just because it is from a law school whose JD is ABA-approved. Rather, such an LLM is it is simply from a law school whose JD is ABA-approved. Period. There is simply no such thing as an ABA-approved (or "accredited") LLM degree... to the surprise of many, I've noted. That is why it's very important that a law school gets not only its ABA approval for its JD, but also its regional accreditation for everything else. That way, all of its non-JD degrees are still accredited. See here and here.

Secondarily -- perhaps even peripherally -- one could argue, further, that the phrase, "...in the subjects tested in the bar exam..." also precludes anything other than JD studies... just by definition. In any state which will not accept the LLM as requisite to sitting for its bar, then LLM studies do not, by definition, include bar exam studies.

 

A minor correction to DesElms' Oregon listing

Oregon will allow the holder of a J.D. degree from any U.S. law school to take the Bar exam if the applicant was admitted to the Bar of and has practiced in a sister state for three of the past five years.

The difference is, one who earns, say, an LL.M. degree from an ABA approved school is a graduate of that school but not fopr the purposes of Oregon Bar eligibility. Thus, lawyers who qualify through clerkships may not be admitted.

 

Re: A minor correction to DesElms' Oregon listing

Define "sister state."

 

LL.M. hours

DesElms:

Yes, I can see your point. But many of these LL.M. for foreign lawyers programs comprise nothing but taking J.D. classes with J.D. students.

Oregon doesn't say "sister state"; that's my own loose term.

Oregon says:

3.05 Qualifications of Applicants
Prior to taking the examination the applicant must show that the applicant will
be at least 18 years of age at the time of admission to the practice of law and meet the
requirements of either section (1), (2) or (3):
(1) The applicant is a graduate of a law school approved by the American
Bar Association, earning a Juris Doctor Degree.
(2) The applicant is a graduate of a law school in the United States, earning
a Juris Doctor Degree, and
(a) has been admitted to practice before the highest tribunal of another
state, the District of Columbia, or federal territory, where the requirements for
admission are substantially equivalent to those of this state; and
(b) has been actively, substantially and continuously engaged in the
practice of law for at least three of the five years immediately preceding the taking of
the examination.
(3) The applicant is admitted to practice before the highest tribunal of a
foreign country where the common law of England exists as the basis of its
jurisprudence. In such case, the applicant shall have the burden of proving:
(a) that the requirements for admission to practice are substantially
equivalent to those of this state; and
(b) that the applicant is a graduate of a law school equivalent to a law
school approved by the American Bar Association. The Board of Bar Examiners, after
reviewing the recommendation of an equivalency panel composed of representatives of
Oregon ABA-approved law schools, shall determine whether the law school is
equivalent to an ABA-approved law school for the purposes of this rule. The academic
dean of each participating law school shall designate a member of its faculty to sit on
the equivalency panel. An evaluation fee may be set by the Board of Bar Examiners
and charged to each applicant seeking an equivalency determination. The fee shall
accompany the applicant’s request for admission.
PAGE 7 - RULES FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEYS IN OREGON

It's pretty clear.

 

The ABA - LL.M nexus ....

Steve,

This is an intriguing question. There is not much information available on this topic from the District's recently fully ABA-accredited, School of Law (UDC-DCSL). I am still searching and will share here what I find.

Ah, I see that we have excellent responses from Nosborne, DesElms, et al. Great! and Thanks!

The plot thickens, though. This article states that in the US, there are 6,000 students studying for the LL.M. degree in 97 of the 186 law schools approved by the American Bar Association and several new programs are anticipated to begin this coming year.

While not specifically addressing DC's situation, it further states:

"An LL.M. from an American law school obtained by a foreign trained lawyer does not generally qualify the individual to sit for a bar examination in an American jurisdiction. If the holder of the LL.M. degree is permitted to sit for a bar examination in a particular jurisdiction, there are often certain courses prescribed by the bar examining authorities that must be taken in law school as part of the LL.M. course of studies.

"The position of the American Bar association is that only persons possessing a J.D. degree should be permitted to sit for a bar examination. The American Bar Association does not accredit or approve LL.M. degree programs, rather it acquiesces in their establishment. The accrediting body permits an approved law school to offer the program. It does not approve the program, rather it is an approved law school which offers an LL.M. program about which the accrediting body has taken no action concerning the LL.M. program academic content or quality."

Will acquiescing lead to, or has it already led to, approving and on to accepting?, not only in DC but elsewhere in the US, such LL.M-driven ABA-accredited programs in the US?

Answers sought, please.

Thanks.

 

And the Bear Bar Parlay won't work, either

You might also note that earning a University of London external LL.B. then earning an LL.M. from a law school on the ABA's approved list WON'T DO EITHER as far as Oregon is concerned.

 

Re: LL.M. hours

Then it would matter how one is admitted to take said courses, I would think. I would also think, then, that the D.C. bar exam hopeful with an LLM from a law school whose JD is ABA-approved could get a letter sent from said school to the DC committee of bar examinors which verifies that at least 26 hours of the LLM coursework was the very same as that given to JD students in preparation for the bar exam. That, it would seem to me, would do it... no?

 

Jake A:

Yeah, yeah, I know that's what the ABA says about itself, that it doesn't approve LL.M. programs but only acquiesces in the establishment of such a program at a school offering an ABA approved J.D. program...

But it isn't completely true.

The ABA ALSO approves the JAG School in Virginia where Army lawyers go to learn their trade. Said school confers an LL.M. but it has no J.D. program at all! So if the ABA doesn't approve LL.M. programs...what, exactly, is it approving for the U.S. Army?

 

What, indeed! Excellent point, Nosborne.

In fact, if anything shows that the ABA approves (and accepts!) LL.M. programs, this is it, or comes as close to doing so as any.

Thanks.