Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10
 41 
 on: October 04, 2014, 10:54:03 PM 
Started by jonlevy - Last post by I.M.D.Law
FreshlyMinted, I can't decide whether you truly don't understand what we wrote or you are a very good, subtle troll. I'm hoping for the latter for you personally, even though it wouldn't be great for the board.
Trolling for what? What part do you think I have wrong. I have been spot on, sorry that I have a mind of my own. I stand by what I said.

 42 
 on: October 04, 2014, 04:32:42 PM 
Started by jonlevy - Last post by jonlevy
What I mean is that an LL.M program does not teach the skills required to be a good lawyer. They assume that you learned those skills in your JD program. LL.M programs are more like a standard master's.

Therefore, someone who doesn't learn that stuff in a real law school but does get an LL.M (and perhaps a ticket to the bar exam), is seriously lacking IMHO.

And yes, for the purposes of this discussion I assuming that most people with a non-bar qualifying JD enroll in a bar-qualifying LL.M program in order to take the bar.

That LLM won't get anyone a bar ticket. A US LLM specifically geared to foreign attorneys might along with the right credentials. On the other hand if one were wanting to go into a human rights career, it's not a bad degree at all.

However, instead of going offshore for an online degree, the reasonable thing to do is enroll at Taft or Concord and take the First Year Law Exam.  I have worked with at least two other Taft graduates who have been practicing in difficult areas of the law.

 43 
 on: October 04, 2014, 04:26:33 PM 
Started by jonlevy - Last post by jonlevy
FreshlyMinted, I can't decide whether you truly don't understand what we wrote or you are a very good, subtle troll. I'm hoping for the latter for you personally, even though it wouldn't be great for the board.

Yes, that would be a real online LLM from England.  It does not require a previous law degree. However, unlike their LLB, I don't see how it qualifies one to be a solicitor or attorney.

The courses deal with specialized areas of the law, not basic law.

However, it does look like a great alternative to say a regionally accredited  Masters in Legal Studies from Kaplan University.

But unless bar admission committees are bone stupid, it won't get  anyone a bar ticket.

 44 
 on: October 04, 2014, 04:21:12 PM 
Started by jonlevy - Last post by Maintain FL 350
What I mean is that an LL.M program does not teach the skills required to be a good lawyer. They assume that you learned those skills in your JD program. LL.M programs are more like a standard master's.

Therefore, someone who doesn't learn that stuff in a real law school but does get an LL.M (and perhaps a ticket to the bar exam), is seriously lacking IMHO.

And yes, for the purposes of this discussion I assuming that most people with a non-bar qualifying JD enroll in a bar-qualifying LL.M program in order to take the bar.


 45 
 on: October 04, 2014, 01:47:28 PM 
Started by jonlevy - Last post by Groundhog
FreshlyMinted, I can't decide whether you truly don't understand what we wrote or you are a very good, subtle troll. I'm hoping for the latter for you personally, even though it wouldn't be great for the board.

 46 
 on: October 03, 2014, 11:12:03 PM 
Started by jonlevy - Last post by I.M.D.Law
For those interesting in a school actually wanting to take them (on purpose) with no JD into an LLM, perhaps people should look into this
http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/index.php?topic=4026165.0

 47 
 on: October 03, 2014, 07:49:54 PM 
Started by jonlevy - Last post by I.M.D.Law
Groundhog makes a great point. A reasonably smart individual could probably learn enough "bar law" to pass the exam without any legal training. Does that mean they are prepared to be a lawyer, and should be entrusted with matters of huge significance? No!

In most states the bar tests minimum competency in limited, predictable, repetitive subjects. Even the essays themselves are frequently recycled. This is why most states have fairly high pass rates, not because most JD grads are brilliant. It's a learnable test.

The harder part is getting good at thinking like a lawyer, seeing all the angles, and issue spotting. The fact that an individual might be able to pass the bar does not mean they've had sufficient legal training.
Interesting arguments but I would say off topic. We're not talking about letting them sit the bar, just to take a masters degree. They are either licensed or not to begin with, this degree is not likely to change that AT ALL. So I don't get the whole "matters of legal significance" post.  You seem to be arguing why they shouldn't be allowed to sit the bar from the Novus Degree alone, and not only is no one arguing that they should, but no one is suggesting that they even are trying to do so.

