Jump to content

Juris Doctor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jkhamlin (talk | contribs) at 20:28, 25 May 2008 (disputing "doctorate"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"J.D." redirects here. For other uses, see JD.
A typical juris doctor diploma, here from Suffolk University Law School
File:Jd gown.jpg
Academic gown for the Juris Doctor[1]

Juris Doctor (abbreviated J.D. or JD, from the Latin, Teacher of Law) is a first professional[2][3] graduate degree[4][5][6] and professional doctorate[7][8][9][10][11][12] in law. The degree was first awarded by Harvard University in the United States in the late 19th century as a degree similar to the old European doctor of law degree (such as the dottore di giurisprudenza in Italy and the J.U.D. in Germany) and the legal studies counterpart to the M.D. degree.[13] Originating from the 19th century Harvard movement for the scientific study of law, it is the first and only law degree that has a goal of being the primary professional preparation for lawyers (and therefore a terminal professional degree). It is the only professional doctorate in law, and is unique among doctorate programs in being a three year program in most jurisdictions (many doctorates are four years or longer). Just like other professional doctorates (M.D., D.D.S., etc.), a research dissertation or thesis is not a part of the J.D. This degree primarily exists in the United States, but recently has appeared in universities in other countries for the first time, although it has a unique form in each country (please see the section of this article entitled Modern Variants).

Historical Context

The unique nature of the J.D. can be better understood by a review of the context of the history of legal education in the U.K. and the U.S. The first degree awarded at universities was the doctor of law, however this was scholarly education and not adequate to prepare one to practice law. Professional training for practicing law in England used to go on in the Inns of Court, but over time the training functions of the Inns lessened considerably and apprenticeships with individual practioners arose as the prominent medium of preparation. However, because of the lack of standardization of study and of objective standards for appraisal of these apprenticeships, in Canada and the United States the university again arose to take a role in the education of lawyers.

Origins of the Law Degree in Europe

The first doctor degrees were law degrees at the University of Bologna, the first university in Europe

The first academic degrees were all law degrees, and the first law degrees were doctorates. The origins of the doctorate dates back to the ijazat attadris wa 'l-ifttd ("license to teach and issue legal opinions") in the medieval Islamic madrasahs.[14] The foundations of the first universities in Europe were the glossators of the 11th century, which were schools of law. [15] The first European university, that of Bologna, was founded as a school of law by four famous legal scholars in the 12th century who were students of the glossator school in that city. It is from this history that it is said that the first academic title of doctor applied to scholars of law. The degree and title were not applied to scholars of other disciplines until the 13th century.[16] And at the University of Bologna from its founding in the 12th century until the end of the 20th century the only degree conferred was the doctorate, usually earned after five years of intensive study after secondary school. The rising of the doctor of philosophy to its present level is a modern novelty. At its origins, a doctorate was simply a qualification for a guild—that of teaching law.[17]

The University of Bologna served as the model for other law schools of the medieval age.[18] While it was common for students of law to visit an study at schools in other countries, such was not the case with England because of the English rejection of Roman Law and although Oxford did teach canonical law, its importance was always superior to civil law in that institution.[19]

The Inns of Court of London served as a professional school for lawyers in England

In England in 1292 when Edward I first requested that lawyers be trained students merely sat in the courts and observed, but over time the students would hire professionals to lecture them in their residences, which led to the institution of the Inns of Court system.[20] The original method of education at the Inns of Court was a mix of moot court-like practice and lecture, as well as court proceedings observation.[21] By the seventeenth century, the Inns obtained a status as a kind of university akin to Oxford and Cambridge, though very specialized in purpose.[22] With the frequent absence of parties to suits during the [Crusades], the importance of the lawyer role grew tremendously, and the demand for lawyers grew.[23] The apprenticeship program for solicitors thus emerged, structured and governed by the same rules as the apprenticeship programs for the trades[24] Oxford and Cambridge did not see common law as worthy of study, and included coursework in law only in the context of canon and civil law and for the purpose of the study of philosophy or history only, therefore they did not train lawyers.[25] Professional training in England was unlike that of continental Europe, where it was viewed as an academic discipline, and stressed practical training.[26]

The training of solicitors by apprenticeship was formally established by an act of parliament in 1729.[27] William Blackstone became the first lecturer of law at Oxford in 1753, but the university did not establish the program for the purpose of professional study, and the lectures were very philosophical and theoretical in nature.[28] Blackstone insisted that the study of law should be university based, where concentration on foundational principles can be had, instead of concentration on detail and procedure had through apprenticeship and the Inns of Court.[29]

The Inns of Court continued but became less effective and admission to the bar still did not require any significant educational activity or examination, therefore in 1846 the Parliament examined the education and training of prospective barristers and found the system to be inferior to the legal education provided in Europe and the United States.[30] Therefore, formal schools of law were called for, but not finally established until later in the century, and even then the bar did not consider a university degree in admission decisions.[31]

Initially there was much resistance to lawyers in colonial North America because of the role they played in hierarchical England, but slowly the colonial governments started using the services of professionals trained in the Inns of Court in London, and by the end of the American Revolution there was a functional bar in each state.[32] As institutions for training developed in the colonies, because of the distrust of a profession only open to the elite in England, the institutions which developed in what would become the United States would be much different than those in England.[33]

Initially in the United States the legal professionals were trained and imported from England[34] A formal apprenticeship or clerkship program was established first in New York in 1730--at that time a seven year clerkship was required, and in 1756 a four year college degree was required in addition to five years of clerking and an examination.[35] Later the requirements were reduced to require only two years of college education.[36] But a system like the Inns did not develop, and a college education was not required in England until the 19th century, so this system was unique.

