Attorney Application Under HSMP

[deborahCO]

Hi all - I'm new to this forum and so very, very happy I've found this community! I was so discouraged to see the processing times not moving from 7 June 2004 for the past two months. Thought I was on my own just wondering what was going on!

Anyway, my question is this: I'm an American attorney licensed to practice and submitted my application asking for the full 30 points on degree level. Does anyone know if my JD will earn me the full 30, or just 25 under NARIC?

Here's my details, FYI:

1. Application received by HSMP 22 Dec 2004
2. Reference No. 032494
3. No response received yet
4. Claimed credit for:
30 Points = Juris Doctor degree
35 Points = JD degree, 5+ years work + 2 yrs serving on Board
25 Points = Earnings in last year
Total = 90 points

Haven't heard from HSMP. Given the recent posts I've read about the super-quick turnaround for Dec/Jan application approvals/denials, wondering what y'all think my chances are for approval. I submitted all necessary documentation, with the possible exception of a job offer/interview and I've not yet been applied for/been admitted to sit for the UK bar exam, but I qualify for it and mentioned that in my application.

[Sher]

U shld be alright ..... except that u r possibly listed as a potential competitor to Mrs. Cherie Blair

On a serious note, yr profession might not be one in cringing demand. Hence a bit of delay.

Keep 'em +

[deborahCO]

U shld be alright ..... except that u r possibly listed as a potential competitor to Mrs. Cherie Blair

On a serious note, yr profession might not be one in cringing demand. Hence a bit of delay.

Keep 'em +

The lower demand is exactly what I'm afraid of (all lawyers jokes aside). Trying to stay positive - thanks for the quick reply. Still curious if you know what the NARIC score is for my JD degree?

[lynn132]

http://www.naric.org.uk/individuals.asp

You can find out easily using their website - you just have to send them a couple of things and they'll send you a letter. It's not expensive either.

[deborahCO]

I thought their review was expensive? Guess I was wrong! I'll check into it - thanks!

[Kayalami]

DeborahCO,

1. A Juris Doctor is equivalent to a UK bachelor's degree in Law commonly refered to as LLB. It just so happens that in the US a prequisite to study law is that you hold a bachelor's degree. This does not make your US qualification a 'Masters' let alone a 'Doctorate' to UK standards a sper the HSMP education matrix. You will be awarded 15 points.

2. You will be required to provide proof of your eligibility to pursue law in the UK - you say you qualify to do such. On what basis? AFAIK the law society or the bar have a procedure for overseas trained lawyers to be included in their list/ roll on a reciprocal basis or pursuant to passing exams and relevant practical period under supervision by a registered member as applicable. Exemptions do exist for EU qualified lawyers but this in your case is moot. Your challenge is that any reciprocity or said exams require a solid grounding in common law (tort) - I was under the impression this (tort) was not covered in any US JD programme pursuant to it being an aspect of the British/Commonwealth legal systems. .correct me if I am wrong. I would need to know:

i) which state you graduated.
ii) which state you are licenced to practice.

3. I am not clear on your work experience either - are you stating that this is:

i) 5 years (or more) after your JD and that 2 of of these years have been serving the board?

ii)In what capacity did you serve the board?
iii)what is the hierarchy and thus your position in the institution/ board?
iv) what is the size of the institution in question?
v) did your role require a graduate degree?

I got you on 15(Education), 25 (Work experience) and 25 (Earnings) = 65 as things stand i.e. you break even which is good enough. However as per comment by Sher you might find it tough to practice law in the UK (there is certainly no shortage of the skill set).

Good luck

[deborahCO]

Kayalami- I appreciate the detailed information, thank you. To answer your questions:

1. US lawyers do study torts based on the English system of common law, though of course with an American law slant.

2. I'm qualified to practise law in the UK as an American lawyer working with American law firms or UK firms/companies that require knowledge of American law without further qualification. To become an English solicitor, I have to provide proof of my bar qualifications here and sit for 3 heads of the UK bar exam, which is given 6 times/yr and has a very high passage rate. (I'm told that, when compared to an American bar exam, its actually much easier to pass in the UK, though of course I don't know that firsthand). The results are available in less than 3 months, and then I simply pay a fee to be listed on the rolls of solicitors. All of this can be accomplished from the US and prior to my emigration.

3. I am licensed to practise law in 3 states: New York, Colorado and Missouri. I have been licensed to practice for nearly 9 years now.

4. I serve on the Board of our local Legal Aid organization serving a community of approx. 150,000. I've served as a member of the Board of Directors for the past two years, guiding and directing the mission of the organization, hiring/firing employees, etc. I did provide a detailed letter of reference from the Board's Chairman setting forth my duties and responsibilities. My position as a member of the Board did not require the graduate degree, but my law practise here absolutely does!

