Talk:Juris Doctor/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

• American Bar Association's website
• Stanford University School of Law website
• University of Virginia Law School website (see article's History)
• Concord School of Law website re Executive Juris Doctor

Japan and J.D.

Isn't Japan a civil law country? Wouldn't their J.D. kind of different from common law J.D.? Justicelilo 08:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)justicelilo

On foreign J.D.

I know that the U.S. is the origin of the J.D. degree, however, J.D. is no longer exclusive to U.S. alone. There are more universities around the world offering J.D. program for different reasons; one of which is praticality-to allow intelligent people to change career-J.D. in this sense, provides people who are not lawyers to start with by majoring in LL.B in college, a chance to become lawyers. Foreign J.D. graduates do not take the U.S. bar exam, but they have to go through other challenges (vocational programs, exams) in order to earn the right to practice law in their respective countries. Not to mention that some states, like NY and CA, allow foreign lawyers (in common law countries) to take their bar exams, so it is not impossible to meet a foreign-trained lawyer practicing in the U.S. For some people, getting a J.D. is like getting a MBA; they are people who want to have a postgrad. legal degree, but have no desire to become a lawyer. It is my hope that the emerging definition of J.D. on wiki would not be too ethnocentric-focusing too much on only the U.S. J.D. That's all. --justicelilo

U.S. and Austrailian J.D.

What about a JD in australia versus a JD in America? are they comparable?

JD have only been introduced in some Australian universities in the last few years, and the vast majority don't offer them. It differs from university to university. A lot of them are just changing the name of their graduate-entry LLBs to JD, just to note the distinction between doing it as a first degree or a second degree. The actual course of study is generally the same from what I've read.

what about a JD in australia and a JD in america? are they equivalent then?

In a sense yes and in a sense no. The academic requirements for admission and completion are fairly equivalent. As far as I know, all the regular contributors to this article are Americans, so information we know about non-U.S. legal training is basically obtained from websites.

Law schools in the U.S. use the "case" method of teaching where students read and analyze case reports from U.S. appellate courts. My understanding is that other countries put much more emphasis on reading legal commentaries. That may be a distinction between common-law and other jurisdictions, not a U.S./non-U.S. distinction.

A foreign Engtlish-language J.D. probably would not satisfy the academic requirements to obtain a U.S. law license without further study. However, despite what is shown on various "lawyer shows" on T.V., it is virtually unheard of to find an attorney trained outside the U.S. practicing American law in the U.S. unless the person has an L.L.M. that satisfies the U.S. academic requirements.

Some states, e.g., Texas, allow foreign lawyers to practice foreign law without passing a U.S. bar exam. For instance, someone licensed in Germany as an attorney could practice German contract law in the Texas without passing the Texas bar.

RickReinckens 22:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This article might give everyone trying to edit this page some insight into the problems that start when you assume a Bachelor degree in the US is equal to a Bachelor degree in Australia. It's about Psychology, but I think it proves an important point... 220.236.98.50 02:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

(Note: The referenced article deals almost exclusively with psychology programs.)

RickReinckens 07:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Californa does not require an ABA-approved JD, or rather, any law degree, for one to take the bar exam. justicelilo

Post-Graduate?

Article says a JD is three years of post-graduate law study- and states that this is three years of undergraduate work - wouldn't that mean "post-graduate" should read "pre-graduate", post meaning after, sic, after graduation.

change "post-graduate" to "pre-graduate"?? or is it saying for ABA, 3 years undergraduate and 3 years law study (post graduate)?

The article is saying that it takes three years to earn a J.D. (3 years of post-graduate work), but that the ABA only requires 3 years of undergraduate work in order to be eligible to go to start post-graduate studies (not the 4 four years people usually do to earn a bachelor's degree and THEN go to law school). The article isn't clear here. I'll see what I can do.Gator1 19:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

ncushman- My understanding (as one who has just been applying to law schools, and plans to attend in the fall of 2006) is the following: (1)The J.D. program is a three-year post-graduate program. That is to say, an individual generally receives a bachelor's degree and then goes on to study law for three years in order to obtain the J.D. (2)The reference to three years of college-level study as an entrance requirement refers to the fact that most individuals apply to law school during the spring of their senior (i.e. fourth) year of undergraduate study, thus having completed only three years of undergraduate study at the time. An individual would then be admitted to a law school prior to receiving her or his undergraduate degree, but of course the law school would expect (and, as I understand from reading this page, in most cases require) that the individual complete their undergraduate degree.

Accredited vs. Non-Accredited

The ABA minimum standard requires 3 years undergraduate study; however, AALS standards require a bachelor’s degree prior to admission and all reputable law schools in the United States subscribe to AALS standards. Non-accredited schools can award a J.D., or for that matter, a Ph.D. to anyone they choose, but these non-accredited degrees are without merit. In the United States the degrees of Ph.D., M.D., & J.D. are only conferred on those who have already completed a baccalaureate degree.

Non-accredited defined

"Non-accredited" means not regionally accredited. The education laws of various states make it illegal to confer any degree with particular titles unless the degree-granting institution is authorized by the state's Department of Education to grant that degree. In other words, I can't open "Joe's Unaccredited Law School" and say the School issues a "Ph.D. in Law" because state laws don't authorize a Ph.D. in that particular field and the School is not authorized by state law to grant a Ph.D. This is for consumer protection, to prevent Joe from misleading consumers into thinking they are getting a genuine Ph.D.

Two of the requirements for regional accreditation are (1) the institution must be authorized by a state Department of Education to grant the degree and (2) the institution must meet the accrediting agency's criteria for minimum length of time in business, quality of faculty, etc.

It is not fair or valid to say that reputable schools are AALS approved. All reputable schools are ABA approved. Anything more is "icing on the cake".

RickReinckens 02:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

(same editing session continues in next subsection)

4-year degree not required

The statement about M.D. and J.D.s only being awarded to holders of 4-year degrees is just plain wrong. M.D., J.D., DDS and DVM degrees all only require three years of undergraduate work. I found this out from a high school friend who wanted to be an orthodontist, like his father. He dropped out of high school after his junior year to go to college and dropped out of college after his junior year to go to dental school. He finished his specialty at the same time others were getting their basic DDS. Although a particular school may set higher entrance standards, those are school-specific, not requirements of "M.D. and J.D. programs in the U.S.".