The clerkship program required much individual study and the mentoring lawyer was expected to carefully select materials for study and guide the clerk in his study of the law and ensure that it was being absorbed. [37] The student was supposed to compile his notes of his reading of the law into a “commonplace book,” which he would try to memorize.[38] Although those were the ideals, in reality the clerks were often overworked and rarely were able to study the law individually as expected. They were often employed to teadious tasks, such as making handwritten copies of documents. Finding sufficient legal texts was also a seriously debilitating issue, and there was no standardization in the books assigned to the clerk trainees because they were assigned by their mentor, whose opinion of the law maybe different greatly from his peers.[39] It was said by one famous attorney in the U.S., William Livingston, in 1745 in a New York newspaper that the clerkship program was severely flawed, and that most mentors “have no manner of concern for their clerk’s future welfare… [T]is a monstrous absurdity to suppose, that the law is to be learnt by a perpetual copying of precedents.”[40] There were some few mentors that were dedicated to the service, and because of their rarity, they became so sought after that the first law schools evolved from the offices of some of these attorneys who took on many clerks and began to spend more time training than practicing law.[41]

Tapping Reeve, founder of the first law school in North America, the Litchfield Law School, in 1773

It was seen over the years that the apprenticeship program was not capable of producing lawyers capable of serving their clients.[42] The apprenticeship programs often employed the trainee with menial tasks, and while they were well trained in the day to day operations of a law office, they were generally unprepared practitioners or legal reasoners.[43] The establishment of formal faculties of law in U.S. universities did not occur until the latter part of the 18th century .[44] The first law degree granted by a U.S. university was a Bachelor of Law in 1793 by the College of William and Mary, which was abbreviated L.B.; Harvard was the first university to use the LL.B. abbreviation in the United States.[45]

The first university law programs in the United States, such as that of the University of Maryland established in 1812, included much theoretical and philosophical study, including works such as the Bible, Cicero, Seneca, Aristotle, Adam Smith, Montesqieu and Grotius.[46] It has been said that the early university law schools of the early 19th century seemed to be preparing students for careers as statesmen rather than as lawyers.[47] At the LL.B. programs in the early 1900’s at Stanford University and Yale continued to include “cultural study,” which comprised of courses in languages, mathematics and economics.[48]

In the 1850’s there were many proprietary schools which originated from a practitioner taking on multiple apprentices and establishing a school and which provided a practical legal education, as opposed to the one offered in the universities which offered an education in the theory, history and philosophy of law.[49] The universities assumed that the acquisition of skills would happen in practice, while the proprietary schools concentrated on the practical skills during education.[50]

A Revolutionary Approach: Scientific Study of the Law
Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, lecturer of law at Harvard and proponent of the scientific study of law

In part to compete with the small professional law schools, there began a great change in U.S. university legal education. For a short time beginning in 1826 Yale began to offer a complete “practitioners’ course” which lasted two years and included practical courses, such as pleading drafting.[51] U.S. Supreme Court justice Joseph Story started the spirit of change in legal education at Harvard when, as a lecturer there in the early 19th century, he advocated a more “scientific study” of the law.[52] Therefore at Harvard the education was much of a trade school type of approach to legal education, contrary to the more liberal arts education advocated by Blackstone at Oxford and Jefferson at William and Mary.[53] Nonetheless there continued to be debate among educators over whether legal education should be more vocational, as at the private law schools, or through a rigorous scientific method, such as that developed by Story and Langdell.[54][55] In the words of Dorsey Ellis, “Langdell viewed law as a science and the law library as the laboratory, with the cases providing the basis for learning those ‘principles or doctrines’ of which ‘law, considered as a science, consists.’”[56] Nonetheless, into the year 1900 most states did not require a university education (although an apprenticeship was often required) and most practitioners had not attended any law school or college.[57]

Therefore, the modern legal education system in the U.S. is a combination of teaching law as a science and a practical skill,[58] implementing elements such as clinical training, which has become an essential part of legal education in the U.S. and in the J.D. program of study.[59] Whereas in the 18th and 19th century, few U.S. lawyers trained in an apprenticeship “achieved a level of competence necessary to adequately serve their clients,” today as a result of the development of the U.S. legal education system, “law graduates perceive themselves to be prepared upon graduation” for the practice of law.[60]

The J.D. originated in the United States during a movement to improve training of the professions. The didactical approaches which resulted were revolutionary for university education and have slowly been implemented outside the U.S., but only recently and in stages. The degrees which resulted from this new approach, such as the M.D. and the J.D., are just as different from their European counterparts as the educational approaches differ.

Professional doctorates were developed in the United States in the 19th century, the first being the M.D. in 1807,[61] but the professional law degree took more time. At the time the legal system in the United States was still in development as the educational institutions were developing, and the status of the legal profession was at that time still ambiguous (unlike that of the medical practitioners, whose place in society has always been well established), therefore the development of the legal degree took much time.[62] Even when some universities offered training in law, they did not offer a degree.[63] Because in the United States there were no Inns of Court, and the English academic degrees did not provide the necessary professional training, the models from England were inapplicable, and the degree program took some time to develop.[64] At first the degree took the form of a B.L. (such as at the College of William and Mary), but then Harvard, keen on importing legitimacy through the trappings of Oxford and Cambridge, implemented a LL.B. degree.[65] This was somewhat controversial at the time because it was a professional training without any of the cultural or classical studies required of a bachelors degree in England.[66] Thus, even though the name of the English LL.B. degree was implemented at Harvard, the program in the U.S. was nonetheless intended as practical or professional training, and not, as in England, merely a bachelor of arts denoting a specialization in law.[67]

Creation of the Juris Doctor

Christopher Langdell, one of the scholars at Harvard who established the J.D.
File:James parker hall.jpg
James Parker Hall, one of the first deans of the University of Chicago School of Law and a major proponent of the J.D.

