Law School Discussion

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10
Choosing the Right Law School / Where to go for undergrad year?
« Last post by T.R on February 22, 2017, 10:12:34 PM »
My main two choices for my undergraduate studies are Chico and La Verne. I want to know which school would benefit me the most in my future law career. I only plan to stay the 4 years and transfer to another graduate school to get my law degree in criminal justice. At Chico I choose the major of Criminal Justice and at La Verne I choose Criminology. I just want to know which school would most benefit me in getting a higher LSAT score and overall education. Thank you for your time!
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« Last post by cinnamon synonym on February 21, 2017, 07:43:05 AM »
...cristy Kenny--fired!
...tom countryman--fired!
...patrick Kennedy---fired!

Great news....they really are gone...

Lets get the business as usual worms out of the state department.
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« Last post by cinnamon synonym on February 21, 2017, 06:51:36 AM »

Pleas Print.
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« Last post by cinnamon synonym on February 21, 2017, 06:48:16 AM »

Loki!!!!! I have an article from a periodical for you, my friend.....

So? Any lawyer on this board now think the democratic party isn't morbidly fractured that it is going to take a long long time to repair?

Those like lol and maintenance.....

Understand, I'm sure they do that the Republican party is restructuring.....but seriously IN POWER?

Libertarians are taking over Pennsylvania.

.....then there is this from a periodical.

...Next, let’s debunk my least favorite rumor about Hillary Clinton, that she is some kind of Democratic Party leader who would put the Democratic Party above everything and save us in these trying Trumpian times. Hillary Clinton has run two national primary elections for the presidency. In both, she complained about the negative “attacks” she received, claiming she wanted a primary based on the issues while her spin team (more commonly known as the main stream media) went after the religious beliefs of her enemies (Obama pictured in a turban, obviously trying to play off the nation’s islamophobic tendencies and WikiLeaks proved that the DNC, in coordination with the Clinton camp, questioned whether Bernie Sanders is Jewish or atheist). She called on her supporters (Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand) to come out and question whether Bernie Sanders truly cared about the Sandy Hook shooting victims, over a gun law (Sanders believes that you should not be able to sue a gun manufacturer after a mass shooting, like you can’t sue a car company after a car accident). After the Election, Hillary gave a speech to her donors in NYC and gave a speech for Senators during Sen. Harry Reid’s farewell, she took the time to blame “fake news” for costing her the election. She never made it to Standing Rock (Malia Obama made it to the protests), she didn’t go to the Women’s March (those who say she wasn’t invited, get off your high horse; millions of people took to the streets and none of them had an invite) she didn’t go to the spontaneous airport protests, like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Rep. John Lewis, and others. She hasn’t aided in the town hall protests, nor has she done anything to aid the regular people after she lost. All she does is send tweets poking at Trump every once in awhile that don’t land as well as she would like because it’s a lot harder to get under someone’s skin after they just beat you. She sulked for a while, then signed a book deal and went back to giving speeches for the rich and powerful. Hillary may stand for the Democrats in Washington and the party elites but she certainly does not stand with us, the people of the Democratic party. This is classic Hillary Clinton: put in the least amount of work for the real people and then take credit and let the Clinton machine’s enormous “spin” team take over and try to shape public opinion. Again, I cannot let this go without reiterating, some of Clinton’s biggest supporters were in the media itself, giving an obvious bias for Clinton.

Respectfully, I think you're missing the point.

I'm not missing your point, at all.  I understand what you are saying (that there is only one way of reading section two, requiring a jurisdictionally approved institution).  I'm simply disagreeing with you.  I believe there is more than one way in which section two can be construed.  In my mind, this is not simply my opinion, but a technical fact.  "As written, section two CAN have more than one possible meaning."  This is based on the rules of the English language, not my opinion or inability to grasp a point.  Even the one attorney whom I showed in person and disagreed that it was intended to read as I hope, also agreed that it COULD be interpreted more than one way, and if the intent was to require an accredited institution, the rule should be re-written so that it can only be interpreted in one way... remove all ambiguity. 