RickReinckens 02:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It is extremely rare in the US for an M.D. or J.D. to be awarded to anyone who has not first completed a bachelors degree.

--Coolcaesar 22:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

In the vast majority of cases the reason is that virtually no one is aware that a bachelor's degree is not required. As I mentioned, the only reason I know is that I found out from a friend whose father had a DDS degree. My law school was an AALS school and shortly before graduation they told us that although New York State and the ABA only required 3 years undergraduate, if anyone had not obtained a four-year degree the school could not grant the J.D. until the person got the bachelors.

RickReinckens 06:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

What's causing a lot of confusion here is that the bachelor's degree is not necessarily a 4-year degree. At many schools that operate on the unit system (including most University of California campuses), it is the number of units earned that counts towards graduation, not the number of years attended. Therefore, talented students who enter with substantial transfer credit earned from both community college evening courses and AP courses can earn a bachelor's degree within three years. I am speaking from personal experience, of course.

--Coolcaesar 22:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

No American college or university has a "4 year" requirement. It doesn't matter whether the school runs on a trimester or semester system, they all require a certain amount of "units". Normally, about 31 semester hours per year is required for a B.A. degree, which comes out to about 124 semester hours. A B.S. degree usually requires about 40 s.h. per year, which comes out to 160 s.h.

RickReinckens 06:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, several universities with medical schools, like Northwestern and Irvine, have programs where people can be accepted to an honors program straight out of high school and attend only three years of college, then go straight to four years of medical school. An honorary bachelor's degree is awarded, but the undergraduate coursework required of persons in such accelerated programs is usually somewhat different from those in the ordinary bachelor's degree programs offered at those schools. --Coolcaesar 22:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

None of this is really relevant. The various states set the educational requirements to practice medicine, dentistry, law, etc. The various states require only about 90 undergraduate semester hours for entrance to the corresponding professional-doctorate program, which is three years of undergraduate course work at the normal 30/31 s.h. per year rate.

Also, have you forgotten that you can get a bachelorate in three years? (I did in 2.5 years) Also, you can go through a six year program that gives you a bachelorate and a J.D. Atom 20:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Bar Association Membership vs. Admission to Bar

The statement that "[p]rior to the practice of law, a J.D. holder is required to be member of the bar association of the state in which he or she intends to practice" is not entirely accurate. One must be admitted to "the bar," i.e., one must pass the bar examination and be certified by the state's administrative body that oversees the practice of law, but that is not the same as being a member of the state's bar association. A bar association is a non-governmental group that advocates on behalf of attorneys and various law-related causes. There is the national American Bar Association, and state equivalents (e.g. the New York State Bar Association). But it is not always necessary to join such an association in order to practice law.

In some states, like Florida, an attorney must be a member of the state bar association to practice law in that state.

Quite correct. The situation is complicated, and discussed at Admission to the bar in the United States. rewinn 04:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

J.D. a doctorate of its own

Just want to say that if J.D. is first-professonal doctoral degree it is clearly not equalivent to Ph.D. but it nevertheless a doctor on its own name and category. There is a Ph.D. in law or LLD but they are just different degree altogether isn't it.

---

Thus, if it is unlikely that a lawyer calls him/herself a Doctor in the professional practice it doesn't mean that the J.D. degree they got isn't a doctoral degree.

In the U.S. an L.L.D. is only awarded as an honorary degree. In the U.S. the earned law degree equivalent to a Ph.D. is a J.S.D. It requires an L.L.B. or J.D., then an L.L.M. and then additional coursework, a dissertation, defense of the dissertation, etc., exactly like a Ph.D. It has no practical application, so the only people who seek it are faculty at law schools that require a J.S.D. to obtain tenure.

RickReinckens 07:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Degrees in Law

The Juris Doctor or Doctor of Jurisprudence (J.D.), like the Doctor of Medicine (M.D.), is a professional doctorate (also called terminal doctorate). The Doctor of Juridical Science (S.J.D. or J.S.D.), and Doctor of Comparative Law (D.C.L.), are the research doctorate degrees conferred in the United States. In the U.S. the Legum Doctor (LL.D.) is usually only awarded as an honorary degree.

This is inaccurate. J.S.D. and S.J.D. are the same degree. "Doctor of Jurisprudence" is one of the two accepted translations for Juris Doctor (the other being Doctor of Law, not to be confused with Doctor of Laws, which is the translation of L.L.D.) The initials J.S.D. are usually translated Doctor of Juridical Science.

RickReinckens 03:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction!

In the U.S. there are academic degrees available at the baccalaureate level such as a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) in Legal Studies. Academic masters degrees in legal studies are available for those who have obtained a bachelor's degree but not a Juris Doctor (J.D.) such as the Master of Studies (M.S.), and the Master of Professional Studies (M.P.S.).

Foreign lawyers seeking to practice in the U.S., who do not have a Juris Doctor (J.D.), often seek to obtain a Juris Master (J.M.), Master of Laws (LL.M.), Master of Comparative Law (M.C.L.), or a Master of Jurisprudence (M.J.).

Is law a graduate program?

Yes. But all of the information listed below is bizarre conjecture. The "graduation" for both "post-graduate studies" and "graduate studies" is the graduation with a bachelor's degree. So that in "post-graduate studies," post-graduate refers to the studies. But in "graduate studies," graduate refers to the person doing the studies.

The programs are available to EVERYONE without "graduate degrees." Just the bachelors...

US News & World Reports list law schools as graduate schools.

Kaplan lists law school as a graduate program: look under graduate programs.

To avoid the type of confusion you have with a graduate program after a graduate degree some schools simply use the term Post-Graduate. The reason that many schools simply call these post-J.D. degrees "graduate degrees" is to reflect the fact that these programs are available to foreign applicants without graduate degrees.

Here, here, here, & here you see lists of undergraduate and graduate programs, and like Berkeley they list the law school as a graduate program. All universities list law school as either a professional program or a graduate program. I can find no exceptions to this rule.

In the United States, professional degrees refer to graduate degrees that are specific to a particular vocation, or profession. Law school, medical school and architecture school are all examples of institutions where professional degrees can be earned. It is simply a fact that law schools in the United States are considered graduate programs, or if you like, graduate level professional programs. Some law schools and universities in the United States refer to the J.D. by the Latin, Juris Doctor; however, many use the English translation, Doctorate of Jurisprudence. The only level of degrees conferred by U.S. law schools are master and doctorate level degrees.

