« on: August 20, 2012, 07:08:53 PM »
Roald - these guys do not understand that the statutes involved are open to reasonable interpretation by the Bar examiners. Think pro se litigants who latch onto something like UCC 2-207 and you will get the idea of the circular reasoning involved here. MASL and NOVUS seek out these folks and give them a "degree." Since no attorney is involved as far as I know with either outfit, they cannot per se be law schools nor are the degrees valid in any jurisdiction. I might add being a California registered law school involves a lot more than getting a business license, there are some hoops to jump through.
The DC Bar Examiners are actually hard asses when it comes to this sort of monkey business, see Teare v. Committe on Admissions, 566 A.2d 23 (1989) for example of DC's over zealous defense of its turf under Rule 46. DC is no paragon of inclusiveness, it's bar is second only to California in difficulty, and the 5 year motion in rule is a fluke carry over from federal court rules as the DC bar was only established in 40 years ago. My experience is that DC lawyers are usually appalled that their bar might admit online and correspondence degree students previously admitted in California.