LLB (Graduate Entry)

[barprephero]

Is this degree only recognized by CA or is it recognized by an ABA state?
If so, then basically isn't it an ABA approved option?
Although, if you have to get the LLM, would someone really come out ahead financially? (factoring in not just tuition but also extra years to get it all done)
As far as in CA to avoid the minibar.............I could see that being logical. Of course a part time nights/weekends at an "accredited" (even if not ABA) school in CA (like JFKU) would get you the same result without having to get the LLM and as stated would be US law vs commonwealth law.

Also, what is the undergrad requirements for a UK LLB? I looked into the Bahamas once (just for kicks) and they told me you had to have an undergrad in Commonwealth law, BUT that it only had to be a two year undergrad degree. Is the UK the same way? (same commonwealth)

[legalpractitioner]

Good luck on the bar - just seems a backward way to go about it to me.

[legalpractitioner]

"I looked into the Bahamas once (just for kicks) and they told me you had to have an undergrad in Commonwealth law, BUT that it only had to be a two year undergrad degree. Is the UK the same way? (same commonwealth)"

Caribbean is different from the UK.  Practitioners are attorneys unless they come in via the British Overseas territories which have attorneys, solicitors, and barristers.  England and Wales allows a 3 year LLB but you then have to enter into a training contract. For most folks, the best and only way to go with a distance learning law program is a California school and the dismal pass rate that goes with it - 5 to 1 against or more.

[barprephero]

"I looked into the Bahamas once (just for kicks) and they told me you had to have an undergrad in Commonwealth law, BUT that it only had to be a two year undergrad degree. Is the UK the same way? (same commonwealth)"

Caribbean is different from the UK.  Practitioners are attorneys unless they come in via the British Overseas territories which have attorneys, solicitors, and barristers.  England and Wales allows a 3 year LLB but you then have to enter into a training contract. For most folks, the best and only way to go with a distance learning law program is a California school and the dismal pass rate that goes with it - 5 to 1 against or more.

IF they do that I'd still say to do the first year at one of the "accredited" part time programs so they can skip the first year exam
I would be that if they went one year at that UK school they could do the same thing (assuming they found a school willing to let them transfer-and I can't imagine that would be hard) This is a bit of an assumption of the bar rules, but I bet you could haggle it.

[barprephero]

Do you think someone taking an online JD (Cali school) could help improve their bar chances by taking an LLM on campus?

[legalpractitioner]

I think it would be an act of foolishness for a distance learning student to forego the dreaded first year law student exam because it is the only real objective measure of likelihood of passing the bar.  Given that a lot of DL students really are underqualified - failing to get by the FYLSE saves them time and money. After four years online, a LLM is waste of time IMO, a good bar pass program is what is needed.  Passing the FYLSE is a good indicator of success but even then the odds are about 5-1 against.  Compare that to a 3 year ABA approved school where even the dullest student has at least an even chance or better of passing a bar somewhere and a good student will pass for sure.

[barprephero]

I think it would be an act of foolishness for a distance learning student to forego the dreaded first year law student exam because it is the only real objective measure of likelihood of passing the bar.  Given that a lot of DL students really are underqualified - failing to get by the FYLSE saves them time and money. After four years online, a LLM is waste of time IMO, a good bar pass program is what is needed.  Passing the FYLSE is a good indicator of success but even then the odds are about 5-1 against.  Compare that to a 3 year ABA approved school where even the dullest student has at least an even chance or better of passing a bar somewhere and a good student will pass for sure.

Do you think the difference is the schooling or the students?
Do you think they should require the exam of ALL non ABA law students (or even all law students in state) ?

[legalpractitioner]

http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/4/documents/fyx/June2014fylxstats102814_R.pdf

Both DL and unaccredited fixed facility school students must take the exam.

California should permit these schools to upgrade or close them out.  However, state bars and the practice of law in general is backassward so instead of allowing DL schools to upgrade to state accreditation; we have this stupid FYLSE exam.  What do you expect from a profession based on precedent; not much in the way of innovation.  The self driving car will do much to kill off the profession, when there are no more auto accidents, at least 20% of the profession will leave.

[barprephero]

http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/4/documents/fyx/June2014fylxstats102814_R.pdf

Both DL and unaccredited fixed facility school students must take the exam.

California should permit these schools to upgrade or close them out.  However, state bars and the practice of law in general is backassward so instead of allowing DL schools to upgrade to state accreditation; we have this stupid FYLSE exam.  What do you expect from a profession based on precedent; not much in the way of innovation.  The self driving car will do much to kill off the profession, when there are no more auto accidents, at least 20% of the profession will leave.

I was getting at the fact that "accredited" non ABA don't require it.
Is the self driving car meant to be a metaphor here? If you mean personal injury suits those will still exist even with robot cars, the style will just change.

[legalpractitioner]

Yes, no automobile accident means PI attorneys will be hurting - there ain't much money in slips, falls, and emotional sleights.  Since the older ones are likely untrainable they will have to join the other 100 million people who don't work and never will unless the can muscle out the existing baggers at Safeway and greeters at Home Depot.  The fact state bars don't even see it coming shows how little they care for their members.  You saw it here first but will read it later at the bottom  front page personal interest story on the digital WSJ ten years from now.