And If by fluke any states did let someone get licensed post LLM (if they enrolled with international students due to the marshal islands thing or whatever) I'd say that I'm ok with that too since the LLM would be the vetting process equal to a JD.  But I doubt any would allow that.

It just doesn't bug me at all. Let the schools do what they want. CLEARLY the school isn't wanting them due to the suit, but I stand by my thought on that all the same.

I don't see any ethical issues either since from what I can see there in no lie. If they ask "was it ABA" and they lie, then yes. Otherwise, there is no lie. Many LLM programs actually say (I know since I have looked into applying to some of them) that they will take non ABA students if they are licensed attorneys. In theory at least a Novus Grad could be licensed (if qualified to sit for other reasons). I say this a matter of having schools just add an extra box to their admissions papers if they want to weed them out. It is kind of concerning that so many ABA law schools can't even handle their admissions and the theory is that "you should of known we would want you to tell us". Aren't most LLM profs and deans retired Judges and the like?

If its hurting any of your feelings that in theory a school might actually be ok with them getting in, ask the ABA to make a rule saying that they can't. A school that clearly doesn't want them in it filing a suit against Novus won't change that no matter who wins it.

 48 
 on: October 03, 2014, 05:46:52 PM 
Started by jonlevy - Last post by Maintain FL 350
Groundhog makes a great point. A reasonably smart individual could probably learn enough "bar law" to pass the exam without any legal training. Does that mean they are prepared to be a lawyer, and should be entrusted with matters of huge significance? No!

In most states the bar tests minimum competency in limited, predictable, repetitive subjects. Even the essays themselves are frequently recycled. This is why most states have fairly high pass rates, not because most JD grads are brilliant. It's a learnable test.

The harder part is getting good at thinking like a lawyer, seeing all the angles, and issue spotting. The fact that an individual might be able to pass the bar does not mean they've had sufficient legal training. 

 49 
 on: October 03, 2014, 05:26:32 PM 
Started by jonlevy - Last post by jonlevy
Bad for the profession but especially bad for the student who may have been initially deceived by Novus.  But I think as far as a Novus grad practicing law, that is a moot question because I really doubt there are any.

 50 
 on: October 03, 2014, 05:09:49 PM 
Started by jonlevy - Last post by Groundhog
Let the LLM programs decide that for themselves. I know some state bars don't even care about undergrad (crazy but true) as long as you have the JD for example. The LLM (when not being used for a license) still might hurt an ABA grads feelings to see a nonaccredited grad get accepted into, but you either are good enough to pass or you are not. If they can cut muster, let them. If they barely make it, easier curve for the rest of us. I honestly say let that be between them and the LLM program.

Plus if an admissions committee is opening the flood gates that easy to let people in, that strikes me as them needing to clean their own home before asking others to clean theirs.

This strikes me as an internal affair. If they need to make it an external affair, ask the ABA to pass a ruling on it.
Personally it wouldn't hurt my feelings if they let people with no prior education at all into the LLM as long as the school knew what they were doing when they did it(and if not, the fault is on the school IMHO)

Those students admitted to LLM programs are, as JonLevy said, admitted based on a misrepresentation or a mistake. Any student at an ABA school knows he or she has an affirmative duty to correct such mistakes. Novus to an ABA LLM is at best unethical, at worst illegal, and bad for the profession regardless. It is bad for the profession because there are too many attorneys, particularly in states with looser licensing requirements, like California, and making it easier isn't going to help. In my opinion, at least, it is bad for the profession if these students with no real legal training other than a year-long LLM and a bar prep course attempt practicing law. Law school teaches one much more than how to pass the bar, and conversely, I don't think simply being able to pass the bar makes one a good attorney. A smart undergrad could probably pass the bar with a few more months to study.

The admissions committee of any individual school is geared towards maximizing their profits and prestige, so yes, I do partially blame the schools. They don't have the best interests of the law, the student, or the profession in mind.

I do think the ABA could do more, but the ABA probably already has a rule about what qualifies as a foreign law school. I doubt Novus counts under their rules as a bona fide foreign law school.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10