Proposing a four-way merge (PART A)

Okay, we have WAY TOO MANY articles covering the same damned things and people are adding in way too much detail that is already covered elsewhere. For example, someone named Rick added in information on LL.M.'s and LL.D's that would have been more appropriate in Education of Lawyers in the United States. We need to get this mess straightened out once and for all.

To keep the redundancy from escalating out of control, I am proposing that the following four articles should be merged into a new article whose title would comply with the Manual of Style: Education of lawyers in the United States.

• Education of Lawyers in the United States
• Juris Doctor
• Admission to the bar
• Law school

--Coolcaesar 07:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Those topics probably should be "Education of Lawyers (United States)", "Admission to the Bar (United States)" and "Law School (United States)". That would cut down on people adding information about foreign practices such as Australia and Britain, which makes the articles longer and usually is of no interest to most readers of these articles. It also is more NPOV, rather than "U.S.-centric"

And just to add to the muck . . . we might want to consider an article on the theme "Titles Related to Law Practice". (Obviously, I don't have a clear, concise title in mind.) That would be the place to explain things like:

• Although a Juris Doctor is a doctorate lawyers don't normally use the title "Doctor"
• but if they have another doctorate they do use it.
• British lawyers are divided into barristers and solicitors
• but it is not accurate to refer to an American attorney as a barrister.
• Technically there is no difference between "lawyer" and "attorney"
• However, "lawyer" sometimes has a perjorative sense and "attorney" doesn't.
• I once heard that during the Scopes trial all the lawyers were addressed as Colonel, even if they had never been in the military. I don't know if it was a regional usage, a national usage that disappeared over time, or whatever.
• There is a difference between an "attorney in fact" and an "attorney at law". (And no comment on carrying a business card with the title Attorney in Fact to help picking up women in clubs . . . <g>)

RickReinckens 07:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

After this merge, then the existing articles would be turned into redirects.

Even better would be to merge in Attorney at Law to create a comprehensive Lawyers in the United States article encompassing admission, regulation and training. What does everyone else think? --Coolcaesar 07:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The merger makes the problem worse, not better. Wikipedia guidelines say that an entire article should be around 55k. Merging these four articles, which are already long is the exact opposite.

I learned the hard way from creating a "mega" website that if you put too much information in one place people can't find what they want and it becomes useless. "Juris Doctor" is specifically about a particular degree--its history, etc.

I did not add the information on LLM's, LLD, etc. I merely added subsection titles to information that was already there. I separated the info about an LLM in Comparative Law because someone obviously not familiar with the system had said that JSD programs are popular with foreign lawyers who want to practice law in the U.S. and don't have a J.D. That is totally incorrect. Law professors are just about the only people who get JSD's and an LLM is required for a JSD so a foreign lawyer would have to get that and once s/he did, the JSD would be irrelevant.

Keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia for the general public, not a place for lawyers to dissect minutia. The general public doesn't understand that there is a difference between a Bachelor of Laws, Juris Doctor, an L.L.M., that an L.L.D./Doctor of Laws is an honorary degree, that a Bachelor of Legal Studies is a paralegal degree, etc. That is why a basic description of those other degrees is relevant in a Juris Doctor article.

Also, the issue of whether a Juris Doctor is equivalent to a Ph.D. is relevant to "Juris Doctor" but not "Admission to the Bar". The general public, including most businesses, think that a J.D. is not a doctorate. Although no university would claim that an M.D. is not a "terminal" degree, most of them have no qualms about saying that a J.D. is not a terminal degree in many fields.

However, for someone who wants to know "What do the letters 'J.D.' after this guy's name stand for?" or "This article says this guy has a 'Juris Doctor' degree. What field is that?", that person doesn't care about "admission to the bar". Similarly, "admission to the bar" is a lot more than getting a J.D. degree. Yes, there is overlap on these topics, but they should remain separate.

You are also ignoring the fact that more and more people are obtaining J.D. degrees--particularly as part of a dual-degree program--and not practicing law because they can make more money in another field such as business management, medicine, public administration, the media, etc.

Keep in mind that a four-way merger is pretty radical. If it is so necessary, how come no one else suggested anything like it previously?

RickReinckens 06:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposing a four-way merge (PART B)

Keep in mind that a four-way merger is pretty radical. If it is so necessary, how come no one else suggested anything like it previously?

RickReinckens 06:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, but the problem is that if you maintain separate articles with large sections of overlapping content, then people will keep adding information to one but not the other (especially if they are unaware of the other one). The result is a huge incoherent mess where it becomes impossible to synchronize the overlapping sections. This makes it much harder for a layperson to grasp the structure of a topic, because then they end up having to read dozens of mediocre articles to fully understand its nuances when one or two well-written ones should suffice. If a layperson really wanted to read lots of overlapping articles on all kinds of odd nuances, they would be going straight to the law reviews. Wikipedia is for those who want the concise, precise version of a topic.

The incoherent situation I just described is already the case with the large family of Freedom of speech articles (look at the long See also section in Freedom of speech). In particular, neither the United States section of the Freedom of Speech (International) article nor the article devoted to Freedom of speech in the United States provide a fully comprehensive, accurate, and well-balanced explanation of the topic. One has to read both and then try to put Humpty Dumpty together. Faced with this mess, most American laypersons would either give up or settle for an incomplete impression. And no Wikipedia editor, myself included, has the time to research the topic and rewrite both articles so that one contains a one-paragraph summary and the other is a balanced overview of all the major parts of American free speech law.

