Law School Discussion

Touro College vs. Novus

Re: Touro College vs. Novus
« Reply #20 on: October 03, 2014, 08:05:04 AM »
Novus has no faculty, no accreditation, and no lawyers apparently associated with it. Except based on misrepresentation, how can that be grounds for admission into an accredited LLM program?  Diploma mill degrees are never valid, that is what Touro is seeking in the way of a finding by a court.  Allowing a Novus grad to take a bar would be a complete undermining of the entire system. California online grads have to take the First Year Law Exam - Novus grads nothing.  Additionally, Novus is not a foreign law school.  They are simply an alleged offshore corporation not recognized as a school in their home jurisdiction RMI or anywhere else.  Touro will get discovery and if Novus complies, more facts will come out.

Novus is almost certainly an IBC and therefore cannot legally do business or trade in their home jurisdiction, the RMI.

http://www.ocra.com/jurisdictions/marshall.asp

The few jurisdictions that offer lawyer supervised study have no need of Novus nor would any attorney want anything to do with them IMO.


barprephero

Re: Touro College vs. Novus
« Reply #21 on: October 03, 2014, 10:52:50 AM »
Novus has no faculty, no accreditation, and no lawyers apparently associated with it. Except based on misrepresentation, how can that be grounds for admission into an accredited LLM program?  Diploma mill degrees are never valid, that is what Touro is seeking in the way of a finding by a court.  Allowing a Novus grad to take a bar would be a complete undermining of the entire system. California online grads have to take the First Year Law Exam - Novus grads nothing.  Additionally, Novus is not a foreign law school.  They are simply an alleged offshore corporation not recognized as a school in their home jurisdiction RMI or anywhere else.  Touro will get discovery and if Novus complies, more facts will come out.

Novus is almost certainly an IBC and therefore cannot legally do business or trade in their home jurisdiction, the RMI.

http://www.ocra.com/jurisdictions/marshall.asp

The few jurisdictions that offer lawyer supervised study have no need of Novus nor would any attorney want anything to do with them IMO.
Let the LLM programs decide that for themselves. I know some state bars don't even care about undergrad (crazy but true) as long as you have the JD for example. The LLM (when not being used for a license) still might hurt an ABA grads feelings to see a nonaccredited grad get accepted into, but you either are good enough to pass or you are not. If they can cut muster, let them. If they barely make it, easier curve for the rest of us. I honestly say let that be between them and the LLM program.

Plus if an admissions committee is opening the flood gates that easy to let people in, that strikes me as them needing to clean their own home before asking others to clean theirs.

This strikes me as an internal affair. If they need to make it an external affair, ask the ABA to pass a ruling on it.
Personally it wouldn't hurt my feelings if they let people with no prior education at all into the LLM as long as the school knew what they were doing when they did it(and if not, the fault is on the school IMHO)

Novus is still a scam though, but caveat emptor

barprephero

Re: Touro College vs. Novus
« Reply #22 on: October 03, 2014, 11:00:13 AM »
It looks like this was discussed here (by you no less) before too
http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/index.php?topic=4027351.10

Not sure if this poster is right about this case, but if he is, then factor this in. A thing can be "wrong" and still not illegal.

"A state Supreme Court judge, where I live, does not believe that online school graduates should be kept from taking the bar just because they are not graduating from an ABA school.
JUSTICE HEIPLE, dissenting:

By the amendment to Rule 711 and by Rule 703, which was previously adopted, this court recognizes only law schools which have been approved by the American Bar Association. I both dissent and object to these rules because they represent an improper delegation of a governmental and judicial function to a trade association of lawyers.

The American Bar Association is a voluntary association of dues paying lawyers (currently $225 per annum) that exists for the benefit of its members. No lawyer is required to belong. Most do not. It clothes its parochial existence with an overlay of public activities and pronouncements designed to convince the general public that it is interested in the general welfare. That its primary focus is the benefit of its members, however, is beyond question. That the American Bar Association is a trade association warrants neither commendation nor condemnation. As a trade association engaging in improving the status of lawyers and lobbying Congress and the State legislatures, it is on a par with any other trade association. It is decidedly not, however, an arm of the State of Illinois nor of this court.

It is improper for this court to assign and delegate to that organization the ultimate decisionmaking function of deciding for the State of Illinois which law schools warrant official recognition. It would be proper, of course, for this court and its Board of Law Examiners (now, Board of Admissions to the Bar) to consider and weigh the evaluations of the American Bar Association in considering which law schools are to be approved. The work of the American Bar Association in evaluating law schools could be considered as relevant evidence in that regard. No objection could be raised to that procedure.

This court, however, has no right to delegate its decisionmaking function to the American Bar Association, the Teamsters Union, the Republic of Uganda or any other such body or group. If the rule asserts a valid principle of law, then this court could as well assign all of its decisionmaking functions to others who might be considered experts in their field.

For the reasons given, I respectfully dissent."




-I only copy and pasted that from the link I showed above, so if anyone wants to do research on it go for it and post what you find. OP on it may have been a Novus recruiter, I don't know. But since its a topic from this board, with the same posters posting on the same subject, it seemed wrong NOT to bring it up.

Re: Touro College vs. Novus
« Reply #23 on: October 03, 2014, 03:09:49 PM »
Let the LLM programs decide that for themselves. I know some state bars don't even care about undergrad (crazy but true) as long as you have the JD for example. The LLM (when not being used for a license) still might hurt an ABA grads feelings to see a nonaccredited grad get accepted into, but you either are good enough to pass or you are not. If they can cut muster, let them. If they barely make it, easier curve for the rest of us. I honestly say let that be between them and the LLM program.

