Alex Wallenwein, JD?

[iplawyer]

Captain wrote:

The biggest hassle is not the cost, not the commute, or any of that stuff, it is getting transcripts from your university that you graduated from 20+ years ago.

You are kidding, right? There isn't one biggest hassle with going back to law school as an older person. You have to compete with 25 year old young adults who have nothing better to do than to excell in law school, you have to read, outline, work your butt off, and your grade depends on the outcome of one essay exam. There are many hassles. I'd say the smallest one I had was calling the registrar's office at my undergrad school, reading off my credit card number, and having her mail off the transcript to the LCAS.

[Neckbone]

Thanks, Prof. BTW, I love your description of my LLM school. I had Freeland who was definitely an NYU retiree.

I had no idea Leflar was that old when I had him. He was probably in his late 70s if he received an SJD in '32. I had him for torts in 1978-79.

Neckbone

[Joey Smith]

Dean Langdell's innovation was to create law school as a for-profit enterprise for the University, in a time when many wannabe lawyers paid experienced lawyers to study under their tutelage.

I don't mind commercial law schools, and I think that the ABA standards are messed up because they focus on such amorphous things as how many books the law library has (which is nonsensical in this time of Westlaw and Lexis searches, etc.). However, I do have an issue with fly-by-night operations that offer their students little meaningful curriculum or training such that their bar pass rates of consistently low.

Dr. Joey Smith (J.D. from an ABA accredited law school part of a major University)

P.S. Lawyers can indeed call themselves "Doctor" it is just in exceedingly bad taste to do so just as it is for somebody with a Doctorate in Education or something to call themselves "Doctor".

[The Observer]

However, I do have an issue with fly-by-night operations that offer their students little meaningful curriculum or training such that their bar pass rates of consistently low.

And Joey takes another swipe at those fine legal institutions of learning, the Hollywood Upstairs School of Law and the Erwin Rommel School of Law.

[grixit]

I don't mind commercial law schools, and I think that the ABA standards are messed up because they focus on such amorphous things as how many books the law library has (which is nonsensical in this time of Westlaw and Lexis searches, etc.). However, I do have an issue with fly-by-night operations that offer their students little meaningful curriculum or training such that their bar pass rates of consistently low.

Dr. Joey Smith (J.D. from an ABA accredited law school part of a major University)

Perhaps there should be some sort of standardized test to be taken by all law students after completing a certain number hours. That test would cover basic definitions, filings and court procedure, brief writing and argumentation. Any school whose pass rate fell below, say 75% would lose its authority to grant degrees, regardless of affiliation.

P.S. Lawyers can indeed call themselves "Doctor" it is just in exceedingly bad taste to do so just as it is for somebody with a Doctorate in Education or something to call themselves "Doctor".

My preference is not to call anyone "Doctor", unless they're someone i'm getting medical treatment from them, just like i don't call someone "Driver" if i'm not a passenger in a vehicle they're actually driving.

[ErsatzAnatchist]

2. I believe that there are still some states that allow people to be admitted to the bar by "reading the law" (i.e., studying under the apprenticeship of a practicing lawyer or judge), so there may be some states that don't require a legal degree at all.

I do not think any state still allows "reading" -- the last Texan permitted to take the bar by "reading" took the bar with me in 1975, although Texas continued to let folks who had two years of law school "read" for the last year until some time later, when that, too, was abolished.

Vermont still allows for "reading" for the bar exam. One of my friends was admitted this way. I think it requires a multi-year internship with a Vermont attorney. I am uncertain as to the details. I got my JD the old fashioned way, I went to a fourth tier law school.

[Colonel_Buck]

If you are disbarred can you ever be rebarred?

[Prof]

2. I believe that there are still some states that allow people to be admitted to the bar by "reading the law" (i.e., studying under the apprenticeship of a practicing lawyer or judge), so there may be some states that don't require a legal degree at all.

I do not think any state still allows "reading" -- the last Texan permitted to take the bar by "reading" took the bar with me in 1975, although Texas continued to let folks who had two years of law school "read" for the last year until some time later, when that, too, was abolished.

Vermont still allows for "reading" for the bar exam. One of my friends was admitted this way. I think it requires a multi-year internship with a Vermont attorney. I am uncertain as to the details. I got my JD the old fashioned way, I went to a fourth tier law school.