Thus, my point is that I do not want a similar mess to develop in the articles about American lawyers—who are probably a subject of broader interest and information about them should be accessible to a broad lay audience. I believe the best way to explain the differences would be to have a general Education of lawyers in the United States article, with subsections for each American law degree. Each subsection would lead with a Main article link to an article devoted solely to that degree and then have a one or two paragraph summary of the main article. Within the degree-specific articles, to help people get back to the main page to read about other degrees, we could end them with a footer about American legal education or Lawyers in the United States. This general/specific dichotomy is how many other parts of Wikipedia are already structured. For example, look at how all the U.S. states, like California, are connected back to United States via the footer. --Coolcaesar 06:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

(1) We probably need to put a See Also at the top of each article, so contributors will realize if their material probably should go elsewhere. I think the biggest problem is that various contributors are not aware there are multiple related articles. I started adding to Juris Doctor because I was interested in the history of the degree. It never even occurred to me to look for topics like "Education of Lawyers in the United States", "Admission to the Bar", or "Law School".
RickReinckens 07:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

(2) Is there some way to add one of those message boxes and have it basically say, "Editors: Please review these four articles (names) and help reduce overlap to a minimum."? Many of us only make small additions or changes at any particular time and we would be willing to work on eliminating needless duplication.
RickReinckens 07:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

(3) On the one hand, I agree that there seems to be a lot of detailed overlap and of the four articles only one should go into detail on a particular topic. On the other hand, some basic information can be repeated in more than one article so readers don't have to hopscotch among four articles to understand one item of interest. For instance, I added to Juris Doctor that the number of credits is not the only consideration, that schools require completion of a certain number of credits per year because it is a bar admission requirement. That is probably more relevant to "Admission to the Bar". Just a "The J.D. degree usually requires three years of full-time study or four years of part-time study," would be enough for the J.D. article.
RickReinckens 07:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

(4) There is also a practical matter to consider. If we do merge all these, someone is going to come along and say, "There is an article on "LLB", an article on "LLM", an article on "Doctor of Laws". There should be a separate article on J.D." And they'll start a new article, even if they have to destroy a redirect page to do so. So in 6 months or a year someone will recreate those articles anyway.
RickReinckens 07:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, after a lot of thought (particularly regarding your last argument) I agree that Juris Doctor should remain a separate article. But I think a lot of the other articles (the ones I mentioned plus more) should be reorganized as "subarticles" of a general article on Lawyers in the United States, with overlap eliminated as much as possible. I will try to carry this out during the first week of January if I can find the time. --Coolcaesar 00:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I've eliminated all the bar admission stuff from this article - sure a J.D. is generally a prerequisite to admission - but a B.A. is a prerequisite to a J.D., and we don't discuss J.D.'s at length in the B.A. article... bd2412 T 03:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

JD not equivelant to LLB?

• As a LLB holder I'd have to disagree with that assertion. A JD is a three year education in law that meets the academic requirements for practicing. An LLB is also a three year education in law that meets the academic requirements for practicing. The vast majority of lawyers in Australia, for example, only have an LLB, including our equivalent of Supreme Court Justices. To say it's not equivalent just because America had decided to call their version a doctorate is misleading.

Please add your ID when making comments. Put 4 tildes in a row and Wiki will convert that to your user ID and the date and time of your entry. I like to put three apostrophes then four tildes then three apostrophes, which makes it bold. RickReinckens 03:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Elsewhere I have addressed in detail why a J.D. (U.S. or foreign) is not equivalent to an L.L.B. Rather than repeating it, please check here.

---

RickReinckens 03:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• I really don't get this debate. Sure, there are some structural differences between JDs and LLBs (though not as many as people think - eg. LLBs can and often are taken after first doing a BA). But the simple fact is that, so far as the substance of the degree goes, the American JD is equivalent to the LLB in most common law countries (eg. UK and Australia). Despite all the huffing and puffing on this page about the complexity of the American JD, it's no more complicated or difficult than a standard common law LLB. --- 163.1.159.220 23:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The following sections respond to the original comment at the top of the section:

1: JD = LLB

No, that's not correct. The J.D. is a graduate/professional degree that is earned after one earns a bachelor's degree, while the LLB is a bachelor's degree. A typical American J.D. holder enters law school between the age of 22 and 25 and graduates between 25 and 28. The reason for this, if I remember correctly, is that American law is so difficult to master that there is a consensus that serious study should not be attempted prior to 21 years of age---in fact, most American law schools dislike applicants who have majored in "legal studies" programs as an undergraduate. The point is that [entry-level] American lawyers (at least young ones) tend to be older and much more mature than holders of LLBs in other countries. --Coolcaesar 18:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Limiting competition

I think there is another "dirty little secret" that the "political correctness" folks at the various bar associations don't want to talk about. (And, of course, which we could not put in an encyclopedia article and expect it to remain there for any length of time.) Probably the main reason an additional three years of education was required to get into the program was to limit competition. It sounds great to look at today's American legal scene and say, "American law is too complicated for college freshmen" but that was not the case when the law programs originally started requiring undergrad preparation. Even if it was too difficult to handle in four years, they could just have made the program a five-year program leading to an L.L.B. (See "Comparison to engineering" below.)

RickReinckens 03:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Comparison to engineering degrees

And let's be blunt--cramming 160 s.h. of engineering, chemistry, physics and math courses, including "4 s.h." courses consisting of 3 hours of lecture and 3 hours of lab into a 4-year Bachelor of Science in Engineering by taking 20 s.h. per semester to get an engineering degree is a hell of a lot harder than four or even five years of undergrad law courses. A lot of engineering colleges now spread it out over 5 years and award a B.S. degree, not a masters or doctorate.

RickReinckens 03:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

2: JD = LLB

Older and much more mature? Most law schools in Australia require you to study for the LLB as part of a double degree. So you'd have to do, for example, a BA/LLB or BSc/LLB, and you'd have to complete a year of the BA or BSc before you began taking law classes. The entire thing would take at least five years, usually followed by a year of practical legal training. I personally already had a bachelor's degree before I went back to study law, but my degree is still an LLB. It seems somewhat silly to suggest that the American legal system is more difficult to master than any other. It is, after all, based on the English common law system. In my view the suggestion that the degrees are somehow unequal is plainly wrong. If you're under the impression that it's easier to get a LLB in England or somewhere in the Commonwealth than it is to get a JD in the US, then I suggest you come and try it. The law is just as complicated and the exams are just as difficult. And in most cases you only get a year to adjust to university life, instead of three or four as in the US. The introduction of the "JD" seems to have more to do with comparisons to the "MD" of the medical schools than it has to do with practical changes to the curriculum. In Australia, the UK, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Hong Kong, China, Taiwan, and pretty much every other common law country in the world, lawyers have LLBs. It is the professional degree in law. America decided to change to JDs for some reason that is lost on the rest of us. I can sort of understand the want to distinguish between a first and second degree, but the fact remains that the equcational requirements are virtually identical. If I sound a little bitter it is because LLBs are sometimes viewed less favourably than JDs in the job market, because of the mistaken belief that JDs are somehow "better lawyers", which is patently false. The article seems to go out of its way to make people believe that the JD is the superior degree by saying it is "not equivalent". It just isn't true. Like I said, I have a first bachelor's degree in a non-law area, and a law degree, but my business card still says LLB(Hons). Thankfully the pro-JD discrimination is confined mainly to America, because in the rest of the common law world the LLB is by far and away the most recognised professional law degree.

