Become American Lawyer Without JD or LSAT!!! Forum

[CaveatLector]

deleted post

[schooner]

So you are talking about two options:

(1) A 4 year college degree from an American school + 3 year JD

vs.

(2) A 4 year college degree from a foreign school (w/ a major in law) + a 1 year LLM from an American school

If you are a hiring manager at a law firm, who went through the 7 year process under option (1) himself, would you favor a candidate with (2) over the familiar (1)?

If you are a fresh graduate in America right now, competing against JDs, would you want to be (1) or (2)?

If you are part of the American Bar Association/academia/policymaker group that's worried about the decline of the legal profession, would you want to increase gatekeeping into the profession even more (say, by shutting down tier 4 schools)? Or make it easier for people to become lawyers by circumventing the system? Make it easier for foreigners to get LLMs in the US and flood the domestic legal labor market?


By the way, here is something I just dug up from a British company. I don't know enough to challenge it, but I would be surprised if it's not true.

Foreign students seeking to obtain admission to an LLM program should understand that very few states permit holders of a foreign law degree who have only an LLM degree from a United States law school to take the bar examination and be admitted to practice in the United States.

I'm by no means defending the current US system, but your solution is still a hard sell because it doesn't directly address the root of the problem (e.g., a 4 year college system that might be condensed into 3 years, excessive law school tuition costs, misleading post-graduation employment rates).

[AreJay711]

The real solution here is to go to somewhere like Australia and practice there. Yeah, Australia isn't as badass as the U.S. but Assie chicks like American accents if the stories are true and who cares if you are only making 45K a year when your degree costs 20K at sticker?

[bk1]

LSAT failure: confirmed.

[Ersatz Haderach]

You could just go to college, become an excellent technical writer, and work as a paralegal or writer for a big firm office. Or, you could actually take the LSAT. You have plenty of options in life, don't spend too much time complaining that one in particular requires an entrance exam.

Or, you could go to a school that lets you do LLM --> JD without LSAT, but ultimately, that JD is going to be important unless you have a lot of foreign law experience/political connections and are brought on as 'special counsel' or whatever.

[schooner]

The real solution here is to go to somewhere like Australia and practice there. Yeah, Australia isn't as badass as the U.S. but Assie chicks like American accents if the stories are true and who cares if you are only making 45K a year when your degree costs 20K at sticker?

ha I like this idea. Look at all the good looking models/actors/celebrities that Australia has spawned over the years, although they do keep coming here. Surely there are more back home. Plus there are cute koalas and kangaroos. It'd be weird to pledge fealty to the British monarch though.

[KibblesAndVick]

Why would you want to avoid going to college in America? It's four years you can spend drinking, partying, and goofing off. If you're even mildly intelligent you can get a scholarship to a state school. No one cares where you went to undergrad and the parties are better at cheap state schools. More hot girls too.

I'll concede that you probably won't learn anything important inside the classroom. But if you end up with a J. D. anyway wouldn't you rather be in the system that expects you to take a 4 year vacation before acting like an adult?

[AreJay711]

Why would you want to avoid going to college in America? It's four years you can spend drinking, partying, and goofing off. If you're even mildly intelligent you can get a scholarship to a state school. No one cares where you went to undergrad and the parties are better at cheap state schools. More hot girls too.

I'll concede that you probably won't learn anything important inside the classroom. But if you end up with a J. D. anyway wouldn't you rather be in the system that expects you to take a 4 year vacation before acting like an adult?

Right because the rest of the world is full of puritanical prudes


Or maybe you've never seen

--ImageRemoved--

[glewz]

LSAT failure: confirmed.

Really? a 166 is ~95%. not bad at all

[094320]

..

[BrianGriffintheDog]

No matter how much you are dissatisfied with and bitch about the current system, it will NEVER change. Unless there is some sort of compelling reason for universities and billionaires that donate $$$ for funding, it won't change. So quit your complaining and just conform. If you are really against the system, why don't you come to Canada? It might take you 1-2 extra years (after you get your LLB) to go through the NCA process and become an actual licensed lawyer, but it's better than nothing.

[CaveatLector]

deleted post

[piccolittle]

Also, I am not saying abolish the JD system, just let it compete with the LLB, and see which one wins, maybe both will be successful.

It did, and the JD won...

[CaveatLector]

deleted post

[CaveatLector]

deleted post

[reepS]

By the way, on a tangent, I can't print the LOR Form from LSAC. Whenever I click "reprint LOR form" the page just reloads and nothing else happens. Anyone have a solution?

try using a different browser

[rinkrat19]

By the way, on a tangent, I can't print the LOR Form from LSAC. Whenever I click "reprint LOR form" the page just reloads and nothing else happens. Anyone have a solution?

It's been a while since I did mine... maybe it's trying to open the form in a popup and you have a blocker running?

