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 ... 103
Choosing the Right Law School / Re: Chapman law or USD law
« on: April 21, 2017, 10:37:03 AM »
By USD I think you mean San Diego, not Davis?

As between USD at close to sticker price and Chapman for free, I'd take Chapman in a heartbeat. Frankly, neither school can justify the obscene tuition they charge, so I'd go for the cheapest option. Your job prospects graduating from either school will be very similar, with an advantage to USD if you want to live in SD. I don't think many employers draw a big distinction between these schools, they operate on a fairly similar level. 

I'm surprised that if you had the numbers to get a full ride from Chapman, that you did not get a better offer from USD. Their admissions numbers are not too disparate.

Last note: be prepared to live and work in Southern California. I don't know where you are from, but these are not exactly the kinds of schools that will land you job interviews in NYC (or at big firms) based on pedigree. Not really a big deal, but something to be aware of.

General Off-Topic Board / Whittier Law School Closing
« on: April 21, 2017, 10:04:17 AM »
It seems that the inevitable has happened, and an ABA law school is calling it quits.

I have been of the opinion for quite a while now that one of the Southern California T4s was going to go out of business, as the market is saturated. It is not surprising that it's Whittier, given their history of problems with the ABA and low bar pass rates. They tried various approaches, but it never seemed to gel. While other T4s (ULV and WS) managed to increase their pass rates, Whittier always struggled.

I would not be surprised if Thomas Jefferson followed.

Law School Admissions / Re: Should I Apply/Do I have a chance?
« on: April 13, 2017, 09:57:29 AM »
Hi Sam.

A few things to consider.

First, law schools are going to put a huge emphasis on your LSAT (which I assume you have not taken) and your cumulative GPA. Will one or two Fs destroy your chances? No, but it certainly doesn't help. If this is an isolated incident, you can explain it away, and you make up for it with high grades subsequently, then it's probably OK.

The issue I see, however, is that your issues seem to be of a long term nature. Law school is far, far more demanding than undergrad. If you have issues that are negatively effecting your undergrad grades, then it is not a stretch to think that they will be amplified in law school.

You want to be sure that this stuff is well behind you before taking on the stress of law school.

Congrats, FSU is a good school.

If you get stuck on something, try the Examples & Explanations books. I found them very helpful during the first year. Good luck!

Choosing the Right Law School / Re: Tier 4?
« on: March 06, 2017, 11:09:26 AM »
I agree with Loki, location is everything.

Two additional points:

When you say that T4 is all you can "manage", are we talking about geographic and/or time restraints (perhaps you need a part time program?), or are we talking very low GPA/LSAT.

If it is the latter reason, and depending on just HOW low your numbers are, you may want to step back for a minute and rethink law school. There are T4s that will accept someone with a 148, and I think those applicants might want to rethink their decision. If you have a 155 and the only school nearby is a T4, well, that's a different story.

Second point is regarding solo practice. I don't know if you have any experience with a solo practice, but it is VERY difficult to set up shop straight out of law school without at least some prior experience. You should try to get hired at a firm or govt office first. 

Choosing the Right Law School / Re: Where to go for undergrad year?
« on: February 23, 2017, 04:27:25 PM »
It doesn't matter, neither school will give you an advantage on the LSAT or in terms of law school admissions. The only time your choice of undergrad matters is if you have the opportunity to attend a truly elite school (think, Harvard). I seriously doubt if any law school would draw a distinction between these two schools.

Go for the cheapest option, no one should be racking up debt for a bachelor's degree.   


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.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 103