I have a question for you on the qualification of my JD, which you equate to a Bachelor of Laws. You equate the minimum number of points there, but I also hold a Bachelor of Arts (4 yr) degree. To get the JD requires a minimum of 7 years of study -- equivalent to a UK student holding an LLB who has completed their articles with a barrister or solicitor. I do know that American requirements to practise law are far stricter than in the UK, and we must study one additional year and a larger variety of subjects, though our laws (except in Louisiana) are based on English law. Are you basing your statement on NARIC's equivalencies, or your own observations?

All advice appreciated.

[Kayalami]

Kayalami- I appreciate the detailed information, thank you. To answer your questions:

No probs.

1. US lawyers do study torts based on the English system of common law, though of course with an American law slant.

A factor to your advantage then were you to pursue the exams route.

2. I'm qualified to practise law in the UK as an American lawyer working with American law firms or UK firms/companies that require knowledge of American law without further qualification. To become an English solicitor, I have to provide proof of my bar qualifications here and sit for 3 heads of the UK bar exam, which is given 6 times/yr and has a very high passage rate. (I'm told that, when compared to an American bar exam, its actually much easier to pass in the UK, though of course I don't know that firsthand). The results are available in less than 3 months, and then I simply pay a fee to be listed on the rolls of solicitors. All of this can be accomplished from the US and prior to my emigration.

I can't comment on the comparative difficulty or otherwise of the two legal systems given that I have attempted neither. Yes in common with those qualifying from most US jurisdictions you would need to sit 3 Heads of the Test for inclusion in the law society roll. Note that US attorneys in the UK have primarily been active in the banking and energy sectors. The former is still holding up but the latter saw US corporations get stung - they paid over the odds for assets, utility prices dropped, they sold out at huge losses and went back home. Have you, in your application, documented relevant evidence of such US attorney jobs in the UK?

3. I am licensed to practise law in 3 states: New York, Colorado and Missouri. I have been licensed to practice for nearly 9 years now.

The three states fit into the above profile. The length of practice shows you meet the minimum relevant work experience of 5 years = 25 pts.

4. I serve on the Board of our local Legal Aid organization serving a community of approx. 150,000. I've served as a member of the Board of Directors for the past two years, guiding and directing the mission of the organization, hiring/firing employees, etc. I did provide a detailed letter of reference from the Board's Chairman setting forth my duties and responsibilities. My position as a member of the Board did not require the graduate degree, but my law practise here absolutely does!

Certainly adds to the seniority aspect of the work experience factor - it would have been ideal for an organogram to be submitted. I've got you up to 35 points on WE.

I have a question for you on the qualification of my JD, which you equate to a Bachelor of Laws. You equate the minimum number of points there, but I also hold a Bachelor of Arts (4 yr) degree. To get the JD requires a minimum of 7 years of study -- equivalent to a UK student holding an LLB who has completed their articles with a barrister or solicitor. I do know that American requirements to practise law are far stricter than in the UK, and we must study one additional year and a larger variety of subjects, though our laws (except in Louisiana) are based on English law. Are you basing your statement on NARIC's equivalencies, or your own observations?

1. The 7 Yrs you mention is a peculiarity of the US education system in relation to its legal profession. With all due respect would you not agree that you can do the JD without the initial bachelors? If you were telling me the BA content is mandatory for the JD then that's a different story. Pursuant to such it would be illogical/ unfair of the HSMP Team to take into account the BA.

2. Further a slight correction - in the UK one would study law for 3 years to get their LLB. They would then need to take the Legal Practice Course - 1yr. They would then need to be under a training contract - 2 yrs = 6 yrs in total even before practicing as a lawyer. HSMP Team comparing degree phase only not the post degree aspect. As such it is fact that your JD = UK LLB = 15 points.

3. In what ways are US requirements to practice law more stricter? The reason you study more subjects is AFAIK due to the UK system allowing for specialisation at an earlier stage. Dare I say your comment is rather sweeping - perhaps specific areas of practice may have difference aspects.

4. I base my statement on both NARIC and personal knowledge.

5. Revised score is 15, 35 and 25 = 75...more than enough. The caseworker only needs to be satisfied as to the evidence submitted in support of your application IMHO particularly that pertaining to ability to practice.

Good luck

regards

[deborahCO]

1. The 7 Yrs you mention is a peculiarity of the US education system in relation to its legal profession. With all due respect would you not agree that you can do the JD without the initial bachelors? If you were telling me the BA content is mandatory for the JD then that's a different story. Pursuant to such it would be illogical/ unfair of the HSMP Team to take into account the BA.

