By the way I have an online JD and then did the QLTT - so I am not anti DL, I am just warning you the bars are not your friend in these matters and to get it in writing....
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 - jonlevy
I also have tried to warn that this may not even result in a bar ticket. Unless he has a firm committment in writing from the Cal Bar that they will accept a foreign distance learning LLB plus LLM; I have my doubts the bar will comply. The Cal Bar as I have noted before is not obligated to accept just any foreign LLB - would they accept a LLB from UNISA or University of Zimbabwe absent a license - I am not so sure. I think the bar will look at the degree itself and make a decision and since it is a DL degree and not Oxford, the result may be in question.
However I do disagree, a LLB plus LLM and bar course is likely just as good as a California DL JD - that is to say about 5-1 odds against passing.
If it was me - I'd go for the solicitor license first and then the the US Bar.
It is hard enough to get a bar ticket with a foreign license - getting in with a foreign law degree and a one year LLM sounds good theory but likely will not work. How would the bar evaluate the foreign law degree? A 1 year LLM is not the same as a 3 year JD.
New York will generally let English solicitors take the bar but the catch is they have to get licensed first which means a training contract in England first. There has been discussion here that one could get a foreign distance learning law degree and then somehow qualify to take a US bar without being licensed as a foreign attorney first. I have my doubts it will work since the bar will apprehend that we have a US resident obtaining a foreign DL degree when they simply could have enrolled in a California DL school. I see no reason why the bar would do someone outside their scheme any favors.
Concord is regionally accredited but not by the state bar. That means a Concord JD in theory is marginally better because it also has some academic standing if one wanted to enter a non law graduate program later or try for a job based on the JD alone.
Both schools are not accredited and they will not get you a ticket to the bar, only the First Year Exam which has only a 20% overall pass rate. This is why how much the school costs is a non criteria. The only criteria for online California law schools are First Year exam pass rate and Bar pass rate. Of course one can theoretically become a lawyer by going to these schools however reality is the statistics.
I have seen lots of theories on how one can become a lawyer here and there and not go to a traditional law schools but the proof is the bar pass rate, nothing more or less.
There are only about 3 or 4 distance law schools in California that have a track record of any sort of success and even then your odds are more like 5 to 1 against passing the bar.
I'm not against it by any means, just in favor of transparency.
Putting your money on an online LS with no track record of success is a huge gamble. A lot of these schools come and go and graduate few if any attorneys. Go with a school that has actually graduated lawyers. if you don't get a law license all your money is wasted on an unaccredited degree or worse a first year.
« on: September 07, 2013, 07:19:35 PM »
Anyone who has a familiarity for multivariate statistics and quantitative analysis could explain how it is very easy to take raw data (test scores) and achieve the desired results. I am not saying it is done that way, I am just saying if a State Bar wanted a 20% pass rate it can more or less achieve it by manipulating the data. I just find find it odd that those FYLSE exam takers always fail 80% of the time or conversely always pass 20% of the time.