I am an English distance learning LLB holder who has recently had his degree evaluated by the National Committee on Accreditation (the necessary step to having a foreign law degree evaluated for equivalence in Canada). The news is (from my perspective) not good. A little background may be in order. Earlier this year the National Committee on Accreditation (NCA) changed their guidelines for evaluating degrees and put distance learning degrees in a separate category. They said that, basically, if you have a distance learning LLB in general you will be required to write 6 challenge exams and complete 8 courses in residence at a Canadian law school in order to practice in Canada. But, they say, each candidate will be evaluated on his/her merits. Yeah. Not so much. I applied to have my degree evaluated, I waited, waited, and waited some more. Finally I got my evaluation. 6 exams and 8 (upper year) courses. Having checked the NCA Facebook group out pretty extensively, as well as postings on other websites (as well as one thread here) it seems that if my degree had been completed in the classroom I would have been allocated 4-6 challenge exams. But due to the modality of my degree I was assessed more harshly. The Law Society of England and Wales has no problem with my degree. The Canadian university that accepted me into a doctoral program has no problem with my degree. But the NCA, in its infinite wisdom, has a problem. In relation to the assertion that each candidate being assessed individually, I do not believe this is accurate because: 1- I had a upper second class honours degree, with my last two years close to a First. Compared to full time students those results would put me in the top 5-10% of the class of full time students (according to the deputy leader of the full time LLB programme, so he'd know). 2- I have a LLM with very high marks. It appears zero credit was given for that. 3- I have completed all the classroom requirements (one course) at a Canadian law school towards a doctorate, plus completed 2 semesters of research. Apparently no credit was given for that course or the research component. 4- I have good work experience, with some law related work, including two semesters as a research assistant to my thesis supervisor. I didn't really expect credit for that, but thought that it might give me nudge in the right direction if I was sitting on the fence for something. Apparently there was no fence, and no nudge. What kind of gets me about this is that someone with the exact same degree earned on campus would not have to write an exam in tort but I do. So I could have gone, on campus, to the exact same school, written virtually the same exam (a few lecturers told me that the exams for full time and distance learners are almost identical, they change maybe one question) gotten a lower mark (I got a first class honours mark in tort) and avoided writing the challenge exam. Because apparently tort is only different if you learn it by distance. From a practical perspective what this means is that anyone hoping to become a lawyer in Canada through the distance learning/NCA route has a tough road ahead of them. 8 courses on campus means you have to live in a city with a law school, and you probably have to go to class during the day. 8 courses is pretty much full time school for a year. They also give you the list of courses you have to complete, so if a course is full an NCA student will not get a spot, and you lose the opportunity to take courses that are of interest to you. The 6 challenge exams are pretty much the first year law school courses (tort, contract, constitutional, Canadian legal system or something like that, criminal and I forget the last one, maybe property). those courses are (I think) usually 6 credits that cover a lot of ground. So what you're looking at is something in the range of exams and courses equivalent to 40-45 credits, which is a lot of work. Granted, an English LLB grad should have a good basic knowledge of some subjects, but you still have to go through the exam prep and it is undoubtedly a lot of work anyway. And if you're anything like me you have covering stuff twice. You do all this and you don't even get a Canadian law degree, you get a certificate of qualification from the NCA, which from what I understand is a hard sell with employers anyway. I should mention that I have 5 years to complete the requirements. I guess my final observations look like this: The upside is a reduced coursework requirement in the classroom in Canada, the ability to take courses over a period of time and the possibility of getting an early start to a legal education without leaving work to do it. The downsides are that you will (over the whole deal) do a lot more work and not even end up with a Canadian degree, have more limited employment possibilities, go through extra law school exams (most people seem to agree they take a toll on you, I don't know anyone who really dealt easily with law school exam stress), pay $500 per NCA exam, and generally feel badly about getting screwed by the NCA. I could go on, but I suppose I will spare you. Particulary the part in the letter where they say that my degree doesn't cover much of what a Canadian degree covers. Fine, I have no problem with that, but it seems that degrees that were earned through residential attendance in England aren't deemed to have that same deficiency. Go figure. Best of luck to all the Canadian Lawyer Hopefuls, and go into this with your eyes open.