3: JD = LLB?

Well, the American legal system is more difficult to master because of certain aspects unique to the United States: the codification of practically all federal and state laws, the use of American Law Institute Restatements, and the exceedingly complex relationship between federal and state law that arose out of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938) and its numerous progeny. In his popular book on civil procedure, Joseph Glannon has an entire chapter devoted to "Eerie Erie." Plus, all 50 states are independent sovereigns (in any area of the law not given to the federal government by the Constitution), which creates enormous diversity in the laws from one state to the next. Learning to research American law means becoming familiar with the giant number of case reports, statutory and administrative codes, digests, treatises, encyclopedias, guidebooks, and law reviews that form the standard American law library; indeed, many law firms nowadays simply find it cheaper to subscribe to LexisNexis instead.

4: JD = LLB?

Finally, American evidence law is universally agreed to be the most complex in the world (go see the quote I just got out of Larry Friedman's book and put in the Evidence article). We have lots of crazy rules covering what can and cannot be seen by the finder of fact. This is because of our heavy theoretical reliance on trial by jury — that is, all cases are litigated as if they are going to be decided by a jury, even if most of them settle before trial nowadays. --Coolcaesar 17:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

5: JD = LLB?

Frankly I don't see how you can make such sweeping statements. America didn't invent the jury trial, nor did it invent stare decisis or, to put it bluntly, anything. We have them here too. Evidence law is highly complex here, as I'm sure it is elsewhere. I reject the argument that the American legal system is so complex just because it has a large number of individual jurisdictions. Plenty of other places have such systems. Australia for example has multiple states and territories, each with their own soverign systems of government, as well as the Commonwealth government. So does Canada.

I subdivided this and moved the question "Are American and Australian J.D.'s equivalent?" to another section covering that topic. RickReinckens 03:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Lawyers licensed in muiltiple states?

Besides, so what? How many American lawyers have passed the bar in more than a handful of states?

• Most American lawyers are licensed only in one state.
• Maybe 10 percent are licensed in two states. (That is a guesstimate.)
• Just because someone is licensed in more than one state does not mean the person has ever practiced in more than one state.

In the U.S. our exam is broken into three sections: "Multistate" day that tests "national" law, "essay" day that tests the particular state's law and a professional ethics test that can be taken before completion of law school. (I was licensed before the ethics exam was started, so I'm a bit hazy on the specifics of that test.) Some states hold "essay" day the day before "multistate" and some hold it the day after. To increase their chances of passing a bar exam, some students take essay day in one state, and then multistate and another essay day in another state. The result is that they wind up admitted to two states but only practice in one. (My situation was a bit different. I took the bar in New York but moved to Texas before beginning my legal carreer. I ultimately gave up my New York license because I never used it.)

• It is extremely rare to find an American lawyer licensed in more than 3 states. In almost all such cases the person is a "high power" criminal defense attorney such as F. Lee Bailey. The main reason is that in our country criminal law does not vary significantly from state to state but civil law does.
• Most states have "reciprocity" provisions which say that if (a) you meet the educational, etc., requirements of the new state and (b) you have practiced law for 5 out of the past 7 years, you can get admitted to the new state by taking only the essay (state-specific) portion of the exam. Some states, such as Texas, have full reciprocity and don't require any part of the exam.

RickReinckens 04:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a wonderful way to assert domination of the state government (flexing a bit of muscle) and none the less most likely incurring testing fees and other such licensing fees whilst ultimately making no difference in the grand scheme of things. Talk about over-legislated. 211.30.71.59 10:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason for having separate licensing is that each state has plenary power over anything not reserved to the federal government in the Constitution, so each state's laws are vastly different from its brethren. For example, California has a unique consumer class action statute, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, which few other states have anything similar to (unlike most consumer laws, the CLRA is both substantive and procedural); its own Evidence Code; its own Rules of Professional Conduct; a law granting nearly anyone the power to interfere in each other's construction projects---the California Environmental Quality Act; a community property system of marital property division; and so on. The state government regulates over 230 different professions. Naturally, the rest of the Union thinks our legal system is crazy, but then I could cite a whole bunch of crazy things about the legal systems of Georgia, Texas, Hawaii, and so on. A lawyer wandering in from another state, perhaps to do a trial, could easily violate several dozen California laws unless associated with California co-counsel. --Coolcaesar 01:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I imagine the California legislature was more concerned about protecting the lawyer's clients than keeping the lawyer out of legal trouble. In other words, the various requirements exist in order to protect the public from a dimwitted attorney. Peyna 03:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Reversion re Titles

I reverted to remove the false, unsupported and NPOV-violative statement that it is in "poor taste" for an attorney to use Esq. after his own name. In fact that is quite common. (I also reverted my own response, which I intended to put in Talk, not the main article.)

The Titles section still has some problems. Someone not familiar the topic who goes by the name Neutrality re-wrote it awhile back and it now is misleading. The earlier text needs to be restored.

RickReinckens 23:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It is decreasing on the West Coast, though. I've noticed that a large number of attorneys in California omit it on court documents and don't use it in letters, either; they will usually put "Attorney" below their name instead. What is the trend in your area? --Coolcaesar 10:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that there are two issues here - it is always in poor taste to use an honorific when referring to oneself. One should no more add "Esq" after one's own name than add "Mr" before it. It is always perfectly good manners to add an appropriate honorific when addressing others. Thus, I should refer to myself as "White" or "John White" but to my colleague as "Mr Black" or "Mr John Black". Likewise for attorneys, I should refer to myself as "John White, Attorney" where my profession is of relevance but to my colleague as "John Black, Esq" where his profession is of relevance. US practice is to refer to all lawyers as "Esq". UK practice is to extend "Esq" to all gentlemen, lawyers or not, but never to women.