In the mid-19th century there was much concern about the quality of legal education in the United States. Christopher Columbus Langdell, who served as dean of Harvard Law School from 1870 to 1895, dedicated his life to reforming legal education in the United States; the historian Robert Stevens wrote that "it was Langdell's goal to turn the legal profession into a university educated one — and not at the undergraduate level, but through a three-year post baccalaureate degree."[68] This graduate level study would allow the intensive legal training that Langdell had developed, known as the case method (a method of studying landmark cases) and the socratic method (a method of examining students on the reasoning of the court in the cases studied). Therefore, a graduate high level law degree was established, the Juris Doctor, implementing the case and socratic methods as its didactic approach.[69] The J.D. was established as the equivalent of the J.U.D. in Germany to reflect the advanced study required to be an effective lawyer. It was not a conversion of the LL.B. degree, but a graduate degree to be distinguished from undergraduate programs. It was established by the faculty of law at Harvard first, and while it was pending the approval of the administration, the degree was introduced at all the best law schools in the nations, such as Stanford, Pennsylvania, and Berkeley. Subsequently, other law schools tried to also implement the degree in order to boost the prestige of their universities, but the programs did not meet the rigorous standards of those at the better law schools. The University of Chicago Law School was the first institution to offer the J.D. exclusively.[70]

Because of tradition, and concerns about less famous universities implementing a J.D. program, there was some reluctance by some institutions, such as Yale Law School, to implement the J.D. as the only law degree.[71] By the 1960's every law school except Yale offered a J.D. as its sole professional law degree.[72] Yale continued to confer the LL.B. as a second-entry professional degree in law until 1971.[73] Nonetheless, the LL.B. at Yale retained the didactical changes of the “practioners courses” of 1826 and was very different from the LL.B. in other common law countries.[74]

Originally lawyers were trained exclusively in the Inns of Court, but even though it took nearly 150 years since common law education began with Blackstone at Oxford for university education to be part of legal training in the United Kingdom, eventually the LL.B. became a degree necessary to become a lawyer in the United Kingdom. Nonetheless, in England the LL.B. is an undergraduate scholarly program and does not provide the professional training required before becoming licensed in that jurisdiction.[75]

The bachelor degree originated at the University of Paris, which system was implemented at Oxford and Cambridge.[76] The “arts” designation of the degree traditionally signifies that the student has undertaken a certain amount of study of the classics.[77] On continental Europe the bachelors withered away and was eventually replaced by the doctor, but England was more conservative and for many years held on to the distinction between the bachelor and the master.[78]

Because the English legal education is undergraduate and kind of liberal arts degree a great number of the graduates have no intentions of becoming attorneys.[79] The approach of the English degree can be seen in the required curriculum, in which there is no study of civil procedure, and relatively few courses in advanced law such as business entities, bankruptcy, evidence, family law, etc.[80] There has been a trend in the past twenty years in England to introduce more professionally relevant courses in the curriculum and the law school has taken a more central role in the preparation of lawyers in England,[81] but the degree is still more scholarly or academic than those in North America. This is also the case for other commonwealth jurisdictions with the LL.B. such as in Australia, India and Hong Kong.

Legal education in Canada is exceptional among commonwealth countries. Even though the legal system of Canada an implant of that in England, the Canadian system is unique in that there was no Inns of Court, the practical training occurred in the office of a licensed attorney, and that since 1889 it required a university degree as a prerequisite to initiating a clerkship (which requirement was not implemented until much later in England).[82] The education in law schools in Canada was similar to that in the United States at the turn of the century, but with a greater concentration on statutory drafting and interpretation, and elements of liberal education.[83] The bar associations in Canada were influenced by the changes at Harvard, and were sometimes quicker to nationally implement the changes proposed in the United States, such as requiring previous college education before studying law.[84]

Modern Variants

Legal education is rooted in the history and structure of the legal system of the jurisdiction where the education is given, therefore law degrees are vastly different from country to country, making comparisons among degrees problematic. This has proven true in the context of the various forms of the J.D. which have been implemented around the world.

For many years the J.D. was unique to law schools in the U.S. But with the rise in international success of law firms from the United States, and the rise in students from outside the U.S. attending U.S. law schools, attorneys with the J.D. have become increasingly common internationally. Therefore the prestige of the J.D. has also risen, and many universities outside of the U.S. have started to offer the J.D., often for the express purpose of raising the prestige of their law school and graduates. Nevertheless, these institutions usually aim to appropriate the name of the degree only, and often the new J.D. program of study is the same as that of their traditional law degree, which is usually more scholarly in purpose than the professional training intended with the J.D. as created in the U.S. One should not infer, however, that because the United States does not have the more stringent postacademic vocational training such as in Canada and the UK, that the academic programs in the latter are somehow inferior.


Comparisons of J.D. Variants[85]
Jurisdiction Scholarly Content Required? Duration in Years Different from LL.B. in Jurisdiction? Sufficient Education for License?
Standard J.D. Program No 3 Yes Yes
Australia only 1 legal theory course 3 1 less year (curriculum the same) No
Canada Yes (including research paper) 3 No No
Hong Kong Yes (including research paper) 2 2 less years (curriculum the same) No
Japan No 3 N/A No
Philippines Yes (including major thesis) 4 Yes (thesis and apprenticeship) Yes



Variant Characteristics

Only until very recently (about 1997) the only institutions to offer the J.D. were in the United States. Universities in other jurisdictions have slowly been introducing the degrees that are called a J.D., but have important differences from the J.D. as originally intended, and that fit the needs of the various legal systems in which they are found.

