Law School Discussion

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
61
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.
62
Online Law Schools / Re: Correspondence verbiage removed from Texas Bar Requirements
« Last post by loki13 on February 16, 2017, 09:54:37 AM »
Without getting into the weeds, the thing to understand is that this isn't a general admission provision, this is under the generic reciprocity provisions.

In other words, this isn't about someone getting their "whatever" degree and trying to get a Texas license. It's a specific rule about how an attorney, license in a different jurisdiction, may also become licensed in Texas. That's why it's called "Applicants From Other Jurisdiction."

More specifically, this only applies if you are a practicing attorney, in a different jurisdiction, and you would like a Texas license. So there are two categories-

1. Graduate from an ABA-approved school (Sec. 1). In that case, so long as you have been practicing law, you can get the license from Texas without taking the Bar.

2. Do not graduate from an ABA-approved school (Sec. 2). This is the unapproved school route; in that case, you so have to take the Texas Bar, and you must have been practicing law for three of the past five years.

Clear?
63
Online Law Schools / Correspondence verbiage removed from Texas Bar Requirements
« Last post by iryancooper on February 15, 2017, 08:04:26 PM »
Apologies if a similar thread exists already (regarding Texas), I didn't see one. 

The point of this thread is to discuss, opine, compare/contrast, confirm the changes made to the Texas Bar Rules (particularly Rule XIII: Applicants from Other Jurisdictions) in the last couple of years. 

A few facts: I'm a Texas resident.  I'm also not interested in ever working as an attorney for a traditional firm.  The primary goal of an online J.D. for me personal enrichment, add a bank of knowledge to my practice in forensic psychology, as well as cases of clinical psychology that require some understanding of constitutional rights (involuntary commitment, etc.).  While my income will certainly not go down from earning a JD, I wouldn't complain if it went up from my ability to practice some areas of law particularly useful to my profession (board complaints, mental health malpractice lawsuits, mental health clinic business organization, etc.). 

For, um, ever, Texas has stipulated that non-ABA graduates may take the bar, but they expressly forbid non-ABA students who received their JD from a program based in correspondence.  While I haven't been able to find any state-specific definition of "correspondence" vs. "online" (as California does indeed make such a distinction), it would seem that none of that matters, as Texas law has changed, and removed the correspondence language from all rules, EXCEPT that which applies to foreign law programs. 

You can see the way in which the rules changed here:
http://www.txcourts.gov/media/741806/149113.pdf

You can see the law the way it is currently written here:
https://ble.texas.gov/txrulebook

I know that there was some political movement toward such a change, which was reported here:
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/03/23/texas-bill-provides-for-study-of-online-law-schools-and-licensing-through-other-methods/
This bill was introduced in the house, but simply to study the affects of allowing online degrees. 


So, when I read the rules as currently written, am I understanding this properly?  Texas has indeed altered their bar rules to allow students to take the bar from online schools by removing the verbiage preventing such?  (I assume that they perhaps had to revamp the rules, with Mitchell-Hamline's and Rutgers' new ABA-Approved Hybrid programs.) 

Here is the new wording: 

-------------------------------------------------------
Rule XIII
Applicants From Other Jurisdictions

§ 1
Exemption from the Bar Examination for Applicants Who Are Authorized to Practice Law in Another State

An Applicant who is authorized to practice law in another state must meet the requirements imposed on any other Applicant under these Rules, except that the Applicant is exempt from the requirement of successfully completing the Texas Bar Examination if the Applicant:
 (a) has been actively and substantially engaged in the lawful practice of law as the Applicant’s principal business or occupation for at least five of the last seven years immediately preceding the filing of the Application;
 (b) has a J.D. degree from an approved law school; and
 (c) has not failed the Texas Bar Examination.

§ 2
Exemption from the Law Study Requirement for Applicants Who Are Authorized to Practice Law in Another State

An Applicant who is authorized to practice law in another state is exempt from the law study requirement prescribed by Rule III if the Applicant:
 (a) has been actively and substantially engaged in the lawful practice of law as the Applicant’s principal business or occupation for at least three of the last five years immediately preceding the filing of the most recent Application; and
 (b) either;
      (1) holds a J.D. degree, from an unapproved law school that is
           accredited in the state where it is located; or
      (2) holds the equivalent of a J.D. 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.


-------------------------------------------------------

SO.... here is where my slight confusion comes in... obviously the applicable section is §2 (b)(2). 