You are correct; I looked the issue up, on Wikipedia, and found this:

Admission Without Law School
In California, Vermont and Washington[1], an applicant who has not attended law school may take the bar exam after study under a judge or practicing attorney for an extended period of time. This method is known as "reading law" or "reading the law".
New York requires that applicants who are reading the law must have at least one year of law school study. (See Rule 540.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals for the Admission of Attorneys.)

[/quote]

[Prof]

If you are disbarred can you ever be rebarred?

Yes, but this is difficult. The worse the offense, the less likely.

[Florida]

Prof said:

Other states with law schools that are only accredited by the state Supreme Court include Georgia and Tennessee.

Not anymore. John Marshall of Atlanta now has provisional accreditation by the ABA, and anyone who graduated from law school on or after January 1, 1998 must have attended an ABA approved school in order to sit for our bar exam.

http://www.concordlawschool.edu/

Concord Law School Comes To You
Traditional brick-and-mortar legal education has often forced prospective law students to make tough choices—move to a new state or city, or leave a job—in order to get their law degree. At Concord, we bring law school to you. Leveraging the flexibility—and affordability—that only an online law school can offer, Concord Law School uses innovative technology to provide a rigorous and dynamic curriculum developed and taught by some of the best minds in law.

Concord Law School meets the professional career goals and personal preferences of its diverse and engaged student body. Whether you’re interested in pursuing a JD Degree—enabling you to sit for the California bar exam—or prefer to enhance your legal knowledge using our EJDSM program, you’ll find a supportive faculty and administration committed to your success as you earn your online law degree.

A Learning Environment Like No Other
Concord’s doors never close. The curriculum is available 24-7: before dawn, on your lunch hour, or after work. And you won’t be studying alone. Our unique learning environment promotes faculty and student dialogue, encourages student-to-student communication, and provides valuable feedback through the sophisticated use of live classrooms and directed study.

Concord Law School is on the leading edge of redesigning the law school experience. It is an innovative, part-time legal education program with standards equal to the most demanding traditional colleges of law. Our students expect it: more than one-third of Concord Law School students already hold advanced degrees, and many are alumni of such prestigious institutions as Harvard, Columbia, Yale, MIT, the University of California at Berkeley, Duke, and the University of Chicago.

[Prof]

Prof said:

Other states with law schools that are only accredited by the state Supreme Court include Georgia and Tennessee.

Not anymore. John Marshall of Atlanta now has provisional accreditation by the ABA, and anyone who graduated from law school on or after January 1, 1998 must have attended an ABA approved school in order to sit for our bar exam.

I did not know that John Marshall had finally gotten accredited. Someone must have labored long and hard in (I think) a good cause. Congratulations!

[Sertsa]

The weird part is that additional post-law-school degrees are masters degrees, such as an LL.M. in taxation. So, first you get your doctor degree and then you get your masters?

There is an LL.D. degree, but it is primarily a British or Canadian degree. In the U.S. the SJD has replaced it and any LL.D's are usually honorary.

The J.D., D.O., M.D., D.D.S., etc. series of degrees are annoying because they are not terminal degrees. Quite frankly, all they are is a means to restrict entry into the professional fields to those who can afford an undergraduate degree or who are willing to be deeply in debt forever. I'll save everyone the attacks on the US education system compared to other countries.

[Prof]

The weird part is that additional post-law-school degrees are masters degrees, such as an LL.M. in taxation. So, first you get your doctor degree and then you get your masters?

There is an LL.D. degree, but it is primarily a British or Canadian degree. In the U.S. the SJD has replaced it and any LL.D's are usually honorary.

The J.D., D.O., M.D., D.D.S., etc. series of degrees are annoying because they are not terminal degrees. Quite frankly, all they are is a means to restrict entry into the professional fields to those who can afford an undergraduate degree or who are willing to be deeply in debt forever. I'll save everyone the attacks on the US education system compared to other countries.

I am not sure that MD's and JD's are not considered terminal degrees. Certainly, for Americans, the LLM is a terminal degree, since Harvard and Yale (and perhaps others) no longer grant the SJD to Americans (reserving it as a PHD equivalent for non-US law students).

What exactly is a "terminal" degree -- is an MFA? I think so, although that person could always take a PHD in writing, art, music -- but those would be theory or history degrees, not "production of art" degrees. The LLM, except for tax lawyers, has always been about guilding the lily, even those taken in other fields by non-academics (e.g., St. John's offers an LLM in bankruptcy, designed to allow folks to "guild" themselves for bigger firms).