There is some debate throughout different states as to what are appropriate titles for lawyers to use. There was a good article in the ABA Journal recently regarding this issue. Unfortunately I can't provide a link, but if you access to Westlaw or Lexis Nexis, it should be available as "92-JAN A.B.A. J. 28; TUSSLE OVER TITLES Ethics Opinions Wrangle With Terms Lawyers Use to Identify Themselves". Essentially, it is very important that any title used does not convey that the person using the title is eligible to practice law in that particular state unless they actually are. Also, the title Esquire is generally acceptable to denote that one is able to practice law; however, some people might consider it a bit "hoity-toity" to use. Other people might consider a badge of honor. It's all in perception. Esquire was originally a term for a candidate for knighthood and then was used for many other people, including barristers. In the United States it almost solely means "lawyer". There is also the problem of a lawyer using any lawyerly title outside the practice of law, because it might convey to the other party that they are acting as a lawyer in that situation. Some courts have determined that a lawyer could use the title "Esquire" when operating in a non-legal context, but not the title "attorney-at-law"; and I'm sure the contrary has been decided elsewhere. There are countless ethics opinions available on the subject that vary widely from state to state. The topic itself could probably warrant its own article if anyone were possessed enough to write it. Peyna 04:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems that use of "Esq." goes in and out of style. I often use it in letters to multiple addressees to make it clear which recipients are attorneys in the case. (I don't include it for mediators who are attorneys.) It seems most lawyers use "Attorney at Law" or "Attorney and Counselor at Law" on their business cards and letterhead these days, which makes "Esq." overkill. I have been licensed in Texas since 1982 and when I see it in most cases the writer is someone with an attorney's office and it is used with the addressee's name. Occasionally I will see it on letterheads that also list paralegals, office managers, investigators, nurses, etc.

RickReinckens 03:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

J.S.D. is the terminal degree in law, not J.D.

A terminal degree is the highest degree available in a field. The reason that an M.D. and a D.D.S. are terminal degrees and a J.D. is not is that there is no higher degree in the other fields. There is no such thing as a Master of Medicine or a Master of Dentistry degree, but there is a Master of Laws degree and a Doctor of Juridical Science (Doctor of Laws earned degree outside the U.S.) In law, the J.S.D. is the terminal degree because there is no higher degree.

It is incorrect to say that "The reason that...a D.D.S....[is a] terminal degree...and a J.D. is not is that there is no higher degree in the other field...There is no such thing as a Master of Dentistry degree, but there is a Master of Laws degree." Actually there is such a thing as a Master of Denistry degree. It is called a Master of Science in Dentistry (M.S.D). Some dental schools simply award a Master of Science (M.S.).

The facts that (1) a person can hold an academic position or (2) a person can practice a profession or (3) a particular degree satisfies all educational requirement set by law are not relevant to "terminal degree". Particularly in music and art there are people who hold tenured full professorships who only hold a master's degree. Many community colleges grant full tenured professorships to faculty who only hold a master's degree. No U.S. state requires more than a master's degree to get permanent certification to teach in an elementary or secondary school.

The technical description of a J.D. is a "first-professional" doctorate. See the New York State description in the References section that describes the difference between a first-professional doctorate and an academic doctorate.

Legal education in the U.S. is unique in that the entire bachelors / masters / doctoral track was essentially "pushed up" from undergraduate to graduate status without substantial change, then the title of the entry-level degree was changed to "doctorate", while leaving what is considered an "actual" doctorate within the legal academic community (J.S.D.) intact but just with a new name.

So, a J.D., D.V.M., M.D. and D.D.S. share the characteristic of being a "first-professional" doctorate because they are so designated by law. However, the J.D. is not a terminal degree and the others are because higher degrees are available in law but not in the other fields. By "higher" I mean that matriculation for an L.L.M. requires a J.D. and matriculation for a J.S.D. requires a J.D. and usually an L.L.M. and the coursework goes deeper into the subject than the introductory survey courses of a J.D. program do. Although the other fields offer advanced courses, those courses do not lead to a degree, e.g., Master of Medicine in Cardiac Surgery or Master of Dentistry in Orthodontics.

RickReinckens 00:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

JD -- It IS a terminal degree.

The JD degree IS a terminal degree. There is no basis for saying otherwise. The New York statute that was invoked by another editor does not support the contention that it is not a terminal degree. The New York statute does differentiate between a research degree and a professional degree (by the way, it uses the term "professional" degree, as I do in my re-write, and not "first-professional"). The argument about other degrees being available is irrelevant entirely.

User:tttakl

How in the world is the JD different from a Bachelor's degree ? I mean it is the first degree in field of law in the USA. The fact that you have to hold a Bachelor's degree as an entry reequiremnet is irrelevant for the matter and also completely useless since that Bachelor's degree can't be in law and CAN be in any field under the sky. The JD has be suited to all the students of various backgrounds. How can the JD be of a higher standard then it could if it where to admit high school graduates ? I bet a high school graduate would do just fine if he was accepted into ta JD program.

That is unless the american high school diplomas aren't worth the paper they are written on. What is so special about the field of law that you have to study a completely and utterly arbitarary field before studying law ? Why couldn't law be the first(and even only) field a person where to study at the university level ? That is the way it is here(in the Faroe Islands) and it works just fine. Kristian Joensen 22:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you're really naive about American law. A typical American public high school graduate who somehow managed to get into a J.D. program would almost certainly flunk out the first year.

In a typical ABA-accredited J.D. program, a student will read approximately 1,000 judicial opinions per academic year, each of which may range from 2 to 20 pages in length. Such opinions can come from anywhere in Anglo-American legal history. For example, Hadley v. Baxendale is required reading in all contract courses. Some cases take only 10 minutes to read, while others may take up to an hour because every other word is archaic and requires the use of a law dictionary (and the unabridged 7th edition of Black's Law Dictionary is 1,700 pages). The vast majority of Americans at age 18 or 19 simply do not have the emotional maturity, self-discipline, and knowledge to adhere to such a rigorous program of study.

Furthermore, American law is simply HUGE because of the enormous size of the United States, the complexity of our economy, and the fact that we have separate federal and state court systems. A decent American law library to be used by practicing lawyers contains at least 10,000 volumes, and an academic law library must have at least 100,000.

