Re: Long Distance Legal Researcher

More | Report Post

I appreciated reading this post from Jonathan Levey and wanted to add a
few thoughts and comments to supplement Mr. Levy's posting.

I will be officially studying for a JD degree via distance education in
the near future with NWCU (which I have personally visited and kept
constant, ongoing tabs on for 6 years simultaneously along with a few
other schools). I selected NWCU and it has an excellent track record,
communications, learning formats and sufficient materials. Having worked
with many traditional Texas (and a few Arizona) lawyers who attended
traditional ABA JD schools and passed their respective state bars in the
states they practice law in, I know for a fact a traditional ABA law
degree and education does not necessarily make a good lawyer. The person
makes the lawyer, not the school. Same therefore would be said about
distance learning JD schools. Further, I'm not supportive of the ABA and
believe it should be done away with it. I will speak a bit more about
that further below.

I have a traditional bachelor of science degree from a long standing Texas
accredited bricks and mortar type university (graduated 2005). I am
presently working on a traditional Master of Arts degree (whereby the
university is rapidly and increasingly supplementing/augmenting
my "traditional" Masters program with online distance education
semesters/course offerings/programs/chats/email).

Yet, one asks what does this have to do with California's distance
education JD law program and the ABA? After numerous years and direct
research and personal experience, I believe California distance education
programs leading toward the JD, etc. are very viable, very valuable and
very timely for the American people as a whole. I have had a lot of
experience in the legal arena that bolsters my thoughts and comments
here. I have had 20+ years of Texas civil litigation experience (as a
legal assistant and secretary to top partners in all level law firms). I
have worked with lawyers, judges, and all levels and types of legal
personnel one-on-one. Over the last 10+ years, I have also been involved
as a responsible and caring citizen in the Naval Reserve, and local
election system (precinct judge, voting judge on our new electronic voting
machines). I have successfully represented myself also in small claims
court (2 cases to a jury), settled a case the day of trial in court in
county civil court, and filed/non-suited two suits at district court level
after numerous hearing appearances, pleading filings, inclusive of Motions
for Summary Judgments, etc.

All this experience and data feeds into my comments here on the ABA and
California distance education and distance JD school programs: As set up
by the state of California, I believe California holds out a genuinely
valuable education option to any and all students. More states need to
step up to the plate and open up opportunities in their venue by doing
exactly as California has been doing for decades. I also believe that the
ABA is not appropriate or truly healthy functional societal institution
for everyone or for every school or even for the entire legal profession
anymore--again, in my personal opinion, research and experience. In other
words, the ABA is a thing of the past (industrial era) and needs to be put
to permanent rest. I have attended ABA functions (such as ABA sponsored
luncheons or programs as guest of retired head partners of law firms in
Houston and other places/times), and I can attest that the ABA is an
outdated institution that has had a longtime negative stranglehold on
American legal education and practice. It would seem to make more sense
to do away with the ABA (a dead institution of the industrial era of 20th
century) and keep the BPPVE while simultaneously revamping, augmenting and
solidly supporting it as a new, timely and needed institution that
supports legal education and possibly legal practice for all interested
students, at least in my opinion. I would not want the revamping of the
BPPVE to follow IN ANY MANNER the mindset or structural format of the old
ABA. Give the BPPVE an extensive, positive overhaul for the benefit and
good of any and all students of whatever socioeconomic or geographical
status (as it relates to distance education programs on the JD, non-JD,
Masters programs, Doctorate programs, etc.).

In closing my comments here, it seems that although predominantly under
most of our citizen public radar screens, numerous states (Texas included)
is or has recently been putting forward legislation in support of distance
education for JD programs. I justly hope distance education -- the way
California and its BPPVE has previously made legal education available to
all interested students-- remains an open option to any and all interested
students.

On 8/29/06, Jonathan Levy wrote:
> As a graduate of Taft Law School and a licensed California and DC
> attorney I worry that placing control over distance learning law schools
> with mainly ABA graduate attorneys will be the end of this option.
>
> Why would a non bar JD devalue the degree anymore than a distance
> learning MA or BA does? If the JD holder does not sit for the bar they
> are not an attorney.
>
> The ABA has a strangle hold on the legal profession that should be
> broken. California is the last hold out.
>
>
> On 8/01/06, ABA graduate wrote:
>> 1) California legislation is working on
>> passing a law, Senate Bill 1568 to take
>> control away from the BPPVE (a useless
>> state agency) and give control for ALL
>> unaccredited law schools to the State Bar.
>>
>> Even is such law is not passed,the State Bar
>> by virtue of its adminstrative function for
>> the California Supreme Court has been given
>> authority by statute to regulation bar admission
>> and law schools so they can change the rules
>> without new legislation.
>>
>> 2)The State Bar wants to toughen up the
>> rules for operating unaccredited law schools
>> and correspondence law schools, and as a result
>> many correspondence law schools wont be able to
>> comply with the new operational rules and will have
>> to close.
>>
>> 3) The State Bar is not happy with the BPPVE's
>> granting of approval to unaccredited and law schools
>> to award the useless non-bar J.D. degree which doesnt
>> require passage of the Baby Bar before continuing onto
>> to the remaining law study and the J.D. degree.
>>
>> The State Bar wants too and will ELIMINATE the non-bar
>> J.D. degree as it is useless, doesnt serve the purpose
>> of a professional degree and devalues the J.D. degree
>> of those that earned a Bar Qualifying J.D. degree.
>>
>> I SUPPORT THE CLOSING OF 75&37; OF CORRESPONDENCE LAW
>> SCHOOLS AND I SUPPORT THE ELIMINATION OF THE NON-BAR
>> J.D. DEGREE!
>>
>> On 8/01/06, JD wannabe wrote:
>>> Why do you say they are subject to change "very soon"? Where do you
>>> get this information from? Thanks for your help.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/07/06, Yes I am a Real Lawyer wrote:
>>>> I am aware of that, I am aware of every single aspect
>>>> of the California Bar Admissions rule which by the
>>>> way are subject to change very soon.
>>>>
>>>> I dont know what the heck that has to do with
>>>> my dislike with non-bar J.D. degrees or 1 man
>>>> operation law schools,both of which the State
>>>> Bar is working on eliminating!