Actually, you cannot study for a JD without first being awarded your bachelor's degree from an accredited 4-year college. Any accredited American law school requires the bachelors as a prerequisite to enrolling for a JD degree. Thus 4 years Bachelors + 3 years JD = 7 years required study for an American law degree.

2. Further a slight correction - in the UK one would study law for 3 years to get their LLB. They would then need to take the Legal Practice Course - 1yr. They would then need to be under a training contract - 2 yrs = 6 yrs in total even before practicing as a lawyer. HSMP Team comparing degree phase only not the post degree aspect. As such it is fact that your JD = UK LLB = 15 points.

I'm not sure that I follow that, as that would make the UK law degree the equivalent of an American BA, and would render UK lawyers unable to sit for American bar exams, which I know is not the case.

3. In what ways are US requirements to practice law more stricter? The reason you study more subjects is AFAIK due to the UK system allowing for specialisation at an earlier stage. Dare I say your comment is rather sweeping - perhaps specific areas of practice may have difference aspects.

US requirements are stricter in that American lawyers must study and pass exams on approximately 12-17 basic legal subjects and a multijurisdictional exam on basic laws of all states (i.e., Real Property, Torts, Contracts, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, and Civil Procedure), while the UK version has only 4 topics to its exam. Additionally, UK lawyers are taught specialisations, requiring them to take tracks for exam (i.e., civil or criminal). American lawyers must study and pass exams on both civil and criminal law, and are eligible to practise transactional (=solicitor) or litigation before the Court (= barrister) without further requirements due to the comprehensive nature of American legal study and our bar exams.

I'm concerned that I didn't submit enough evidence of the requirements, so sending off for my NARIC equivalency report today. As for job eligibility, my application was probably pretty thin there, as I have worked both as an attorney and for a non-profit (2 yrs) doing development work and I could work in that field again without any special exams being required. I submitted job postings for both, and an explanation of my belief of my eligibility to do either. I hope that was enough, but given the delay, it seems maybe my application wasn't sufficient!

Again, many many thanks for your advice!!!

[Kayalami]

Actually, you cannot study for a JD without first being awarded your bachelor's degree from an accredited 4-year college. Any accredited American law school requires the bachelors as a prerequisite to enrolling for a JD degree. Thus 4 years Bachelors + 3 years JD = 7 years required study for an American law degree.

I am not disputing that a Bachelor's is a pre-requisite to study law in the US - as per my prior response this is just a feature of the system. Excactly on what grounds this is I can't ascertain but presume its either a 'filtering' or 'foundation strengthening' mechanism. Fact remains that if the BA was not a pre-requisite one could still do the JD straight from High School where holding appropriate credits ala UK - hence a US JD = UK LLB = 15 points..for the HSMP Team to judge it otherwise would be unfair/ without merit.

I'm not sure that I follow that, as that would make the UK law degree the equivalent of an American BA, and would render UK lawyers unable to sit for American bar exams, which I know is not the case.

What excactly don't you follow? You deem your qualifications to JD to equate to a UK lawyer. I'm saying that IMHO this is incorrect..both systems require a period of appropriate training leading to a 'right to practice'...hence a US JD (degree only) does not equate to a UK (qualified with right to practice) lawyer.

US requirements are stricter in that American lawyers must study and pass exams on approximately 12-17 basic legal subjects and a multijurisdictional exam on basic laws of all states (i.e., Real Property, Torts, Contracts, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, and Civil Procedure), while the UK version has only 4 topics to its exam. Additionally, UK lawyers are taught specialisations, requiring them to take tracks for exam (i.e., civil or criminal). American lawyers must study and pass exams on both civil and criminal law, and are eligible to practise transactional (=solicitor) or litigation before the Court (= barrister) without further requirements due to the comprehensive nature of American legal study and our bar exams.

So one system vis a vis the other has breadth and one depth - which is stricter in either is a matter of reviewing in great detail the total content covered across to both educational qualifications, training and right to practice in relation to relevant statutes and legal systems...are we going into semantics here

I'm concerned that I didn't submit enough evidence of the requirements, so sending off for my NARIC equivalency report today. As for job eligibility, my application was probably pretty thin there, as I have worked both as an attorney and for a non-profit (2 yrs) doing development work and I could work in that field again without any special exams being required. I submitted job postings for both, and an explanation of my belief of my eligibility to do either. I hope that was enough, but given the delay, it seems maybe my application wasn't sufficient!