While MD's sometimes get or already have PHD's, most MD's do not "terminate" without lots of non-degree Residencies, Fellowships (do they still intern?).

Let's face it, Americans have become as degree happy as the Europeans. If I followed the European practice of putting my degrees on my business card, I'd be Prof, BA, MA, JD, LLM.
Lots of folks are BBA, MBA. I know several BS, MS, PHD, MD holders. My son, thank goodness, is going for an MFA and has no interest in a PHD in Art History.

[LPC]

Coincidentally, I just realized that I had an exchange of emails with Wallenwein back in January. He asked a semi-rational question about the impact of Gould v. Gould, I provided a polite response, and he then asked a semi-irrational question, at which point the correspondence ended.

[Imalawman]

The weird part is that additional post-law-school degrees are masters degrees, such as an LL.M. in taxation. So, first you get your doctor degree and then you get your masters?

There is an LL.D. degree, but it is primarily a British or Canadian degree. In the U.S. the SJD has replaced it and any LL.D's are usually honorary.

The J.D., D.O., M.D., D.D.S., etc. series of degrees are annoying because they are not terminal degrees. Quite frankly, all they are is a means to restrict entry into the professional fields to those who can afford an undergraduate degree or who are willing to be deeply in debt forever. I'll save everyone the attacks on the US education system compared to other countries.

If poor people are excluded from education, then no way should I be an attorney. It would have been hard to be much poorer than I was growing up (at times). I paid every bit of my education myself. I applied myself and did well, so I received scholarships in undergrad and a full academic scholarship for a respected law school (which included $10,000 a year living expenses). Thus, I was poor, received a BS and a JD, and have very little debt. (I pay less than 110 a month for student loans). I think you're way off base with your theory. You should say, some are not motivated to take ownership of their education and take risks to ensure a steady cash flow for their life. Sure you might have debt, and its a long process, but I have more disposable income than those that didn't incur the debt and didn't go to school. (Besides, my interest rate on my loans is 1.8%)

[Florida]

The weird part is that additional post-law-school degrees are masters degrees, such as an LL.M. in taxation. So, first you get your doctor degree and then you get your masters?

There is an LL.D. degree, but it is primarily a British or Canadian degree. In the U.S. the SJD has replaced it and any LL.D's are usually honorary.

The J.D., D.O., M.D., D.D.S., etc. series of degrees are annoying because they are not terminal degrees. Quite frankly, all they are is a means to restrict entry into the professional fields to those who can afford an undergraduate degree or who are willing to be deeply in debt forever. I'll save everyone the attacks on the US education system compared to other countries.

I am not sure that MD's and JD's are not considered terminal degrees. Certainly, for Americans, the LLM is a terminal degree, since Harvard and Yale (and perhaps others) no longer grant the SJD to Americans (reserving it as a PHD equivalent for non-US law students).

What exactly is a "terminal" degree -- is an MFA? I think so, although that person could always take a PHD in writing, art, music -- but those would be theory or history degrees, not "production of art" degrees. The LLM, except for tax lawyers, has always been about guilding the lily, even those taken in other fields by non-academics (e.g., St. John's offers an LLM in bankruptcy, designed to allow folks to "guild" themselves for bigger firms).

While MD's sometimes get or already have PHD's, most MD's do not "terminate" without lots of non-degree Residencies, Fellowships (do they still intern?).

Let's face it, Americans have become as degree happy as the Europeans. If I followed the European practice of putting my degrees on my business card, I'd be Prof, BA, MA, JD, LLM.
Lots of folks are BBA, MBA. I know several BS, MS, PHD, MD holders. My son, thank goodness, is going for an MFA and has no interest in a PHD in Art History.

There's always the terminal degree for someone who has a little interest in tax law - the SJD from the University of Florida.

[LPC]

What is the difference between a semi-rational and a semi-irrational question?

My definitions:

A semi-rational question could be the result of ignorance or naivete.

A semi-rational question has the superficial appearance of rationality but is not.

For example (and these are hypothetical and having nothing whatsoever to do with the questions Alex Wallenstein actually posed to me):

1. "Do you feel that Sec.'s 61 and 63 of the Code, by themselves, are specific enough to satisfy the principle on which *Gould v. Gould* was based?" is semi-rational, because it could reflect a misunderstanding of the issue in Gould v. Gould, or a fundamental ignorance of tax law.