But, is this saying that holding a JD (regardless of whether it is from an accredited or non-accredited school in that state) is fine so long as it is equivalent to a JD that IS approved in that state (which can be shown by the fact that graduates of it can take, and do pass, the bar in that state)
E.G., Applies to someone who holds a degree from Concord or Taft, so long as California has determined that said degree is equivalent to an approved degree.

OR, is this only saying that one can hold some non-JD degree (but that is the equivalent of one), and that's fine, so long as it is approved in that state. 
E.G., Applies to someone who holds a LL.B., so long as the LL.B. is from a school approved by the state. 

To be written by lawyers, this is not well worded. 

So does this restatement make sense?

"A Taft University J.D. is the equivalent of a J.D. degree from a law school that is accredited in the state of California, and a Taft J.D. requires a course of study that is substantially equivalent in duration and substance to the legal education provided by an approved school"  ... approved by whom? The state of Texas or Cali?  Obviously Cali has determined it to be substantially equivalent in duration/substance, as evidenced by their permit for its graduates to sit for the bar.  But if that means "Equivalent to an approved [Texas] degree" then I'm not sure how one would go about showing that. 

I feel like Gandalf in his reply to Bilbo's "Good Morning..."  "What do you mean, Good Morning?"  lol.


Sorry if this is a totally newbie question - I'm not a lawyer, but I'm a thinker, and this had me a bit stumped... given that I'm looking into Concord, Taft, St. Francis, and Northwestern, that one sentence is relatively important.

I haven't found ANY lawyers (and I'm a fairly decent research-whore) who have an online degree, and who practice in Texas, EXCEPT for in the Federal courts.  However, this change in the law is still new... so perhaps no one has tried it yet...?  Hoping someone can come out of the woodwork who has (since the change). 


(FYI, I would point out that other threads already exist for debating the uphill battle of going to an online, non-ABA law school, taking the baby bar, why not go to traditional instead, etc...)


I'm hoping maybe some Texas attorneys might weigh in on how they interpret §2 of this rule.  Or attorney's whose state has similar verbiage and how it has been interpreted there.  Or best of all, an attorney who has utilized this new verbiage to sit the for the Texas bar. 

Much thanks! 

R.



P.S. For anyone interested, the only reference Texas makes to correspondence, now, is this:

§5 No Degree By Correspondence
"A J.D. degree or an equivalent degree completed at a foreign law school that is earned primarily through online courses or other distance-learning mediums does not satisfy the requirements of the Rule."
64
Online Law Schools / Re: taft law school
« Last post by cusc2011 on February 15, 2017, 04:01:30 PM »
Online legal education is not for everyone. I went to law school via online in my 40's while working full-time and obtained a foreign law degree and online LLM all in 45 months. It was right for me because I have a career and obligations and incurring 100k plus debt was not an option for me. I had no problems in my journey, I got to keep my six figure career and once I become a lawyer I won't have a problem transitioning over as a General Counsel if I decided to go that route. I never had my sites on working for anyone when I become a lawyer, so my route worked perfectly fine. I had no problems getting a bar ticket and will be taking the bar for the first time and once I pass I will have other jurisdictions available to me.
65
Online Law Schools / Re: taft law school
« Last post by Maintain FL 350 on February 14, 2017, 11:46:34 AM »
Right.

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. 
66
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« Last post by cinnamon synonym on February 14, 2017, 07:57:12 AM »
92114

Hillarys first two batches of cookies did not turn out the way she liked.  She got very angry and has become bitter as she vents and rants on twitter....

Hillary....go get some nice eggs some good old brown sugar and try again....because this is your life now.

Hillary, might just be delusional and thinks she is still running for office.

Oh well its a fun train wreck to watch....

As we find out (Nate silver has confirmed) that it truly was a huge silent majority who came out to vote against Hillary Clinton and for radical change...

In the Midwest, for example, it wasn’t just Michigan and Wisconsin that became much redder..... So did Minnesota, Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota and South Dakota,....add PA, Michigan Wisconsin....

Silent majority voted!  Not for Clinton.
67
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« Last post by cinnamon synonym on February 13, 2017, 08:13:13 AM »
91923..

Democrats need to focus on economic issues---leave "identity politics" or racist politics behind or trump will own another 4years.

Nobody but Hillary Clinton apologists believe in it.

Even an openly homosexual doesn't give a *&^% about who is whom when his family is out of work.

Tell it to the sea!!!!!
You will be out of politics for a long time.

