Law School Discussion

I think you did the right thing by doing all the research before taking a leap.  I, too, have been contemplating the same question.   These were good starting resources for my investigation: 

https://www.stfrancislaw.com/pdf/bar-exam-eligibility-by-state.pdf

http://www.ble.state.tx.us/Rules/NewRules/rulexiii.htm

The PFD from St. Francis Law is dead wrong with respect to admission in Texas (and, probably, others) insomuch as it states that prior admission in any jurisdiction + 3 years of practice in another jurisdiction = eligibility for Texas admission.  I'll show you why. . .

Since St. Francis Law is a non-ABA school, you'll have to go through Texas Rule XIII(a)(2).  That Rule provides:

(a) An attorney holding a valid, active law license issued by another state shall meet the requirements imposed on any other Applicant under these Rules, except that. . .

(2) An attorney holding a valid, active law license issued by another state is eligible for an exemption from the law study requirement for admission to take the Texas Bar Examination, if the attorney:

(A) has been actively and substantially engaged in the lawful practice of law in any state or elsewhere as his/her principal business or occupation for at least three of the last five years immediately preceding the filing of the most recent application or re-application; and

(B)
(1) holds a J.D. degree, not based on study by correspondence, from an unapproved law school that is accredited in the jurisdiction where it exists. . .

As you can see above, the Rule specifically prohibits admission on motion in instances where the JD was obtained based on correspondence study.  St. Francis' JD is based on study by "corresponence" as defined by Texas law:

"Texas has no provision for admitting an applicant whose law degree was obtained through correspondence study (which includes “distance learning” or “external programs”)."

Thus, its grads would NEVER be eligible (unless the rules were changed) for admission to the Texas bar.

Now, you may be asking yourself "Do I have a cognizible claim against St. Francis for my reliance upon their false / materially inaccurate information?"  Answer:  Probably not.  Look in footnote 1 of their bullsh1t brochure:

"This information is provided for convenience only and St. Francis assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information set forth in this chart."

Oh, how convenient!

I once worked with a paralegal that took courses at Concord Law School (yet another online scam of a school).  She just about had a heart attack when I told her she wasn't eligible to practice in Texas.  She called the Texas BLE and, sure enough, not eligible.

Aside from the typical caveats regarding practice limits that come with an online JD, consider what your'e looking for in terms of post-law school experience.  If you're interested in practicing law immediately as a solo practitioner, or even with a law firm, make sure you're getting the skills you need.  From what I understand, even ABA law schools have finally "received the memo" that the case method is worthless and the smart ones are moving towards practical programs.  www.stfrancislaw.com  seems to have a program that is focused on teaching the actual practice of law.  Makes sense to me--after all, law was taught through apprenticeship years ago.

If you're looking for something that's just for knowledge, I suppose taft might be decent, but I would't expect to walk out with an ability to actually practice unless you self-teach (again, a consistent theme on these boards is self-teaching when you're at an online school).

It all sounds good and well, but I'm highly skeptical that any school has deemed the case method worthless and abolished the entire system.  What does St. Francis do that other schools don't?  Offering a high number of clinical classes doesn't cut it.

So I have been considering law school for several years. Unfortunately, the only part time ABA programs are a 90 minute drive for me (one way) four days per week, and I own a home so I'm stuck and I cannot relocate. I have a Cal Bar school within two miles of my house that offers a part time program. My delema streams from the fact that I live in California now, but I'd want to remain here forever. I know the Cal Bar law schools restrict the states where one can practice, but I've heard of Cal Bar students practicing law in Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Texas, and Florida.

If Cal Bar is my only, I'm trying to determine if I should go through with it or not? Law has always interested me, and I have over seven years in law enforcement.

(1) How is that a dilemma?
(2) What?
(3) Please save yourself the trouble and don't go.

This is really a no-brainer for me.  Brooklyn, hands down.

Both schools are in the same market.  Brooklyn has MUCH better scholarship terms and has a better USNWR ranking.  Though St. John's reported stats might be slightly better, that still doesn't outweigh the superior scholarship terms at Brooklyn.

Give up the numbering paradigm please. I used it once and admitted its a douch.y approach. So, it now become your primary approach? Typical.

I didn't bother reading trough all of that. Too much effort for something so foolish.  You called me a troll? Wow. Yes indeed- I'm a troll. I have no debt. Congrats to me. . .

Damn, looks like I was right on the money: 

I know.. I know... you read the whole thing and now want to put up another post that says "I only read 5% of what you wrote... but..." or that you don't want to  "address data on [MY] rhetoric" .  It's your way weaseling out of the stupid arguments you've made.  I get it.  I'd do the same thing if I spouted the tripe you do.

Wonder if making a plausible inference based on your past behavior had anything to do with it?