Law School Discussion

Non-ABA versus ABA

Non-ABA versus ABA
« on: January 06, 2009, 05:02:43 PM »
Does anyone know the pros and cons of NON-ABA approved law schools versus ABA approved law schools?

Is there really that much of a competitive advantage?

Any info would be great.

Re: Non-ABA versus ABA
« Reply #1 on: January 07, 2009, 04:23:04 AM »
If you go to a non-ABA school your degree won't be worth the paper it's printed on.  Avoid them at all costs!


  • ****
  • 2259
  • a.k.a. Miguel Sanchez
    • View Profile
Re: Non-ABA versus ABA
« Reply #2 on: January 07, 2009, 11:47:37 AM »
ABA school cons: Some people can't get into them

ABA pros: Everything else
Georgetown Law Graduate

Chief justice Earl Warren wasn't a stripper!
Now who's being naive?


  • ****
  • 3087
  • ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Non-ABA versus ABA
« Reply #3 on: January 08, 2009, 03:05:20 AM »
ABA school cons: Some people can't get into them

ABA pros: Everything else

TITCR to the max. Non-ABA is dog *&^% and will seriously handcuff your ability to compete with ABA school grads, especially outside of the godforsaken state that allowed the non-ABA cesspool to exist.
I'mma stay bumpin' till I bump my head on my tomb.


  • ***
  • 54
  • He, he, he.....
    • View Profile
Re: Non-ABA versus ABA
« Reply #4 on: January 09, 2009, 02:16:59 AM »
It's late and I just finished a 4hr LSAT study session on LG's so I just copied this from a post I made earlier.  I too was looking at this situation when I first started considering applying to law schools.  Now, it's ABA or the highway as far as I can tell.  Here you go:

First CBE accredited schools which are California Bar accredited schools. (I believe a few other states have some as well, but not many)  These schools cater to the non traditional students and offer part time programs at night for 4 yrs.  This is a link to UWLA which has a campus in the west valley and one by LAX. This school I believe also has a FT day program for 3yrs as well.  Another school I know is the University of Glendale College of Law.

The Good: You do not need to sit for the Baby-Bar.  And yes, this is considered even harder than the actual bar.  Most of the schools that are Non-ABA aproved are on-line programs.  The reason for the BB-Bar is that the LSAT is not required for these schools.  Neither is a college degree for that matter.  Anyway, CBE schools do require the LSAT, but a 143 or above and you're in.  You also don't neccessarily need a bachelors degree either, an AA or 60-80 CLEP credits suffices.  They cost about 1/2 what the ABA charge and at UWLA if you score a 150 or above on the LSAT, they'll give you a 1/2 ride.

Now, THE BAD:  No federal financial aid.  All private loans and most schools, UWLA being the exception, offer no scholorships.  The CA Bar passage rate is below 25%.  What good is the degree if you can't practice.  For five years, once licensed, you will only be able to practice in CA or a state any other state that accepts the degree. NOT MANY DO!!  After that, about 1/2 to 2/3 of the states will let you sit for their bar if you are in good standing.  The career placement centers at these schools, if any, are nothing but glorified Craigslists.  The networking of alumni that most students utilize at their schools is slim to say the least.  UWLA touts the have 100 sitting judges in LA. A tiny drop in the bucket.  Can anyone succeed.  Yes.  Some have made it work and work out well for themselves.  But the numbers are miniscule.  Your law degree will always be on your resume and for good or bad, the school you go to has a stigma attached.  Let me put it another way.  Look up on the various threads here what people say about a T4 school in Michigan, Cooley.  Cooley would be considered the Yale/Harvard of the CBE/Online Non-ABA world.

The more research I did, and yes, many here came to my rescue, the more I realized an ABA school is the only logical choice for me.  There just is too much money involved to make any poor decisions on a matter such as this.
If there's one thing America needs, it's more lawyers.  Can you imagine a world without lawyers?                         |
-Lionel Hutz


Re: Non-ABA versus ABA
« Reply #5 on: March 10, 2009, 10:10:54 AM »
Do NOT attend a NON-ABA approved school if you can attend an ABA approved one!


  • ****
  • 3551
    • View Profile
Re: Non-ABA versus ABA
« Reply #6 on: March 10, 2009, 10:34:55 AM »
Do NOT attend a NON-ABA approved school, if whether or not you can attend an ABA approved one!

If looks could kill, you would be an uzi.

Re: Non-ABA versus ABA
« Reply #7 on: December 26, 2010, 08:11:44 PM »
I know a late reply, but it is worth to clarify.  It is not correct to state that a non-ABA JD is worthless.  Most lawyers only practice in one state.  When they need practice in more than one state they file pro hac vice.  Loads of corporations have in house JD's that are simply that, in house, no outside litigation. For outside litigation they contract to a litigation specialist firm.  No desire to be long winded here. Simply put, pass the California Bar say through famous on liner Concord or other many non-ABA california schools or Alabama or elsewhere, get your fully ABA accredited LLM on-line from Thomas Jefferson or other BM school and suddenly you are a serious international and domestic tax and business attorney that can pretty much practice anywhere in the world.  Quick example, You are licensed in California with office in California or even in house counsel for some firm anywhere and client has issues in Texas, you can take Texas BAR if JD from ABA school or simply contract for smallish fee with with Texas attorney to either sign papers as co-counsel with you as pro hac vice or hey simply do you a solid tit-for-tat because they need reliable contact in California, or an LLM, or international or fed or........goes on and on. So yes non ABA is limiting, but not worthless.

Re: Non-ABA versus ABA
« Reply #8 on: December 26, 2010, 08:24:25 PM »
Depends on what state you want to practice in. They tend to be only valid in that state in question that issues them. If you only want to practice in that state and they are cheaper,then there you go. Just don't expect to be able to transfer to another state without at least 5 years practice first(sometimes more and even then you have to prove yourself above and beyond what normal transfering lawyers do)
But yeah if you only want to practice in the state in question, it really is the same minus the price tag. EVERY ABA school started out as state approved only, EVERY one.

BUT make sure they are approved by that states bar, some schools (novus comes to mind) are scams and reconised by no one. Just check with the state bar first, dont take the schools word for it.

Re: Non-ABA versus ABA
« Reply #9 on: December 28, 2010, 05:36:59 PM »
Re in house and stuff - they tend to be people who started at major law firms, the went in house after getting experience (and getting to know their client/new employer).  I wouldn't count  on decent in house employment right out of law school.  Depending on what you do in house you may still need to pass a bar some where.

A lot of people like to be able to move around during the course of their careers.  Most everyone I know who's been practicing for a while has practiced and been bared in multiple states.  My sample is very much not representative as its mostly alums from my school and co-workers.  Virtually every lawyer in my firm are licensed to practice in at least two jurisdictions and many 3+.  I don't personally find the ABA tremendously useful in the abstract, but their stamp of approval seems important to state bars and a stamp of approval from state bars is quite important for a legal career.  That and I'm currently unaware of many decent schools that aren't aba approved so by default I think you'll end up at aba approved schools.

HLS 2010