The Standard J.D. as a Professional Training Program

As stated by two individuals who played a large part in creating the degree, James Hall and Christopher Langdell, the J.D. is a doctorate like the J.U.D. or D.C.L., but is a professional program like the M.D. preparing practitioners through a scientific method of analysing and teaching the law through logic and adversarial analysis.[86] It has existed as thus described in the United States for over 100 years, and can therefore be termed the standard or traditional J.D. program. Because it is a professional doctorate it requires a bachelors degree for entry. The program of study for the degree has remained substantially unchanged since its creation, and is an intensive study of the substantive law and its professional applications (and therefore requires no thesis research or other scholarly work). As a professional training, it provides sufficient training for entry into practice (no apprenticeship or other training is necessary to sit for the bar exam). It requires at least three academic years of full time study. Strictly defined, the United States is the only jurisdiction with this form of a J.D., but the University of Tokyo (in Japan) and the University of Melbourne (in Australia) are attempting to follow this model closely.

As a Degree for Graduates of Other Departments

There has been an increase in the popularity of entering the professions, and to meet this demand some schools offer a program for students who have already graduated from another department to return to school to earn a law degree. Many of the participants in this kind of program already have some work experience. The best example of this form are the J.D. programs in Hong Kong. Those programs are more or less identical to the LL.B. programs, except they are usually more intensive and thus take less time to complete. These programs are not intended to be a true J.D. program as such, but merely a law degree with a name that is recognizable to the potential students they try to recruit. Because such programs are essentially a LL.B. program, this kind of program is academic in nature, shorter than other J.D. programs, and more training is required before a graduate is qualified to apply to the bar for admission (such as the PCLL and an apprenticeship). Therefore these programs are entirely unlike a J.D. program as originally conceptualized.

As a Replacement of the LL.B.

Some universities have law programs that are very similar to the J.D. programs in the United States, such as the University of Melbourne (in Australia) and the University of Toronto (in Canada). Therefore, when the J.D. program was introduced at these institutions, it was a mere re-naming of their second-entry LL.B. program and entailed no significant substantive changes to their curricula. The reason given for so doing is because of the international popularity and recognizability of the J.D., and the need to recognize the demanding graduate characteristics of the program. Because these programs are in institutions heavily influenced by those in the U.K., the J.D. programs often have some small scholarly element. And because the legal systems are also influenced by that of the U.K., an apprenticeship is still required before being qualified to apply for a license to practice. Yale University is sometimes cited as an example of this kind of program, but actually Yale had participated in the academic reforms that led to the creation of the degree, and even though Yale retained the LL.B. title for reasons of tradition until 1971, when the degree was implemented, the program was identical to the other J.D. programs in the United States, which were true professional doctorate programs.



Descriptions of the J.D. Outside the U.S.

Australia

The LL.B. is the standard law degree in Australia. While like the bachelor program in the U.K. previous college work is not required, the required coursework includes very little, if any, courses in general jurisprudence or legal theory.[87] The program last four years. Many universities such as Australian National University, Bond University, University of Queensland, University of Southern Queensland, University of New England, University of Melbourne, Monash University, University of Technology Sydney, and the University of Notre Dame Australia offer the J.D.,[88] usually for graduates from non-law programs who wish to study law. But at the University of Melbourne the J.D. degree, like at the University of Toronto, has completely replaced the LL.B. as the degree of law. A first degree is required for admittance to all J.D. programs in Australia. The program last three years and the courses, like the LL.B. program, are professionally oriented. But for both the J.D. and LL.B. programs, a graduate cannot be licensed to practice until after completing an articled clerkship program. Curiously, Bond University has a J.D. program identical to the LL.B. but for graduates of other disciplies, and that institution states that their degree is not a doctorate [89]. Even more unusual is the "LL.M. (J.D.)" at Monash University, which is the same as the Bond University program, and that institution also states that their degree is not a professional doctorate [90].

Canada

The main law degree in Canada is the LL.B., which requires previous college coursework and is very similar to the first law degree in the United States except there is some scholarly content in the required coursework (such as an academic research paper in many schools). The programs last for three years. Some universities, such as the University of Toronto changed the name of their degree to that of a J.D., and the law faculties at Osgoode Hall Law School, Queen's University, University of British Columbia, and the University of Western Ontario have recently voted to do the same. The J.D. programs in Canada are identical to those of the LL.B. Neither degrees are sufficient to qualify for a Canadian license, as the bars require an apprenticeship. Although the main reason for implementing the J.D. in Canada was to compete with U.S. law schools and their graduates, the American Bar Association has refused to recognize those degrees. In the eyes of the Canadian educational system it appears that a J.D. awarded by Canadian universities has retained the characteristics of the LL.B. at those institutions and is considered a second entry program, but not a graduate program, [91][92] nevertheless there seems to be disagreement on this point, and many institutions, such as the University of Toronto, consider the J.D. of a higher status than the LL.B. [93]

Hong Kong

The main law degree in Hong Kong is the LL.B. which is more or less identical to the LL.B. in the U.K. and the J.D. degree has been introduced as a degree for graduates from other departments. Both the Chinese University of Hong Kong and City University of Hong Kong award the J.D. degree, or 法律博士, which in Cantonese Chinese is pronounced Faat Leot Bok Si. Like the LL.B. there is much scholarly content in the required coursework. However, unlike the LL.B., the J.D. only requires two years to complete. The status of the degree in Hong Kong is truly confusing because of these facts, and the fact that the City University website states that their J.D. is not a doctorate,[94] which is one reason why such a program will not be implemented at the prestigious and less commercially-oriented Hong Kong University. Neither the LL.B. nor the J.D. provides the education sufficient for a license to practice, as graduates of both are also required to endure the PCLL and a traineeship or pupillage.

