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

Re: And the Bear Bar Parlay won't work, either

This is something I think we should add to the list, for every state: Whether a California DL JD holder who would normally be excluded from sitting for a given state's bar exam by virtue of same (and who can't be admitted on motion) could basically end-run the restriction by going out and getting an accredited LLM and then using same to sit for said state's bar exam. It would actually be easy to do. All one would have to do, first, is make a list of states that will accept an LLM as requisite to sitting for the bar (against the recommendations of the ABA, of course). That's going to be a pretty short list... one which I think that you, nosborne48, may kinda' already know right off the top of your head, as I recall.

Once we know that, it's really a question of whether a California DL JD holder can get into an accredited LLM program. There's the rub. On the unaccredited, but CalBar-registered/CalBar-exam-eligible Northwestern California University School of Law (NWCULAW) web site, there's mention of a regionally-accredited law school (whose JD is ABA-approved) in Florida that will admit NWCULAW JD grads into its LLM program. Presumably, any California DL JD holder who could graduate from that program could then go sit for the bar in any state that allows an LLM to be requisite to so doing. Where said state also precludes DL JD holders from sitting for its bar exam, bingo, the DL JD restriction is effectively end-run!

Do we know in which states that could happen? We could add them to the list.

 

Re: A minor correction to DesElms' Oregon listing

Wait a minute. Now I am confused. How is the meaning of the above substantively different from what I had originally written, to wit:

• [*]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.

Oh... wait a minute. I think I see the problem. I'm confining my list to what California DL JD holders can or can't do. It's the only thing with which my list concerns itself. There may be other methods besides an ABA-approved JD (which are also not a California DL JD), but I haven't addressed that in my list. I'm not trying to build a list which summarizes each state's admissions criteria, generally (although, that would be a cool list, too). Rather, I'm confining it to California DL JD holders... ostensibly so that I can finally get an accurate count of the states where a California DL JD holder may successfully take and use his/her degree. None of the California DL law schools will commit to a number, most of them saying, if anything, that it's "twenty-something" states; or "around half" the states, etc. I just wanted to know, once and for all... hence my list.

That said, I agree that whether or not a California DL JD holder can end-run the DL JD prohibition by going out and getting a regionally-accredited LLM from a law school whose JD is ABA-approved should be added to the list because that would be a way by which California DL JD holders could get in anyway.

No? Yes? Am I seeing this right?

Fine, have at it! But just remember that for purposes of our list, here, it matters not unless it's something that a California DL JD holder may do.

 

DesElms,

Yes, I think you have it solid.

Until it changes!

 

Which states will let someone with an LLM from a US law school whose JD is ABA-approved sit for its bar exam?

In stating the answer, it should be noted whether the state defines what the pre-LLM degree must be.

If it's very specifically an LLB -- or provable equivalent -- from a non-US country, then even if a California DL JD holder went out and got an otherwise-qualifying LLM, it would do him/her no good in that particular state.

If, on the other hand, the state's pre-LLM degree requirement is similar to Oregon's criterion in item 2 of its rule (i.e., if the state's acceptable pre-LLM degree may be from, simply, "a law school in the United States" with no mention of it being ABA-approved), then it seems to me that the California DL JD holder could, indeed, go out and obtain an LLM from a regionally-accredited law school whose JD is ABA-approved, and then sit for that state's bar exam... effectively end-running said state's DL JD exclusion.

Do we know of any states like that?

 

North Carolina (of George Pappas, Esq. fame) USED to but they changed their rules just after they let Mr. Pappas in.