No one cares that the president called Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas....maybe those with a good job care....nobody else.

They should leave  sexism behind them as well......why?

Because when Republican women are attacked it is NOW seen as sexist....even if you are attacking a point of view they have....cuts both ways.

 

We are all affected by the economy....
68
Online Law Schools / Re: taft law school
« Last post by loki13 on February 13, 2017, 08:01:44 AM »
Just wanted to say that on all 13 pages of this thread, you represented yourself and your alma mater well, and it helps folks like me who are closely judging Taft, with little more to go on than Orly.  I hope you keep up a presence on lawschooldiscussion. 

R.

I will point this out for those reading the thread. There are various advantages to different "law school" solutions. The Taft "Distance Learning" solution is not a good one for the vast majority of people. Allow me to explain why-

If you choose to go the Taft route, then (IIRC), you have to pass the Baby Bar in California. That's your first possible point of failure. They don't break it down by school, but recent statistics show that Taft is in the category of schools that have an approximate 25% passage rate (first time), lower for repeaters. So, assuming you get past that (showing your aptitude), then you get to spend even more money to take the real California Bar. And if you do, then Taft has a terrible passage rate on the real Bar. (again, look this up- it's 20% or so). So you have a 25% chance of getting to take the Bar, and then a 20% chance of passing it. Those aren't good odds.

If you do overcome those odds, you will have graduated with a degree that doesn't mean a whole lot in the legal practice, and isn't very portable. Yes, you can practice in California, but you won't have any connections. And you will find it nearly impossible to practice anywhere else.

There may be particularly motivated people that can make Taft work to their advantage; but most of those people would be better off at a different school. The number of people that a) succeed at Taft, and b) can only do distance learning, and c) are able to successfully practice law after Taft are vanishingly small.

This isn't impossible. But if you want to actually practice law with your JD, there are almost always going to be better options.
69
Online Law Schools / Re: taft law school
« Last post by iryancooper on February 12, 2017, 10:37:26 PM »
After spending a good hour or more (and a full glass of Pinot Grigio) reading this entire thread (which I realize I just revived), I decided to actually take the time to register for an account on lawschooldiscussion JUST to reply to what seems like a largely derailed and hijacked thread about Taft (which LP continuously tried to bring back on point lol). 

I wanted to say that the last couple of pages had phrases like "just a place to argue" etc. 

As one of the few (only?) Taft alumni on this site, Legal Practitioner was almost completely UN-argumentative, though baited (trolled?) consistently.  As someone considering an online JD (just to add some knowledge to my other, completely separate, profession, clinical psychology), LP, I wanted to let you know that you have displayed a consistently grounded, pertinent, even humble(?) (not sure what word I'm looking for) demeanor on these thirteen pages.  You come off as as slightly older, mature, and to the point.  When other users said you changed your story (which having read all 13 pages back to back, I can assure that you absolutely didn't, you provided additional details) you remained collected.  As we say here in the south, your goat don't git easily. 

I don't mean to say "Wow, your demeanor is so leveled that you sold me on Taft," however I do mean to say that Taft is what is, and it fits a certain bill.  AND, I'm pleased to see an online presence that let's me know folks like you have found Taft quite able to fit your bill. 

Not only was the information you presented (quantitative) in this thread useful for Taft-considerers, but the quality of your online presence is extremely noted and appreciated.  For an attorney (and I know dozens) you don't seem to have a pathological (as a psych clinician, I use that term literally) need to argue, you aren't easily riled, and you are not overly wordy (opposite of this, my own post, and many of the other's on this thread).

Just wanted to say that on all 13 pages of this thread, you represented yourself and your alma mater well, and it helps folks like me who are closely judging Taft, with little more to go on than Orly.  I hope you keep up a presence on lawschooldiscussion. 

R.
70
Politics and Law-Related News / Re: POTUS
« Last post by cinnamon synonym on February 10, 2017, 10:07:55 PM »
So,
Russians....nope
Fake news...hahaha....no
Voter fraud---Hillary and jills recount...really?  I thought the democratic party doesn't recognize those who vote early and often and there is no such thing as Santa Claus and voter fraud to the democratic party.
The FBIs two letters in October? Well, my question is didn't Hillary bring the FBI into the election when she operated her surreptitious private computer system?  But not really----that cake was baked when it was discovered that the FBI found her gross negligence but decided not to prosecute.

That's all....hillary lost it because she is a shill....always has been....always will
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10