Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - legalpractitioner

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 64
L.L.M. Board / Re: we should replace the JD with an LLM.
« on: May 17, 2014, 08:50:58 AM »
No, only in Canada does the LLB require prior college; in the UK and elsewhere you go straight into the LLB from secondary school (high school).  A much better way option IMO than the JD which forces you to shell out for 7 years of college!  However to become a solicitor in England, you must usually complete a training contract which is also a good idea considering most new lawyers in the US learn on the job.

Patent Agent is a good one.  With a JD, one can make some of these professions pay as well as a solo law practice.  Social Security Advocates charge the same as attorneys and there are numerous lawyers who have made a good living just confining their work to Social Security.  If I had a choice between a an advocate without a JD or a JD from a California registered online school, the latter might have an edge. A lot of California distance learning JDs will never pass the bar but that does not mean they are incompetent.

Add Immigration to the list though that can be state regulated as in California and the requirements for non lawyers can be tricky and may require both training and sponsorship.

Representing yourself does not count.  McKenzie Friend is creating a problem in England:

There are also professional lay advocates in out of the way English jurisdictions where solicitors are scarce.

Given that many people cannot afford a lawyer in the US - even a lay advocate with some knowledge might be better than going pro per.

L.L.M. Board / Re: we should replace the JD with an LLM.
« on: May 16, 2014, 11:35:43 PM »
The real way not to waste time and money is award a BA in law like England and quit pretending that a JD is the equivalent of a MA or PhD when it simply is professional training.

L.L.M. Board / Re: Perks to an LLM
« on: April 21, 2014, 01:47:50 PM »
I agree Tax is specialized and the LLM to bar exam route questionable.  There is a lot of interest in an International Law LLM but I suggest one that is focused on cross border practice as well as traditional IL.  The EU now permits a lot of cross border practice so it is not uncommon to need to be familiar with comparative law.  US lawyers are missing out on expanding their practices in transactional and corporate law, criminal defense, and as foreign legal experts.

If you ever do decide to offer an online International Law LLM - look me up - I have JD and PhD an am licensed in the US and three other countries.  Also have been instructing IL and legal Studies at the Masters Level for a couple regionally accredited online programs since 2006 and have developed several courses over the years.

If you are already working in the legal field, I'd just ignore Concord and move on to another DL Law School.

Since Concord unlike any other DL law School is actually a regionally accredited school same as any university through its affiliation with Kaplan, the EJD is similar to a MLS (Masters in Legal Studies).  The 2 year MLS which Kaplan offers is actually a more versatile degree and is useful in government and for advancement as a paralegal.  Neither one will qualify you to be a lawyer though. It is possible Concord filled its quota (though hard to believe) and had spaces in the EJD.  More likely your writing and academic skills were not up to snuff according to Concord and thus they thought you a poor candidate to get past the FYLSE.

IMO I also think EJD is a waste of time and money.  If you think you have the right stuff, try another online law school like Taft.  Although, getting rejected by Concord might give one pause for thought about the entire affair. 

Distance Education Law Schools / Re: July 2013 Bar Exam Results
« on: February 06, 2014, 09:08:44 AM »
Law Dean - thanks for the stats.  Note that DC has it right - more admissions by motion than anyone else by far.  Most states including California are violating the Commerce Clause by engaging in restraint of interstate trade by erecting barriers to practice and free movement.  Surely, one can expect a competent attorney with 5-10 years continuous experience to be able to seamlessly move between jurisdictions.  The differences in law between DC and California for example are minimal - at least DC thinks so and permits all California attorneys including non ABA to motion in after 5 years practice.  Even going to another commmon law country is not difficult for a seasoned lawyer who can read the rules and statutes.

Apparently the "public" needs protection from lawyers who  cannot read or comprehend statutes but then again what bar did they pass I wonder? 

Then there is the crazy quilt of federal district court jurisidictions - I can be a member of federal court bar for example in North Dakota but not Nevada - why?  Bar protectionism and restraint of trade.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 64