Also, I should note that American high school diplomas are NOT worth the paper they are written on. Most Americans do not learn how to write well until they get through the two semesters of college-level English that are required for a typical bachelor's degree. Fixing that embarrassment was the point of the No Child Left Behind Act, which is still very controversial. --Coolcaesar 02:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

With the last bit about the high school diplomas you fully conceded my point. The extent of reading required that you mention is nothing more than an average european Bachelor's degree which obviously don't require that you hold a Bachelor's degree before beeing admitted. Kristian Joensen 15:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I conceded nothing. Try reading a 18th-century case like Pierson v. Post in the original version and see how you like it. The teaching style of European law faculties is completely different from American law schools. Most countries teach law through theoretical and abstract lectures on broad doctrines while American law schools teach with the case method and the Socratic method. For example, a European professor might say that "today, we're going to cover the strict liability rule in product liability cases, which is the rule that manufacturers and all others in the chain of commerce are strictly liable for defective products," while an American professor would call on a student at random and say, "Let's turn to Greenman v. Yuba Power Products. Mr. Smith, what are the facts of this case?" The American professor would then gradually elicit the rule of Greenman from the students themselves by cross-examining them about various aspects of the opinion. Greenman, by the way, is the single most important case in modern American tort law; see the article I drafted on Roger J. Traynor.

Most teenagers are simply too immature to be able to pick up the rules and the facts of several cases every night on their own; this is why other countries often have them read treatises (where the cases have been predigested and summarized) rather than cases. But in the United States, our position is that lawyers have to read cases every day on the job, so they may as well get used to them as soon as possible. Even then, with most American law students entering law school between 22 and 27, we still have high dropout rates at the less prestigious law schools where people cannot keep up with the workload.

Personally, I went to a law school where we had dozens of lawyers from all over the world attending for one year to get an American LL.M. They all agreed that America has the craziest legal system they have ever seen, because (1) of its vast size and (2) the limited lawmaking powers that we give appellate judges through stare decisis.

Another difference between a B.A./B.S. and a J.D. is that all American universities impose general education or breadth requirements for the B.A and B.S. degrees. For example, the University of California, Berkeley requires undergraduate students to take courses from seven broad categories (the seven-course breadth requirement), plus a course in American Cultures (to sensitize students to American cultural diversity). This is in addition to all core (in-department) and support (out-of-department) courses required for one's major. Needless to say, there are no such requirements at law schools, since it is assumed that everyone has already had general education as an undergraduate. --Coolcaesar 20:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually you have a wrong view of European law, your view is only how it is in theory and how it has been in the past, but the case law is becoming increasingly important in european law, also it has always been more important than it is in theory. You say that American universities have general education requirements but that is not the case in Europe(generaly speaking) because all general education is taken PRIOR to entering a university.

I wasn't neccesarily comparing the JD to AMERICAN Bachelor's but to European Bachelor's. The JD unlike the BS/BA is perhaps a PROPER Bachelor's degree while the BS/BA in the USA is more like what their high school diploma's should be like. PERHAPS more specialised.

Here it is assumed that you have the required general education prior to admittance into a Bachelor's program(straight into your "major" area of study). Vast size and stare decisis are NOT uniquely american phenomena. Just as federalism isn't uniquely american. European countries have HISTORICALY been federal.

I myself am from a political entity that is part of defacto federal structure but where the federal nature of said structure isn't even universaly recognized and boy THAT causes legal headaches which obviously are NOT seen in the american system. Since the fedarlism isn't disputed.

What is more is that there are several other spheres of law, like that fact that the "mother" state is a member of the EU, which it self has got lots of laws and treaties and laot of CASE law too. While we are EXLUDED from said EU membership. However certain federal laws that apply here are origianly EU directives.

In addition to that there is the issue of the European Convention on Human Rights and the associated European Court of Human Rights. The courts decisions are binding on us. That is one avenue where we are getting more CASE law rather than statutory law. Actually the jursidiction I am from has historicaly been a common law juristicion rather than a civil law jurisdiction. Kristian Joensen 14:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Just came back from a vacation during which I took some more photos for Wikipedia (see Santa Maria, California and Lompoc, California). Returning to our discussion, I should point out that the federal legal structure in the European Union is still relatively new (less than 50 years), so that there isn't such a huge body of case law as that produced by the United States Supreme Court (which has been in business for more than 200 years). Also, the EU does not yet have its own parallel system of federal courts of first instance; that is, a civil litigant usually cannot select between a trial in a court of his own nation or a federal "EU" court. In contrast, American litigants do have that choice, and every civil procedure course includes a few cases covering how to "remove" a case from state court to federal court, and how to get a "remand" back to state court.

As for your assertion that European countries have historically been federal, that is simply incorrect, at least for Western Europe. Countries like the UK, France, and Italy have historically been centrally managed from their capitals. The level of control that those governments exercise over education, health care, or social services would be unthinkable in the United States, where such things are mostly under the control of the state governments.

Finally, turning back to the issue of the J.D., general education is generally unavailable at the high school level due to the fact that American primary and secondary education are funded and operated locally. The public high schools are staffed primarily by mediocre intellectuals who often don't even hold degrees in the fields they teach, and who see their job as simply laying a foundation for the bachelor's degree programs. The public high schools are full of poor and working-class kids from broken homes who are simply waiting for the day they can pass for an adult on the street and can drop out of school without being arrested for truancy. The teachers merely babysit those kids while trying to help the bright ones who really want to learn---the ones with real potential who will go on to college and have their intellectual horizons expanded in general education programs. In turn, the brightest college graduates will go on to graduate or professional school (like law school) and then get a nice cushy job as a lawyer or doctor. The difference I'm trying to emphasize here is that high school attendance is compulsory and college is voluntary. Most people in high school are there because they have to be there, while most people in college are there because they want to be there.

Yes, that's an awful way to run an educational system, but this is what the United States is stuck with, due to its insanely screwed-up tax regime (which is difficult to explain and is the subject of several advanced courses in law school). I hope this makes the situation in the U.S. clearer. --Coolcaesar 04:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

LL.B. = massive inferiority complex.

J.D. is a terminal degree in that it is a professional doctorate. All professional doctorates are considered terminal degrees in the United States. A J.S.D. is a higher doctorate. A Ph.D. is a terminal degree as well, even though one may obtain a higher doctorate after completing a Ph.D. (such as a D.Litt). --Laerien

Just out of curiousity, who in the US (or elsewhere, just for references) bestows non-honorary D.Litts? -James Howard (talk/web) 23:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, Drew University is the only U.S. institution that bestows an earned D.Litt.--and that degree is certainly not at a higher level than the Ph.D. The D.Litt. is awarded as an earned higher doctorate in the U.K. and at least some other Commonwealth countries. There, it represents a level of achievement far beyond that of the Ph.D. Higher doctorates are very rare, and awarded after decades of distinguished research--in the sciences, often after hundreds of scholarly papers.