[deadpoetnsp]

... The tradition followed in EVERY other country on the planet is clearly the wiser system: four years of legal education (sometimes funded by law firms themselves, at least in the case of England) and then one-two years of apprenticeship, during which the apprentice is employed and earning a wages.

So, following from my rant, what now? Well, I want to hear everyone's thoughts on American high school graduates leaving US shores to enroll in LLB programs at foreign universities (common or civil law jurisdictions) ... US universities will be forced to reintroduce the LLB and future lawyers can be saved three years of suffering, loans, the LSAT etc.

[Please, no childish name calling or slandering crap, just intelligent discussion for this thread]

Most legal education systems abroad need an LLB applicant to have a prior undergraduate degree.

[CaveatLector]

deleted post

[tdicks]

Furthermore, I am not so opposed to the LSAT; in fact, I think it is a reasonable test that to some extent does measure how successful one will be in law school, because it tests logic, and logic is very important when it comes to legal analysis. That being said, if you can avoid the LSAT and still reach your legal career goals, is that not the smarter option? If American law schools did offer LLBs, then they could just use the LSAT instead of the SAT for admission. I am totally fine with that. In fact, it would be better than the SAT, since quantitative skills are not important in law school.

so the lsat is a useful test that is stupid to take unless you're coming out of high school?

also, i don't know much, if anything, about the education systems of all foreign countries with LLBs, but ours seems to be different from most. it seems that high school is typically more focused (british a-levels, for example), so students have already started focusing their studies before getting to university. whereas in the states, the average college student changes his or her major approximately 742 times. there are already enough people who either have no business or interest in studying law who somehow find themselves in law school, and you want to add fresh high school graduates to the mix?

while i think it's an interesting idea, i don't like it. it would also require more than a restructuring of law schools/the bar, but the entire US education system. and honestly, our school system has way more important problems than people having to get a more well rounded education before entering law school.

[piccolittle]

It did, and the JD won...

What do you mean? Upon high school graduation where you faced with the option of choosing one of these two routes? Or did you just follow the American route because you are American, and now in hindsight say the JD won?

What I mean is that the LLB system used to be standard even in America, and it's only recently that the JD has become the default law degree here.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_educ ... ted_States among others.

Also, as I said above, I received an LLB and now am pursuing a JD, because no one here wants to hire a lawyer with only a bachelors.

[Patriot1208]

LSAT failure: confirmed.

Really? a 166 is ~95%. not bad at all

You haven't been on tls long enough

[CaveatLector]

deleted post

[Patriot1208]

So, I got two things out of that post. First and most apparent, your understanding of economics is practically non existent. And two, you judge schools by millionaires produced, which definitely seems like a good metric.

[ToTransferOrNot]

OP here. First, I am personally satisfied with a 166, it is good enough to get me into schools from which American billionaires have graduated from.

Second, I never said the LSAT is stupid, I only implied that it is smart to end up in the same place as you otherwise would WITHOUT taking the LSAT, just like it would be sweet to get into Harvard College without taking the SAT.

Third, for all the people who don't know what they want after high school, the existence of the LLB would not stop them from pursuing law in graduate studies if they did not study law as a UG major, because it is likely that the JD would continue to exist as well (Hong Kong and Singapore serve as prime examples).

Fourth, why is law different from becoming a accountant or engineer, both of which have UG degrees? It is not, a profession is a profession is a profession, and there is no reason some should have UG degrees but other should not, medical doctor included.

Fifth, it is not fair to limit those who are sure out of high school that they want to be lawyers because other people have no idea.

That leads to Six, which is that in our free market economy, commodities should be allowed to compete, and law degrees are certainly commodities, but they are not allowed to compete, because the state (i.e., state bars) grant a monopoly to the JD, and that is unfair and non-competitive.

Seventh and finally, the introduction of the LLB would require no major changes to any institutions. Just let LLBs become qualified as lawyers, and the students, professors and educational institutions would adapt in no time. We are Americans, should we be scared of more freedom, more choice??I Come on, give me a break!

In our current state, law firms are able to discriminate against LLBs, even if they have LLMs, and that is because there is an abundance of JDs, and the reason for that the JD has a monopoly and people (including me in about a year) buy into it. That is not really rational to me, since an LLB has a longer duration of education than a JD, but hey, that is how it is. However, I believe the law firms would change their mentality tonight if (i) many American high school grads opted for foreign LLBs instead of American BAs/BSs + JD and/or state bars allowed LLBs to become qualified lawyers.

In the end, it all comes down to economics 101. The JD has a monopoly, and everything else is a cause thereof. Take away the JDs monopoly, and you will get a very different landscape in legal education and the legal profession.

May I add, go Ron Paul!!!

The drugs you're on. I want some of them.