2. "By the wording of section 61 alone, the section applies to the income of every human being alive. Where in the Code does the law get specific as to whose income the tax applies, and under what conditions?" is semi-irrational. It reflects a knowledge of tax law that rules out simple mistake or ignorance, and yet presents a proposition that is absurd on its face.

[hartley]

In CA there are schools that are accredited by the state bar, NOT the ABA, at which you can earn a JD and even sit for the CA bar.

However, this is a huge caveat, that JD and license to practice law (if you pass the bar) is only good in CA, as no other state recognizes it, as the ABA does not recognize it.

They exist here in Tennessee, as well. I believe Nashville School of Law is one, where you can only practice in TN.

Edit: I checked their website, and NSL is indeed only accredited at the state level, but they're anything but a fly-by-night operation.

They've been in business since 1911, they boast that 86% of their grads pass the bar, and that no less than 2 current justices of the Tennessee Supreme Court are NSL graduates.

They say they've never sought ABA accredidation because they bill themselves as a low-cost alternative to traditional law school, costing around $4500 a year (Compare that to Vanderbilt, the only other law school in Nashville, which costs over $30K a year).

[Prof]

In CA there are schools that are accredited by the state bar, NOT the ABA, at which you can earn a JD and even sit for the CA bar.

However, this is a huge caveat, that JD and license to practice law (if you pass the bar) is only good in CA, as no other state recognizes it, as the ABA does not recognize it.

They exist here in Tennessee, as well. I believe Nashville School of Law is one, where you can only practice in TN.

Edit: I checked their website, and NSL is indeed only accredited at the state level, but they're anything but a fly-by-night operation.

They've been in business since 1911, they boast that 86% of their grads pass the bar, and that no less than 2 current justices of the Tennessee Supreme Court are NSL graduates.

They say they've never sought ABA accredidation because they bill themselves as a low-cost alternative to traditional law school, costing around $4500 a year (Compare that to Vanderbilt, the only other law school in Nashville, which costs over $30K a year).

Formerly named the Nashville YMCA Law School; I am suspect of the "we do not want to get accredited because it would cost too much" argument, even though I do not think it is a false statement. It just seems to me that a school should seek accreditation to give its students the broadest possible set of job opportunities and in order to show that the accrediting body -- here the ABA -- thinks that its facilities, resources, faculty, staff and program meet some sort of minimal standard. There are at least two state law schools in Tenn, Memphis and the Univ. of Tenn. at Knoxville. I wonder how their tuitions compare to Nashville's?

By the way, part of the problem cost problem for a similar schools is the cost of replacing adjunct faculty (CHEAP at any school) with full-time, tenure/tenure track faculty. While the now somewhat antique library requirements imposed by the ABA and AALS can also be expensive but perhaps are not necessary, the use of an largely adjunct faculty really should be limited. Students deserve committed, full-time, and available faculty persons who are committed to the process of education.

[hartley]

Formerly named the Nashville YMCA Law School; I am suspect of the "we do not want to get accredited because it would cost too much" argument, even though I do not think it is a false statement. It just seems to me that a school should seek accreditation to give its students the broadest possible set of job opportunities and in order to show that the accrediting body -- here the ABA -- thinks that its facilities, resources, faculty, staff and program meet some sort of minimal standard. There are at least two state law schools in Tenn, Memphis and the Univ. of Tenn. at Knoxville. I wonder how their tuitions compare to Nashville's?

By the way, part of the problem cost problem for a similar schools is the cost of replacing adjunct faculty (CHEAP at any school) with full-time, tenure/tenure track faculty. While the now somewhat antique library requirements imposed by the ABA and AALS can also be expensive but perhaps are not necessary, the use of an largely adjunct faculty really should be limited. Students deserve committed, full-time, and available faculty persons who are committed to the process of education.

True, they do use almost entirely adjunct faculty, or at least I'm assuming, seeing as how so many of their faculty are currently sitting judges. Wait, and 1 state Deputy AG. I can't disagree with you there, I'm not really sure how a Deputy AG, a Federal District court judge, a state Appeals Court judge, or even state judges, have time to teach. I'm sure their expertise and experience is a good thing, but I don't know how they have time.

The "YMCA" was dropped from the name when they got their own building in 1986.

UTK College of Law's in-state tuition is $9600/year.
University of Memphis School of Law's in-state tuition is $10,116/year.