You can always send in additional documentation you deem relevant in support of your application prior to processing - such may or may not get there in time/ be of relevance.

Again, many many thanks for your advice!!!

Sure - anytime.

[deborahCO]

Well, while I don't agree with your depiction of how you view the comparisons (and want to correct you on your misinterpretation that a US JD doesn't qualify to practice law - under either US or UK, you CANNOT practice law without first taking exams; and you should recognize that the US JD is the first GRADUATE degree, while the LLB is an UNDERGRADUATE degree), but I respect your thoughts on the issue and will weigh my submission of additional documents with your advice in mind. Again, thanks. I'll let you know what NARIC has to say, but its been an interesting comparison, with very helpful insights from you for my application.

[Kayalami]

Well, while I don't agree with your depiction of how you view the comparisons (and want to correct you on your misinterpretation that a US JD doesn't qualify to practice law - under either US or UK, you CANNOT practice law without first taking exams; and you should recognize that the US JD is the first GRADUATE degree, while the LLB is an UNDERGRADUATE degree), but I respect your thoughts on the issue and will weigh my submission of additional documents with your advice in mind. Again, thanks. I'll let you know what NARIC has to say, but its been an interesting comparison, with very helpful insights from you for my application.

Why don't I simplify this:

1. In US - JD is the academic pre-requisite to a career in legal practice.

2. In UK - LLB is the academic pre-requisite to a career in legal practice.

Pursuant to 1/2

a) Do you or do you not agree that 1and 2 hold true?

b) If indeed (a) holds true, do you or do you not agree, that they are of the same stature - purely in the context of comparisons as an academic pre-requisite for the legal profession as per HSMP requirements?

In keeping with the traditions of the legal profession it would aid my understanding best if you can stick to 'Yes' or 'No' answers .

Regards

Kayalami

[deborahCO]

kayalami - You are CORRECT. I suppose that gets at the heart of my question, which is...does my Juris Doctor count for anything under NARIC, and it seems the answer is NO. As I already have a 4 year undergrad bachelor's degree which I think we do agree would equate to British bachelor's degree, then my having done an additional 3 years is worthless and that is gut-wrenching to accept.

But, as a good sport - YOU WERE ABSOLUTELY 100% CORRECT. Again, thanks for your good advice. Now, can you tell me how to get my dog to behave?

[Joseph]

I agree Deborah, it's totally unfair. I have an American MBA which was a two-year post graduate program and I got 25 points, no questions asked. If I had gone for a JD degree it would have been 3 years instead of 2, so it would make sense that a JD is at least equivalent to a Master's degree.

I don't claim to be an expert on this, but I understand there are two routes to becoming a solicitor in the UK. You can study law straightaway in university and get an LLB degree which is an undergraduate degree as Kayalami says. After interning in a law firm and passing exams, you can become a solicitor (but it's more likely to be the low-end variety--like real estate closing or conveyancing, wills, but not corporate law).

Or, you can get a liberal arts, engineering, business or whatever bachelors degree and then go to graduate school and get an LLM (Master in Law) degree which is usually about 1 year. With an internship and sitting for the exams, this would also enable you to become a solicitor, but I would argue that this would be viewed as a higher qualification than the LLB route. Having an LLM would help get better corporate law and law firm jobs and it probably would help in terms of eventually getting a barrister appointment.

Also, it's my understanding that American lawyers are generally fully qualified to argue cases in court, while here you have to be appointed a barrister to do so. (Any solicitors out there?)

I would argue that your JD is at least equivalent to the LLM and is therefore worth 25 points. (I would even try for the doctorate and see what happens). If you include copies of the transcripts showing the full number of years (7 in total), I think they will give you a favourable ruling. Try it and let us know!

Joseph

[deborahCO]

Joseph: Thanks for your comments. Wanted to let you know you are right in that US lawyers are automatically qualified (after passing the bar) to practice in nearly every court (except the US Supreme Court, which has additional requirements) while a British solicitor is not allowed an "audience" before their courts. You have to be a barrister to argue in court in the UK. I hope to one day get my LLM, but have to put that off for now, mainly financial concerns, but will hopefully get that once I'm in the UK.

I did apply for the PhD equivalent points, but I don't actually know what got awarded. I received my approval letter in the mail yesterday (yeah!) and it didn't elaborate on how many points were awarded. I basically think they passed me on:

15 pts = eduction (JD = LLB)
25 pts = 5 years experience graduate level work + 2 yrs senior position
25 pts = earning capacity
65 pts = total

So, if they awarded the minimum, it looks like I still qualified due to my earnings and experience. Hey, like the bar exam, passing is passing - I don't need the extra points!