Japan

In Japan the J.D. is known as Homu Hakushi (法務博士) and has replaced the bachelor of law as the first entry law degree.[95] The program generally lasts three years. This curriculum is profesionally oriented,[96] but does not provide the education sufficient for a license, as all candidates for a license must attend the Legal Training and Reseach Institute.[97]

Philippines

In the Philippines, the J.D. degree exists alongside the more common Ll.B., and like it, is taken over four years of study. Like the standard Ll.B. program, the J.D. curriculum is considered a graduate degree, requiring a previously-earned college degree as a prerequisite to admission. It also covers core subjects required for the bar examinations, and fulfills the requisite education to sit for the bar examinations. However, unlike the Ll.B., the J.D. program requires students to finish the core bar subjects in 2 1/2 years, take elective subjects in advanced topics, legal theory, philosophy, and sometimes even theology., as well as undergo an apprenticeship and prepare a thesis.[98] The degree was first conferred in the Philippines by the Ateneo School of Law, which developed the program model adopted by most schools conferring the J.D. in the Philippines, such as the University of Batangas College of Law and the Far Eastern University Institute of Law.[99] In 2008, the University of the Philippines College of Law began conferring the J.D. on its graduates, the school choosing to simply rename its Ll.B. program into a J.D. because the "nomenclature does not accurately reflect the fact that the law degree is a professional as well as a post baccalaureate degree. "[100]

Titles

In the English language, a holder of the J.D. will generally not use the title "Dr.," although it is permissible for them to do so. In countries where holders of the first law degree use the title of doctor, J.D. holders who are attorneys will often use the title of doctor as well. The J.D. in Japan is known as Hōmu Hakushi (法務博士)[101] and in China it is called 法律博士 (Faat Leot Bok Si in Cantonese, or Falü Boshi in Mandarin).[102] The characters 博士 in Japanese and Chinese mean "doctor" and this is the same title given to holders of both professional and academic doctorate degrees.[103]

Although persons licensed as attorneys in the United States often use a variety of titles and suffixes, the titles "Attorney," "attorney-at-law," "Esquire" ("Esq.") and "lawyer" must be distinguished from "J.D.". Generally, the designation "J.D." indicates a person who has received the degree from a law school, whereas "Attorney" and the like indicate the person is licensed to practice law. Some states restrict the use of the "J.D." suffix to those licensed to practice law. Arizona, for instance, forbids the use of "J.D." as a title if it is "reasonably likely to induce others to believe the person or entity is authorized to engage in the practice of law in Arizona".[104]. (In all states, a person who is not admitted to practice law but who represents or implies that he or she is an attorney may be subject to penalties for the unauthorized practice of law or impersonating a lawyer, both of which are criminal offenses in many jurisdictions).[105]

There has been much debate as to whether J.D. recipients may use the title of Doctor and refer to themselves as "Doctor". A recent law article on the topic appeared in the November 2006 issue of the American Bar Association Journal, entitled "Lawyers Are Doctors, Too".[106] ABA Informal Opinion 1152 (1970) allows those who hold a Juris Doctor (J.D.) to use the title doctor. (See also ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Rule 2-102(E).) Although the J.D. is not considered by some academicians as a terminal degree, the highest degree of some university presidents (which position requires a Ph.D. or similar degree)[107] has been that of a J.D. (e.g. 1971-1991 Harvard president Derek Curtis Bok, and the present president of Columbia University Lee Bollinger). Attorneys nonetheless avoid using the title doctor in a manner that might mislead the public, such as a medical malpractice attorney using the title "Doctor" in a manner that could cause the public to believe the attorney is a medical professional with relevant medical experience. On the rare occasions when a J.D. holder is seen using the title "doctor," it is in an academic (because the J.D. is a doctorate) rather than professional (because of the confusion with a medical doctor) context.[108].

Debate about Academic Status

Because of its unique characteristics, the Juris Doctor is a degree over which there has been much debate.

The existence of the S.J.D. has sometimes caused confusion. For example, it is claimed that since a doctorate is the highest degree in a university,[109] and the J.D. is not a terminal degree,[110][111] the J.D. is therefore not a doctorate. Some of the reasons cited for stating that the J.D. is not a terminal degree are that the LL.M. and S.J.D. both require the J.D. for admission, and that the J.D. is a first professional degree in law, just like the LL.B.[112] It has also been stated that since the S.J.D. is the doctorate equivalent of the Ph.D., and the J.D. is not, the J.D. is not a doctorate. However, the S.J.D. and J.D. are completely different kinds of degrees—the S.J.D. is the most advanced law degree and is, indeed, the terminal degree in law (designed for teaching and research as is the Ph.D.) The J.D. is a first professional doctorate.[113] Virtually all U.S. law schools that confer the S.J.D. (which are only about 20 of the nation's top law schools), recognize the S.J.D. as a "graduate" law degree (as distinct from the J.D.) and as their "most advanced law degree." It is hard to argue with institutions such as Harvard and Yale about the meaning of their own degrees.

