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 - jonlevy

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 42 ... 54
361
An executive JD in my opinion is suspect. While Taft and Concord offer EJDs, I would question if those are actually regionally accredited degrees, the Taft one is for sure not.  And real attorneys will laugh their asses off at you when your back is turned.

362
A PhD is not what you need, that is more an academic degree. A Masters in Legal Studies can be obtained from an accredited online school like Kaplan University if you think you need training in the law. An unaccredited JD however will just empty your wallet and be viewed with suspicion.

363
Waste of time and money, non bar law degrees are a joke IMO.

364
Distance Education Law Schools / Re: FYLSX Statistics Posted
« on: February 01, 2012, 09:13:01 PM »
The exams are finite, memorize a couple good Gilbert outlines cover to cover and know how to brief a case. Correspondence law school is essentially a reading list. If you want more trappings and bells and whistles, Concord can offer that. Correspondence law school is better suited to someone who already has had exposure to the legal system via law enforcement, as a paralegal, etc.

365
Distance Education Law Schools / Re: FYLSX Statistics Posted
« on: January 31, 2012, 08:30:45 PM »
Not sue I follow your question - correspondence study would have more emphasis on memorization and less interaction with a program because of its design.

366
Distance Education Law Schools / Re: FYLSX Statistics Posted
« on: January 30, 2012, 06:41:15 PM »
FYBE is always a 20% pass rate or thereabouts. The chambers/offices people are outliars since they likely know quite a bit about the law already.  Correspondence should always be a little higher because it consists of pure memorization which is the key to passing bars.

367
You obviously have not attended law school, common sense and law are mutually exclusive.

368
Nope each and every federal court and agency (if applicable) has its own rules.  The good news is that DL degree holders who pass the Cal Bar can join many of them on motion.

369
Most federal district courts restrict bar membership to in state attorneys, some require co-counsel on cases, the minority permit out of state attorneys to become members, ND Illinois, USDC North Dakota, USDC Puerto Rico come to mind.  The Circuit Courts of Appeals are more liberal. But even though I can represent a client in the 11th Circuit in Atlanta, I cannot set up an office there because I am not a Georgia attorney. For a single case, pro hac vice is always available but that usually but not always requires local counsel. And therein lies the idiocy of the entire scheme, the higher the court, the less thaty are concerned about your law degree or where your state bar membership is from.

There is a lawsuit in California ongoing about this:

http://www.mjplaw.org/index.html

370
You can do Vets, Tax, and Social Security advocacy now without a law license to one degree or another. Once you have the law license from California, even though you are in federal administrative practice, the Washington state bar may take a dim view of you opening an office and advertising as an attorney with only a California license.  This is a very gray area if you intend to have a physical presence in Washington. Since you would be competing with Washington licensed lawyers in the same field, eventually you will be subject to to a UPL (unlicensed practice of law) referal to the state bar. So instead of being outside the box, you will be in the box unless you plan accordingly and do your due diligence to avoid such issues.  But the issue arises all the time - one just needs to be aware how to avoid it.

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 42 ... 54