Plus if an admissions committee is opening the flood gates that easy to let people in, that strikes me as them needing to clean their own home before asking others to clean theirs.

This strikes me as an internal affair. If they need to make it an external affair, ask the ABA to pass a ruling on it.
Personally it wouldn't hurt my feelings if they let people with no prior education at all into the LLM as long as the school knew what they were doing when they did it(and if not, the fault is on the school IMHO)

Those students admitted to LLM programs are, as JonLevy said, admitted based on a misrepresentation or a mistake. Any student at an ABA school knows he or she has an affirmative duty to correct such mistakes. Novus to an ABA LLM is at best unethical, at worst illegal, and bad for the profession regardless. It is bad for the profession because there are too many attorneys, particularly in states with looser licensing requirements, like California, and making it easier isn't going to help. In my opinion, at least, it is bad for the profession if these students with no real legal training other than a year-long LLM and a bar prep course attempt practicing law. Law school teaches one much more than how to pass the bar, and conversely, I don't think simply being able to pass the bar makes one a good attorney. A smart undergrad could probably pass the bar with a few more months to study.

The admissions committee of any individual school is geared towards maximizing their profits and prestige, so yes, I do partially blame the schools. They don't have the best interests of the law, the student, or the profession in mind.

I do think the ABA could do more, but the ABA probably already has a rule about what qualifies as a foreign law school. I doubt Novus counts under their rules as a bona fide foreign law school.

Re: Touro College vs. Novus
« Reply #24 on: October 03, 2014, 03:26:32 PM »
Bad for the profession but especially bad for the student who may have been initially deceived by Novus.  But I think as far as a Novus grad practicing law, that is a moot question because I really doubt there are any.

Re: Touro College vs. Novus
« Reply #25 on: October 03, 2014, 03:46:52 PM »
Groundhog makes a great point. A reasonably smart individual could probably learn enough "bar law" to pass the exam without any legal training. Does that mean they are prepared to be a lawyer, and should be entrusted with matters of huge significance? No!

In most states the bar tests minimum competency in limited, predictable, repetitive subjects. Even the essays themselves are frequently recycled. This is why most states have fairly high pass rates, not because most JD grads are brilliant. It's a learnable test.

The harder part is getting good at thinking like a lawyer, seeing all the angles, and issue spotting. The fact that an individual might be able to pass the bar does not mean they've had sufficient legal training. 

barprephero

Re: Touro College vs. Novus
« Reply #26 on: October 03, 2014, 05:49:54 PM »
Groundhog makes a great point. A reasonably smart individual could probably learn enough "bar law" to pass the exam without any legal training. Does that mean they are prepared to be a lawyer, and should be entrusted with matters of huge significance? No!

In most states the bar tests minimum competency in limited, predictable, repetitive subjects. Even the essays themselves are frequently recycled. This is why most states have fairly high pass rates, not because most JD grads are brilliant. It's a learnable test.

The harder part is getting good at thinking like a lawyer, seeing all the angles, and issue spotting. The fact that an individual might be able to pass the bar does not mean they've had sufficient legal training.
Interesting arguments but I would say off topic. We're not talking about letting them sit the bar, just to take a masters degree. They are either licensed or not to begin with, this degree is not likely to change that AT ALL. So I don't get the whole "matters of legal significance" post.  You seem to be arguing why they shouldn't be allowed to sit the bar from the Novus Degree alone, and not only is no one arguing that they should, but no one is suggesting that they even are trying to do so.

And If by fluke any states did let someone get licensed post LLM (if they enrolled with international students due to the marshal islands thing or whatever) I'd say that I'm ok with that too since the LLM would be the vetting process equal to a JD.  But I doubt any would allow that.

It just doesn't bug me at all. Let the schools do what they want. CLEARLY the school isn't wanting them due to the suit, but I stand by my thought on that all the same.

I don't see any ethical issues either since from what I can see there in no lie. If they ask "was it ABA" and they lie, then yes. Otherwise, there is no lie. Many LLM programs actually say (I know since I have looked into applying to some of them) that they will take non ABA students if they are licensed attorneys. In theory at least a Novus Grad could be licensed (if qualified to sit for other reasons). I say this a matter of having schools just add an extra box to their admissions papers if they want to weed them out. It is kind of concerning that so many ABA law schools can't even handle their admissions and the theory is that "you should of known we would want you to tell us". Aren't most LLM profs and deans retired Judges and the like?

If its hurting any of your feelings that in theory a school might actually be ok with them getting in, ask the ABA to make a rule saying that they can't. A school that clearly doesn't want them in it filing a suit against Novus won't change that no matter who wins it.

barprephero

Re: Touro College vs. Novus
« Reply #27 on: October 03, 2014, 09:12:03 PM »
For those interesting in a school actually wanting to take them (on purpose) with no JD into an LLM, perhaps people should look into this
http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/index.php?topic=4026165.0

Re: Touro College vs. Novus
« Reply #28 on: October 04, 2014, 11:47:28 AM »
FreshlyMinted, I can't decide whether you truly don't understand what we wrote or you are a very good, subtle troll. I'm hoping for the latter for you personally, even though it wouldn't be great for the board.

Re: Touro College vs. Novus
« Reply #29 on: October 04, 2014, 02:21:12 PM »
What I mean is that an LL.M program does not teach the skills required to be a good lawyer. They assume that you learned those skills in your JD program. LL.M programs are more like a standard master's.

Therefore, someone who doesn't learn that stuff in a real law school but does get an LL.M (and perhaps a ticket to the bar exam), is seriously lacking IMHO.

And yes, for the purposes of this discussion I assuming that most people with a non-bar qualifying JD enroll in a bar-qualifying LL.M program in order to take the bar.