Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: we should replace the JD with an LLM.  (Read 1073 times)

Citylaw

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 282
    • View Profile
Re: we should replace the JD with an LLM.
« Reply #10 on: June 10, 2014, 08:24:37 PM »
True.

I think one of the best ideas I heard to change legal education is to allow students to sit for the bar after 2L and if they are able to obtain a license they can spend their third year as licensed attorneys and complete an apprenticeship program to complete 3L.

If a student is unable to pass the bar during 2L summer they can spend their third year taking a number of bar prep courses etc to prepare them for the second go around.

I realistically took a number of bar study courses during 3L that I probably did not need, but you tend to overprepare for the exam.

The current problem with the bar structure now is that students are basically thrown to the wolves after graduation and once they take the bar they have to wait four months before they find out if they pass or not. They are not enrolled in school and a sedentary four months ensues and many employers are not hiring graduates waiting for bar results it is not economical to do so, which leaves the student in limbo for several months and if they do not pass the first time around they are in limbo for over a year.

This alternative system would allow first time passers to not have the long wait period and be able to go straight work. For students with extra assistance they will not just fail the bar and have nowhere to turn instead they can be around faculty etc during 3L and work on their weak spots and pass after 3L and be able to go straight to the workforce.

@_@

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 238
    • View Profile
Re: we should replace the JD with an LLM.
« Reply #11 on: June 10, 2014, 10:54:37 PM »
I thought I heard that AZ(or perhaps someone else) started doing that a few years ago, or was it only for students getting ready to deploy with JAG?

jonlevy

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 548
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: we should replace the JD with an LLM.
« Reply #12 on: August 03, 2014, 01:12:02 PM »
I still think a training contract in which a wage is paid is the way to go.  The government could soak up a lot of those contracts IMO.

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/careers/becoming-a-solicitor/training-contracts/


Groundhog

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3991
    • View Profile
Re: we should replace the JD with an LLM.
« Reply #13 on: August 04, 2014, 09:17:52 PM »
I agree. Electives at the graduate/professional level are an absurd waste of time. Just a way to get more tuition. Most students would be far better served spending that time learning how to draft a will or living trust, review a contract, or filing a motion. Our legal education is almost entirely academic, and needs more practical training.

To play devil's advocate here...you mean electives like Gifts/Wills/Trusts, Community Property (if applicable), Evidence, more Constitutional law? All of those are on the California bar exam and while my classes weren't bar prep, it certainly helped taking them. On the other hand, some people might consider their elective in secured transactions essential to their career, but I didn't take it and it'll never come up.

Maintain FL 350

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 660
    • View Profile
Re: we should replace the JD with an LLM.
« Reply #14 on: August 04, 2014, 11:38:56 PM »
At my school all of those classes (Evidence, Con Law, Wills & Trusts) were required. They added Community Property as a requirement in my last year.

The electives tended to be stuff like Water Law, Animal Rights, Women and the Law, Capital Punishment, etc. Not that those are meaningless, they're not. They do have value. I just question whether their value is greater than learning how to draft a review a contract or draft a prenuptial agreement. Most lawyers are far more likely to encounter those types of things in their practice.

@_@

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 238
    • View Profile
Re: we should replace the JD with an LLM.
« Reply #15 on: August 05, 2014, 01:25:08 PM »
At my school all of those classes (Evidence, Con Law, Wills & Trusts) were required. They added Community Property as a requirement in my last year.

The electives tended to be stuff like Water Law, Animal Rights, Women and the Law, Capital Punishment, etc. Not that those are meaningless, they're not. They do have value. I just question whether their value is greater than learning how to draft a review a contract or draft a prenuptial agreement. Most lawyers are far more likely to encounter those types of things in their practice.
electives are ok, but shouldn't be required is the point. If its not on the bar, fudge it. I think voluntary extra certificates in subjects (short of an LLM) should be an option, but requiring ALL to take electives that are not bar topics? That is just a waste of time and money to pretend that "look they went an extra year they must be more qualified" as a shield for "did we rape their wallets?"

Groundhog

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3991
    • View Profile
Re: we should replace the JD with an LLM.
« Reply #16 on: August 05, 2014, 03:54:16 PM »
Water law seems pretty essential these days in California...but I digress.  :-X

My 1L year consisted of the following:
Torts
Civ Pro
Contracts
Law & Ethics
Legal Writing & Research
Crim
Con Law I
Property
Professional Responsibility
Legal Writing & Research

Adding all the CA bar subjects but skipping Cal Courts/Procedures as you can learn that in a couple days, you'd add Con Law II, Remedies, Gifts/Wills/Trusts(may be more than one class), Evidence, Community Property, Business Associations(I forgot I took that!). That's pretty close to a full second year and it doesn't include any specialized classes like finance, securities or real estate that one can take as early as first semester of 2L year.

I also see the benefit to the profession and student to having a 2nd summer that isn't dedicated to studying for the bar that can be used for internships. Rising 3Ls are much more knowledgeable about the law than people who just finished 1L year and have had a chance to take electives that might be much more relevant to where they're working.

Perhaps reducing the requirement to 2 1/2 years and allowing students to sit for the February bar exam would be a reasonable compromise. That way, you get to take electives, do a 2nd(or 1st) internship, still get out of school and take the bar six months earlier. Thoughts?

@_@

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 238
    • View Profile
Re: we should replace the JD with an LLM.
« Reply #17 on: August 05, 2014, 06:08:52 PM »
I know some states let them graduate in two years (if they lie on paper and say it was 3 years due to going through summers)

Honestly, I think undergrad is a joke for law school. With no prereqs or required major other than between an AA to a BA (depending on the state) its just stupid. I say go back to having the whole thing be the equivalent of an Associates Degree. Keep the LSAT, but look to High School GPA if you need a GPA. Why waste time with undergrad at all?