![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
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
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
what about a JD in australia and a JD in america? are they equivalent then?
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.).
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.
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.
-- Coolcaesar 07:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- 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)
RickReinckens 06:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
RickReinckens 06:04, 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)
The following sections respond to the original comment at the top of the section:
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)
Besides, so what? How many American lawyers have passed the bar in more than a handful of states?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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
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.
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)
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)
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.
I've taken a small stab, but this article is the epitome of clusterfuck. Bobak 17:59, 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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
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
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
what about a JD in australia and a JD in america? are they equivalent then?
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.).
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.
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.
-- Coolcaesar 07:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- 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)
RickReinckens 06:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
RickReinckens 06:04, 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)
The following sections respond to the original comment at the top of the section:
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)
Besides, so what? How many American lawyers have passed the bar in more than a handful of states?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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
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.
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)
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)
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.
I've taken a small stab, but this article is the epitome of clusterfuck. Bobak 17:59, 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)