"Doctor"

A couple of editors are contesting the uncontroversial fact that "doctor" is Latin for "teacher" (from docere, to teach). To translate "Doctor" as "Doctor" is both unilluminating and inaccurate. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I gotta go with Mel Etitis on this point. Translating "doctor" as "doctor" in this context would certainly have gotten me in trouble with my eighth grade English teacher, who was a real terror to us about proper use of the language. "Doctor" in Latin is translated denotatively into English as "teacher." A "doctrine" is a "teaching." If anyone wants citations for this, I'll be glad to provide them. I am not an expert on Latin but as I recall juris doctor (or "IURISDOCTOR" as it would probably have been written, in all capitals, with an I instead of a J, and with no space between the words) should be roughly translated as "teacher of the philosophy of law." Any other doctors of jurisprudence out there who want to provide more perspective? Yours, Famspear 21:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The English translation of "Philosophiæ Doctor" is "Doctor of Philosophy" (not Teacher of Philosophy). Doctor is an English word too. "Juris Doctor" would translate as "Doctor of Law". --Aquarius Rising 21:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No, again, the English translation is "teacher of Philosophy; the English form is "Doctor of Philosophy". What exactly do you think that the word "doctor" means? Most people think that its primary meaning is "physician", which is its most common usage outside the academic world, but the Latin term has no such connotation. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 06:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Mel ... I think we have to give readers some credit. They know that a doctor isn't just a physician. It can also be a dentist, a vet, etc. or a it can be the holder of an academic title such as a doctor of philosophy degree. There is an article on wikipedia which explains the title in detail: Doctor (title), so it makes sense to link to there, if the reader wants to know more about the title of Doctor. The Latin word for "doctor" as a title has entered English usage. However, for additional information to the reader, the change that I had made before you reverted it was to replace Teacher of Law by [ [Doctor (title)|Doctor]] of Law. I thought that my revision was a good solution. --Aquarius Rising 13:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that people will know what "doctor" means is irrelevant to what the correct translation is — and it's "teacher", not "doctor". I don't really understand your insistence on this, as any decent dictionary will confirm it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I took Latin for four years in high school. Doctor is related to the verb "docere," which means "to teach." As used in the Latin degree Juris Doctor, doctor means teacher of law. --Coolcaesar 21:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

J.D. is terminal professional doctorate

The J.D. is the highest and only professional doctorate in the field of law in the U.S.. Just as The MD, DDS, DO, etc. an attorney who wishes to specialize may earn a master's degree in a given specialty. The SJD is a purely academic degree. It is similar to a dentist or physician in academics earning a PhD. Drdouma 19:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

From http://www.law.uh.edu/libraries/ethics/Opinions/501-600/O550.htm the Texas Supreme Court has opined:

The Committee is of the opinion that under the Rules the use of the title "Dr.," "Doctor," "J.D." or "Doctor of Jurisprudence" is not, in itself, prohibited as constituting a false or misleading communication. The Committee recognizes that other professions, such as educators, economists and social scientists, traditionally use title "Dr." in their professional names to denote a level of advanced education and not to imply formal medical training. There is no reason in these circumstances to prohibit lawyers with a Juris Doctor or Doctor of Jurisprudence degree from indicating the advanced level of their education.

However, while use of the title alone is generally permitted, the context in which the title is used may cause use of the title to be a false or misleading communication. For example, a lawyer otherwise qualified to use the title of "Dr." who advertises as "Dr. John Doe" in a public advertisement for legal services in connection with medical malpractice or other areas involving specialized medical issues may be making a misleading statement as to the lawyer's qualifications and may be creating an unjustified expectation about results the lawyer can achieve. Unless accompanied by an appropriate, prominent statement of qualifications and disclaimers, such use of the title "Dr." could readily mislead prospective clients and thus violate the Rules. Compare Comment 2 to Rule 7.02.

The clean up this requires is daunting

I've taken a small stab, but this article is the epitome of clusterfuck. Bobak 17:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Just cleaning up the mess in Lawyer alone took me four months and a hell of a lot of research. Cleaning up Juris Doctor, Admission to the bar, Legal education, etc. will take much longer, and I don't have the energy or desire to do it. --Coolcaesar 19:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with Bobak and Coolcaesar. This is the kind of stuff that in my view makes Wikipedia look bad.

This degree is equivalent to that degree. This degree is not equivalent to that degree. This degree is really a doctorate. No it's not. Yes it is. This doctorate does not confer the title of doctor. Yes it does. No it doesn't. Good grief. This kind of stuff is laughable in my opinion. I'm sorry. It looks like some Ph.D.s who are jealous of J.D.s and some J.D.s who are jealous of Ph.Ds., arguing back and forth.

I made some efforts to help clean this up a few months ago without success. I happen to be a J.D. (without a Ph.D.) but I cannot fathom why the average person -- or any J.D. or Ph.D. -- coming here to obtain information about the J.D. degree would care about this kind of stuff. Yours, Famspear 20:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a complete head to toe rewrite would stem some of these problems. Personally, I think a JD is pretty widely held to be a doctorate, and therefore it should be presented as such, perhaps with a notation that in some circles (perhaps jealous PhD's) the JD is not considered a doctorate. This article should not focus intently on what various labels various groups think the JD should have. Besides, it's all arbitrary. Peyna 21:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

One of the problems with various edits over time in this article has been that some Wikipedians consider the JD to equivalent to the PhD in terms of both them being doctoral research degrees. Yes, the JD is a doctoral degree, but it's not a doctoral research degree. In contrast, the S.J.D., LL.D. or Ph.D. (depending on the university and the country) is the doctoral research degree in law. All the posturing that somehow the research done in the course of the JD is substantial independent research like a PhD goes too far. Unfortunately, the ABA statement on equivalence of the JD and PhD may be part of the confusion. Fine, let the two degrees be "equivalent" in terms of hiring and tenure requirements for law professors, but let there be no conclusion that the JD is a doctoral research degree. --Aquarius Rising 21:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. The J.D. is definitely not a doctoral research degree. Although there is now a upper division writing requirement at all ABA-accredited law schools, the 30-page paper I wrote to satisfy that requirement in no way comes close to the typical 200-page doctoral dissertation. Only the S.J.D. is a true doctoral research degree. --Coolcaesar 01:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)