Even though comparing law degrees from different jurisdictions is problematic, attempts at such comparisons have also caused misunderstandings. Because the J.D. and the LL.B. are both first professional degrees some have said that they are therefore equivalent, which however ignores the facts that (besides the LL.B. being a bachelors) not all LL.B.’s are the same and that the curriculum of the J.D. in the U.S. and the LL.B. outside the U.S. differ substantially.[114] It has also been stated that both the LL.B. and the J.D. in the U.S. is sufficient for a bar exam in the U.S., however this applies only to an LL.B. awarded by an U.S. institution,[115] and even though some universities in the U.S. awarded the LL.B. earlier in the 20th century, the curriculum of the programs and those of the J.D. were identical, and very different than the undergraduate LL.B. in England. [116] Finally, it has also been pointed out that the London School of Economic and Columbia University offer a joint degree program, with credits from the undergraduate LL.B. program and the J.D. program perfectly transferrable.[117] However, this is the only such program, and for LSE students (one of the very best schools in Europe) entrance into the program is extremely competitive, and only a very small percentage of students are deemed academically prepared to participate in the J.D. program.[118]

Some confusion also arises in the attempt to compare the J.D. (a professional degree) to the Ph.D. (a scholarly degree). It is sometimes mentioned that the pay rate for J.D. holders in the U.S. government is sometimes below that of holders of a Ph.D.[119] Also, the J.D. program is typically only three years long and does not require a dissertation, while the Ph.D. requires an original research dissertation and usually takes at least four years to complete. Because there is no dissertation, there is no unique contribution to knowledge from the J.D. degree. Also, the J.D., unlike the Ph.D., does not allow the student any choice in study and is only preparation for the bar exam, therefore no unique expertise is acquired. Finally, the U.S. Department of Education has stated that the J.D. is not a research doctorate and not equivalent to the Ph.D. since it is not a research degree,[120] however it does not state that the Ph.D. is of a higher grade than the J.D., only that the J.D. is not a research doctorate. The fact remains, the J.D. and the S.J.D. (the Ph.D. in law) are two different degrees. There is no reason to attempt to compare them any more than there should be for someone attempting to compare the LL.M. with the S.J.D. The first degree in law in the U.S. is the J.D., the master's level is the LL.M. and the doctorate level is the S.J.D. You cannot compare lower degrees with the higher degrees because they are never equivalent; one simply serves as the prerequisite for the other.

Much misunderstanding also results from a lack of understanding of history and the creation of the J.D. For example, it is claimed that the J.D. in the U.S. is merely a renaming of the LL.B., such as happened at Yale in the 1970’s, and it is assumed that the change occurred without any curricular or didactical changes. But in most cases the J.D. was created by universities as an entirely new program with a revolutionary curriculum and a new “scientific” approach to learning the law, and in the cases when schools such as Yale did rename their LL.B. program to a J.D. program, it was done after their LL.B. program had already implemented the elements of the J.D. program, except in name only. [121] There is also debate about the legitimacy of the J.D. because it is believed that the degree is new, that it only exists in the U.S. and is a creation of lawyers in the U.S., through the A.B.A., in an effort to inflate their credentials and standing. It is therefore claimed that the J.D. is a misleading title and U.S. law schools should go back to awarding the LL.B. But this claim contradicts the facts of the creation of the degree on every point.[122]

Notwithstanding these arguments, there is historical justification for the J.D.,[123] the J.D. was created by one of the world's top universities, [124] it is only a few years younger than the Ph.D. (in English-speaking universities),[125] and there is no contention among U.S. universities that the J.D. is a legitimate professional doctorate.[126]

