Re: LL.M degree will not get you bar admission

More | Report Post

Your key words being "probably" and "appears." The only way to know is to write and ask the bar.

Truthfully, its better and cheaper to just take the CA DL route at West Coast or Concord or
anywhere else, depending on what you want and what you can afford. However, to each their own, I
always say.

Crown Prince

On 9/11/08, steve wrote:
> Hi Crown Prince,
>
> If one has an advanced graduate route UK LLB, the CA Bar will probably require the candidate
> to study at an ABA or CA accredited law school for two years in order to qualify for the CA
> bar exam.
>
>
> On 9/05/08, Crown Prince wrote:
>> Well said. There is no "easy" way. There is only one loophole that will allow you to finish
>> faster than the four year correspondence law route in California (3, if timed correctly).
>> Though I have certainly not seen anyone do this, from the California rules it appears that
>> you can get an LLB from London External under the advanced graduate route. The LLB will then
>> take you two years. You can then get an LLM from St. Thomas or another school which offers
> an
>> ABA LLM. Anything short of this will not work. In fact, I am not even sure it will work. I
> do
>> not reccomend this for a few reasons. First of all, the external LLB does not cover all of
>> the California subjects. Second, I don't know anyone who has done this. Maybe I am wrong in
>> my idea, and welcome someone to tell me I am wrong.
>>
>> I agree with the previous poster that unless he/she/whatever they are can produce a written,
>> signed document from someone of authority at the D.C. bar, then this is really all just
>> wasted time.
>>
>> There is no easy way to become a lawyer. There are non-traditional ways, but no easy ways.
>> Take it from someone who has faced an uphill battle: it is very possible to become a lawyer,
>> but it is no easy feat (I am saying that, and I am only halfway there).
>>
>> If something seems too good to be true...
>>
>> Crown Prince
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/05/08, -- wrote:
>>> On 9/05/08, steve wrote:
>>>> The followings were the question I asked DC and the response I got:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Non-ABA-approved law school J.D. + 26 semester hours in tested subjects from
>>>> ABA-approved law school
>>>>
>>>> To Whom It May Concern:
>>>>
>>>> I understand that the above combination can qualify one to sit for the DC Bar. And
>>>> under Rule 46 (b) (8) (iii), it seems like the tax law subjects are now qualify.
>>>> So let's say I have a J.D. from a non-ABA law school. And if I complete a ABA-approved
>>>> LL.M. in taxation and only with 26 units of tax classes, can I qualify to sit for the DC
>>>> Bar?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No. You need to have 26 semester hours in tested subjects as provided for by our
>>>> Rules. While a basic tax course will likely be accepted, the bar examination does not
>>>> test on advanced tax matters. You need to have a combination of subjects that are
>>>> tested in the examination.
>>>
>>> The DC 26 credit policy exception is primarily aimed at ABA students that completed their
>>> first year then dropped out. It is a very generous second chance for them to finish at a
>>> non-ABA school and sit for the bar in DC. Unfortunately, awhile back a few misguided
>>> posters on this board tried to turn it into a loop-hole for DL graduates. It is exactly
>>> what the response says it is. Thank you for writing the DC bar and sharing the above
>>> response.
>>>
>>> Like it or not -- except for CA there is no way around an ABA JD for first time bar exam
>>> applicants.