For example, written like this below, there is only one possible way of interpreting the meaning (your interpretation) based on the proper use of commas:

"(2) holds the equivalent of a J.D. degree, that was obtained from a law school 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."

Using commas, my re-write clarifies three distinct conditions:
1. Must be equivalent of a JD
2. Must be from jurisdictionally accredited school
3. Must be substantially equivalent to approved school

Without commas, there are only two sections:
1. Must be equivalent of: a JD from a law school accredited by the state
       (so could be an LLB, or JD, from any school [acred or not], so long as it is equivalent to one from an accredited school in that state)
2. Must be substantially equivalent to approved school

To be completely unambiguous, the commas MUST be added.  Otherwise it is poor technical writing and can interpreted as both/either meaning.  Its like the classic example, "the million dollar estate was left in equal shares to Sally, Jon, Bob, and Mark" is not the same as "the million dollar estate was left in equal shares to Sally, Jon, Bob and Mark."  The latter comma-less sentence can mean two things (much to Bob's and Mark's dismay).

You're saying something is crystal clear, as written, when as a matter of rhetoric fact, it isn't. 

I do get your point - just don't agree with it.   

But, of course, the purpose of this thread was to gather opinions/discussions/feedback.  So I am genuinely thankful for yours.  It's caused me to re-think this and re-say it many times/ways!

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.     
Thanks so much for the time taken to provide feedback on this.

As I have mentioned, a career as a lawyer is not / would not be the primary goal for me as mental health is what puts food on the table.  So if sitting for the Texas bar isn't possible, I would expect that negative outcome going in.  But it sure would be nice if I was able to argue my interpretation (fyi, I've since shown to two lawyers in person, one read it as I did, the other who read it as Loki/Maintain last interpreted (A degree, but not a JD, as in LLB).  For the record, no American law school that I know of offers an LLB anymore, and it would seem odd to me to put in verbiage to cover for that (especially where none exited before the change in verbiage). 

As time goes on if any others visit this thread, please feel welcome to revive/bump it with updated interpretations. 

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. 

I will come back here and report the progress of either/both of those outcomes for others' benefit.

Thanks again!
Online Law Schools / Re: Correspondence verbiage removed from Texas Bar Requirements
« Last post by loki13 on February 17, 2017, 01:55:25 PM »
Let's see.

Rule I(a)(1).
“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 juris.

Read in pari mutuel with the provision cited, then:
(1) You have to have a degree (but not a JD) from a law school that is accredited in that jurisdiction; AND
(2) The studies must be substantially similar to an ABA ("approved") law school.

If you go here, you will see that Taft (for example) is specifically listed as an unaccredited school:

So I would agree with Maintain- regardless of any intent, the actual wording is clear. While California has specific rules allowing unaccredited schools to have their graduates sit for the Bar, that does not mean those schools are accredited.

In addition, there are other jurisdictions where the state has an accreditation for the law school, but it is not ABA-accredited (or "approved").

That said, there is case law in some jurisdiction (minority) where people have been able to successfully petition the State Bar to take the Bar Exam after they have shown a period of good practice, despite unorthodox credentials. I don't think that this gives you it as a matter of right.

As always, YMMV, and I would contact the Texas Bar for a dispositive ruling on the issue. State Bars are usually happy to help.
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.

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.

This does make sense, too. 

However, the second part of #2 (equivalent in duration) couldn't apply to an LLM.  When you go back and see what the verbiage used to be (how the rule was altered) it used to say something to the effect of: "is equivalent to three years of education"... this implies to me that the spirit of #2 is referring to one's first law degree, not ones qualifying post doctoral LLM. 

Your interpretation to #2 does make sense (e.g., "LLM, I suppose") except that it doesn't fit with the second part of the rule, and LLMs are addressed in the Foreign Law Degree section. 

So I'm still not quite clear.

Thanks for sharing and helping. 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10