See also

References

Look up Juris Doctor in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
  1. ^ Frank W. Haycraft, The Degrees and Hoods of the World's Universities and Colleges, Cheshuni Press, London, 1927; David A. Lackmiller, Scholars on Parade: Colleges, Universities, Costumes and Degrees, MacMillan, 1969; and American Council on Education
  2. ^ USNEI-Structure of U.S. Education - Graduate/Post Education Levels
  3. ^ In the College Blue Book, the degrees offered by law schools are listed as doctorates and not first professional degrees. The College Blue Book, Degrees Offered by College and Subject, MacMillan, 1999; page 817.
  4. ^ http://www.berkeley.edu/catalog/grad/degrees.html UC Berkeley general catalog lists the graduate degrees offered at Berkeley. The list includes the J.D. and states that "The J.D. (Juris Doctor) is the basic law degree. It is a graduate degree."
  5. ^ http://www.usc.edu/dept/publications/cat95/acadpol/degreeprog.html#grad The USC catalog includes the J.D. under its list of graduate degrees
  6. ^ http://jd.law.unimelb.edu.au/ University of Melbourne JD degree site, states that the JD is "a fully graduate law degree"
  7. ^ http://www.pb.uillinois.edu/aaude/documents/graded_glossary.doc
  8. ^ http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf06312/ Under "Data notes" mentions that the J.D. is a professional doctorate.
  9. ^ http://www.sdcba.org/ethics/ethicsopinion69-5.html under “other references” discusses differences between academic and professional doctorate, and statement that the J.D. is a professional doctorate
  10. ^ http://web.utah.edu/graduate_school/ghrequirements.html#prof The J.D. degree is listed under doctorate degrees
  11. ^ http://www.blk-bonn.de/papers/hochschulsystem_usa.pdf report by the German Federal Ministry of Education stating that the J.D. is a professional doctorate
  12. ^ NoCoversCareerGuide2007Updated082207.qxp
  13. ^ Hall, James Parker, American Law School Degrees, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Dec., 1907), pp. 112-117.
  14. ^ Makdisi, George (April–June 1989), "Scholasticism and Humanism in Classical Islam and the Christian West", Journal of the American Oriental Society, 109 (2): 175-182 [175-77]{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)
  15. ^ Catholic Encyclopedia
  16. ^ idem
  17. ^ Reinildis van Ditzhuyzen, The ‘creatio doctoris’: Diversity or convergence of ceremonial forms? (2005).
  18. ^ Antonio García y García, “The Faculties of Law,” A History of the University in Europe, Cambridge University Press, 1992; page 389.
  19. ^ id. at 390
  20. ^ Stein, Ralph Michael, The Path of Legal Education from Edward to Langdell: A History of Insular Reaction, Pace University School of Law Faculty Publications, 1981, 57 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 429 (1981); page 430.
  21. ^ id. at 431.
  22. ^ id. at 432
  23. ^ id. at 433.
  24. ^ id. at 434.
  25. ^ id. at 435.
  26. ^ Moline, Brian J., Early American Legal Education, 42 Washburn Law Journal 775 (2003).
  27. ^ Stein, Ralph Michael, The Path of Legal Education from Edward to Langdell: A History of Insular Reaction, Pace University School of Law Faculty Publications, 1981, and 57 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 429 (1981); page 435.
  28. ^ id. at 435.
  29. ^ Moline, Brian J., Early American Legal Education, 42 Washburn Law Journal 775 (2003); page 793.
  30. ^ Stein, Ralph Michael, The Path of Legal Education from Edward to Langdell: A History of Insular Reaction, Pace University School of Law Faculty Publications, 1981, and 57 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 429 (1981); page 436
  31. ^ id. at 436.
  32. ^ id. at 775.
  33. ^ Stein, Ralph Michael, The Path of Legal Education from Edward to Langdell: A History of Insular Reaction, Pace University School of Law Faculty Publications, 1981, 57 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 429 (1981); page 429.
  34. ^ Stein, Ralph Michael, The Path of Legal Education from Edward to Langdell: A History of Insular Reaction, Pace University School of Law Faculty Publications, 1981, 57 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 429 (1981); page 438.
  35. ^ id. at 439
  36. ^ idem
  37. ^ Moline, Brian J.,[ http://www.washburnlaw.edu/wlj/42-4/articles/moline-brian.pdf Early American Legal Education], 42 Washburn Law Journal 775 (2003); page 781
  38. ^ id. at 782.
  39. ^ id. at 782 and 783.
  40. ^ id. at 782.
  41. ^ id at 782.
  42. ^ Sonsteng, John O., "[ http://ssrn.com/abstract=1084098 A Legal Education Renaissance: A Practical Approach for the Twenty-First Century]" . William Mitchell Law Review, Vol. 34, No. 1, 2007 (Revised April 2, 2008); page 13.
  43. ^ id. at 14.
  44. ^ Stein, Ralph Michael, The Path of Legal Education from Edward to Langdell: A History of Insular Reaction, Pace University School of Law Faculty Publications, 1981, 57 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 429 (1981); page 442.
  45. ^ Marion R. Kirkwood and William B. Owens, A Brief History of the Stanford Law School, 1893-1946, Stanford University School of Law.
  46. ^ Moline, Brian J., Early American Legal Education, 42 Washburn Law Journal 775 (2003); page 794.
  47. ^ id. at 795.
  48. ^ Marion R. Kirkwood and William B. Owens, A Brief History of the Stanford Law School, 1893-1946, Stanford University School of Law; page 19.
  49. ^ Sonsteng, John O., A Legal Education Renaissance: A Practical Approach for the Twenty-First Century. William Mitchell Law Review, Vol. 34, No. 1, 2007 (Revised April 2, 2008); page 15
  50. ^ idem.
  51. ^ Moline, Brian J., Early American Legal Education, 42 Washburn Law Journal 775 (2003); page 798.
  52. ^ id. at 800.
  53. ^ id. at 801.
  54. ^ Stein, Ralph Michael, The Path of Legal Education from Edward to Langdell: A History of Insular Reaction, Pace University School of Law Faculty Publications, 1981, 57 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 429 (1981); page 445.
  55. ^ For detailed discussions of the development of Langdell’s method, see LaPiana, William P., Logic and Experience: The Origin of Modern American Legal Education, Oxford University Press (New York, 1994); and Stein, Ralph Michael, The Path of Legal Education from Edward to Langdell: A History of Insular Reaction, Pace University School of Law Faculty Publications, 1981, 57 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 429 (1981); pages 449-450.
  56. ^ Dorsey D. Ellis, Jr., Legal Education: A Perspective on the Last 130 Years of American Legal Training, 6 Wash. U.J.L. & Pol’y 157, 166 (2001).
  57. ^ Moline, Brian J., Early American Legal Education, 42 Washburn Law Journal 775 (2003); page 801.
  58. ^ Moline, Brian J., Early American Legal Education, 42 Washburn Law Journal 775 (2003); page 802.
  59. ^ Sonsteng, John O., "[ http://ssrn.com/abstract=1084098 A Legal Education Renaissance: A Practical Approach for the Twenty-First Century]" . William Mitchell Law Review, Vol. 34, No. 1, 2007 (Revised April 2, 2008); page 19.
