Law School 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 - Maintain FL 350

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 102

Further, I will call the board and ask for additional clarification, and second, even if that clarification is not favorable, and I decide to go with a CA non-Acred, I would of course, still attempt this argument, as there is (as a matter of technical rhetoric) two ways to read the sentence, as written, with no comma.

Respectfully, I think you're missing the point.

Both sections 1 and 2 explicitly state that the law school must be accredited in it's home jurisdiction. The "equivalent to a JD" argument is irrelevant if the school is unaccredited.

If you genuinely don't intend to practice law in TX, then this may be a fine way to learn about the law. But don't mistake the mistake of thinking that you will be able to successfully petition the bar vis a vis interpretation of the rule. These cases are almost always unsuccessful, as you don't have a right to join the bar. It is at their discretion, and they have not shown (as far as I can tell) any interest in unaccredited law schools.     

Sorry, I screwed up. I meant to say LL.B, not LL.M.

LL.Bs are first degrees in law that some law schools used to confer (Harvard, for example) instead of the JD. I think this stopped awhile ago, however. I know a guy who has a Harvard LL.B, but he graduated 30 years ago at least.

In any case, that's the only thing that comes to mind when I read the "equivalent to..." part.

But, even that sentence still refers to the law school being accredited in it's home state AND the degree must be equivalent to a JD. It's not an either/or proposition, so I think we're back to square one. The school must be accredited.

Exactly!  But what needs to be accredited?  The JD one holds?  Or the degree by which one judges the JD one holds?  The held degree needs to be accredited?  (why would section 2 say this, when section 1 already addressed this)... or the degree held need to be EQUIVALENT to one that is accredited?  See what I mean about how the lack of a comma between (holds the equivalent of a JD degree) and (from a law school that is accredited...) changes the meaning of the rule...?

I feel like this can be read to say that:

So long as a Taft degree is "the equivalent of a J.D. degree from a law school that is [actually] accredited in the state where it is located", AND "so long as a Taft degree is equivalent in duration and substance to the legal education provided by an [actual] approved law school," then you may pass go.

Is this how you interpret the meaning of the rule?

No, that is not how I would interpret the rule. It seems clear that the LAW SCHOOL ITSELF must be accredited. That's how the accreditation process works. The school gets accredited, and then confers degrees. So for example, I don't think I have an "accredited JD", I simply have a JD from an accredited law school.

I see no mention of unaccredited law schools here. 

Decided that it might be important to review the rule with definitions:

Can be met by either:

(1) holds a J.D. degree, from an UNapproved law school that is accredited in the state where it is located.
(2) holds the equivalent of a JD degree from a law school that is accredited in the state where it is located AND that requires a course of study that is substantially equivalent in duration and substance to the legal education provided by an approved law school


“Accredited” means that a law school is recognized as being
qualified by the competent accrediting agency of a state or foreign jurisdiction, by a political subdivision of a state or foreign jurisdiction, or by another authorized body of a state or foreign jurisdiction.

“Approved law school” means a law school approved by the American Bar Association.

Don't read more into this than is actually present.

1) is referring to non-ABA approved law schools which are accredited by the state bar.

2) is referring to non-JD law degrees (LL.Ms, I suppose) which are accredited in the state in which the law school is located.

In either case, I see no provision whatsoever for an unaccredited law school. The TX rules, as far as I can tell, explicitly require at least state bar accreditation.

A couple of points:

1) Admission under either of these sections requires that the applicant first be admitted to practice in the state in which the school is accredited. Thus, you would first have to pass the CA bar, then get admitted to CA, THEN apply to Texas.

2) The most important thing to note (I think) is this: Section 2 refers to "a law school that is accredited in the state where it is located..."

California, as you may know, is one of a handful of states that allows ABA accredited, our own CA state bar accredited, and non-accredited law schools. I assume that by "accredited" they mean at least state bar accreditation.

Taft is not accredited by the CA state bar, in fact no online or correspondence law schools are accredited by the CA state bar.

Taft and other such schools do have accreditation by non-legal entities, but that may or may not be relevant. I would contact the TX bar and ask for clarification on exactly what/which accrediting body needs to approve the school in order to meet the TX requirements. 

Typically, when talking about law school accreditation, the only accreditation that matters is state bar or ABA.

Online Law Schools / Re: taft law school
« on: February 14, 2017, 11:46:34 AM »

I don't think that anyone here is arguing that correspondence/online legal education is always a bad idea, I think we are simply trying to point out that for the vast majority of students a non-ABA degree will present risks and limitations that are very difficult to overcome.

As long as the prospective is fully aware of the obstacles, then more power to them. But the key is to be open and realistic in your assessments, rather than seeing what you want to see. 

Law School Admissions / Re: URM African American Male
« on: January 31, 2017, 11:59:31 AM »
It varies, but it's significant. The problem you have, though, is that 140 LSAT.

Here's what I mean:

An AA male with a 155 would get a big boost, and would be able to compete for admission at schools that usually snub 155's. An AA male with a 165 would have a legitimate shot at Harvard, no joke.

140, however, is so low that even if you get boost equivalent to say, ten points, you're still only at 150. Mind you, the URM doesn't work exactly this way, but I'm offering the scenario for comparative purposes.

So, with a 3.1/140 I think you are still looking at Tier 3/Tier 4 schools. 

Law School Admissions / Re: URM African American Male
« on: January 31, 2017, 10:16:47 AM »
You might be able to get into a Tier 3 school, Tier 2 seems unlikely (though not impossible). Of course, there is significant variation even among schools in the same tier. You need to look at the admissions criteria for the specific school(s) you are considering. 

URM status will definitely give you a boost at most law schools. You mentioned the legalities of affirmative action. Here in California, the public university cannot admit students based solely on race, but they can still consider diversity as a factor and allow diversity statements. I believe the vast majority of law schools will at least allow a diversity statement as part of your application package, even if they don't follow the traditional affirmative action model.

Here are a couple of additional points I think you need to consider:

Retaking the LSAT

140 is a fairly low score. Did you prepare? Take a prep course? Devote serious time to studying? If the answer is no, then I'd seriously consider retaking.

If the answer is yes, then you need to consider whether law school is the right choice. Scoring 140 does not mean that you can't get through law school and become a lawyer, but it is an indicator of aptitude. Law school is far more demanding than undergrad, and a 3.1/140 indicates that you need to really consider if this is the right path.


You need to think about where you want to live. When you're considering the schools that might accept you with a 3.1/140, you're talking about schools with a local reputation/local appeal. These are schools that are going to present you with local job opportunities (if any). I'd worry less about what tier the school is in and more about where you want to live and work.

In other words, if you get admitted to Arizona Summit or Whittier don't plan on moving to New York City.   

It's OK to admit you were wrong, French Fries.

Concentration and clinics (which usually comprise no more than three or four individual classes) are not majors. We know that, you know that, even 0Ls know that. And yet that's the word you used, "major", and that gives me mirth, good sir.

Here's what you said, French Fries:

Not true, MANY have majors as options, and without question concentrations on the rest, and different quality of clinics for options (if any at all in those specific areas)

You still haven't given a single example of a law school that offers "majors as options", and you never will. So absurd.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 102