  60. ^ id. at 9 and 13.
  61. ^ Alfred Zantzinger Reed, Training for the Public Profession of the Law, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Bulletin 15, Merrymount Press, Boston (1921); page 162.
  62. ^ id. at 165.
  63. ^ idem
  64. ^ id. at 164.
  65. ^ id. at 167.
  66. ^ id. at 161; and _____ [same author], Present-Day Law Schools in the United States and Canada, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Bulletin 21, Merrymount Press, Boston (1928); page 78
  67. ^ id. at 74; and Alfred Zantzinger Reed, Training for the Public Profession of the Law, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Bulletin 15, Merrymount Press, Boston (1921); page 169.
  68. ^ Robert Stevens, "Two Cheers For 1870: The American Law School," in Law in American History, edd Donald Fleming and Bernard Bailyn (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1971), p.427.
  69. ^ Harno, page 50.
  70. ^ Hall, James Parker, American Law School Degrees, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Dec., 1907), pp. 112-117.
  71. ^ Schoenfeld, Marcus, "J.D. or LL.B as the Basic Law Degree," Cleveland-Marshall Law Review, Vol. 4, 1963, pp. 573-579, quoted in Joanna Lombard, LL.B. to J.D. and the Professional Degree in Architecture, Proceedings of the 85th ACSA Annual Meeting, Architecture: Material and Imagined and Technology Conference, 1997. pp. 585-591.
  72. ^ idem
  73. ^ idem
  74. ^ Moline, Brian J., Early American Legal Education, 42 Washburn Law Journal 775 (2003); page 798.
  75. ^ John H. Langbein, “Scholarly and Professional Objectives in Legal Education: American Trends and English Comparisons,” Pressing Problems in the Law, Volume 2: What are Law Schools For?, Oxford University Press, 1996.
  76. ^ Alfred Zantzinger Reed, Training for the Public Profession of the Law, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Bulletin 15, Merrymount Press, Boston (1921); page 160
  77. ^ id. at 161
  78. ^ id. at 161
  79. ^ John H. Langbein, “Scholarly and Professional Objectives in Legal Education: American Trends and English Comparisons,” Pressing Problems in the Law, Volume 2: What are Law Schools For?, Oxford University Press, 1996.
  80. ^ idem
  81. ^ idem
  82. ^ Alfred Zantzinger Reed, Training for the Public Profession of the Law, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Bulletin 15, Merrymount Press, Boston (1921); page 27.
  83. ^ _____ [same author], Present-Day Law Schools in the United States and Canada, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Bulletin 21, Merrymount Press, Boston (1928); page 390.
  84. ^ id. at 390
  85. ^ Verification of the data in this table can be found in the subsequent paragraphs of this section.
  86. ^ Hall, James Parker, American Law School Degrees, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Dec., 1907), pp. 112-117.
  87. ^ University of Queensland School of Law LL.B. Program Outline
  88. ^ Description of Australian Law School Programs, Retrieved March 23, 2007.
  89. ^ http://www.bond.edu.au/study-areas/law/degrees/pg/jd.html
  90. ^ http://www.monash.edu.au/pubs/handbooks/courses/3387.html
  91. ^ http://www.gradschool.utoronto.ca/programs/masters/law.htm
  92. ^ http://law.queensu.ca/students/lss/jdProposal/jdReport/facultyBoardStudentCaucus.pdf
  93. ^ http://www.law.utoronto.ca/prosp_stdn_content.asp?itemPath=3/6/15/6/0&contentId=983#J.D.
  94. ^ City University of Hong Kong
  95. ^ The Justice System Reform Council, For a Justice System to Support Japan in the 21st Century (Jun. 12, 2001)
  96. ^ Yokohama National University Law School, JD Program Description
  97. ^ www.reds.msh-paris.fr/communication/docs/foote.pdf
  98. ^ Cesar Villanueva, Philippine Leadership Crisis and the J.D. Program. [1]
  99. ^ Curriculum models, Philippine Association of Law Schools, 2006.
  100. ^ http://law.upd.edu.ph/news.php
  101. ^ Google Translate; Longman English-Japanese Dictionary. Pearson Education, Essex UK, 2007; Pocket Kenkyusha Japanese Dictionary. Oxford, NY, 2003.
  102. ^ Google Translate; The Contemporary Chinese Dictionary. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Beijing, 2002; Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (Chinese-English). Pearson Education, Hong Kong, 2006.
  103. ^ See previous two cites, respectively, for Japanese and Chinese usage. Also see The Morrison Foester law firm website, one of the largest law firms in Asia and the United States, for an example of usage.
  104. ^ Ariz. Sup. Ct. R. 31 (a)(2)(B)(2)
  105. ^ See, e.g., Texas Penal Code section 38.122 (falsely holding oneself out as a lawyer, third degree felony, two to ten years in prison per Tex. Penal Code sec. 12.34) and section 38.123 (unauthorized practice of law, generally, Class A misdemeanor).
  106. ^ http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/lawyers_are_doctors_too/
  107. ^ University of Utah Academic Senate, Senate Summary, 11/3/03, vol. 34 n. 3, pg. 2 (3rd full paragraph)
  108. ^ Use of the Title “Doctor” in Academia, North Carolina State Bar, 2007 Formal Ethics Opinion 5, April 20, 2007. Unable to directly link, but can be found through this site Use of the title even in academic circles is rare, but does occur, as related in this forum
  109. ^ http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/doctorate?view=uk
  110. ^ http://www.acjs.org/pubs/uploads/FAQforACJSAcademicCertification2-29-08.pdf
  111. ^ Claim made on this forum http://www.lawstudents.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2516&sid=7fa078dee6ba650d5867fe458bf566fe
  112. ^ http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/05/laws_purple_maj_1.html
  113. ^ http://www.sdcba.org/ethics/ethicsopinion69-5.html
  114. ^ John H. Langbein, “Scholarly and Professional Objectives in Legal Education: American Trends and English Comparisons,” Pressing Problems in the Law, Volume 2: What are Law Schools For?, Oxford University Press, 1996.
  115. ^ Comprehensive Guide to Bar Admission Requirements 2007, National Conference of Bar Examiners and American bar Association Section of Legal Education and Admission to the Bar, 2007.
  116. ^ Moline, Brian J., Early American Legal Education, 42 Washburn Law Journal 775 (2003); page 798.
  117. ^ http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/law/programmes/doubledegree/lse-columbia.htm
  118. ^ idem
  119. ^ https://www.opm.gov/qualifications/SEC-II/s2-e5.asp Note that the operating manual also states that LL.B. and J.D. holders have the same pay grade, but this refers to U.S. LL.B. degrees awarded before 1970. In any event the U.S. OPM views both the U.S. LL.B. and the U.S. J.D. as masters level qualifications.
  120. ^ http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/us/edlite-research-doctorate.html
  121. ^ Moline, Brian J., Early American Legal Education, 42 Washburn Law Journal 775 (2003); page 798.
  122. ^ See discussion and sources in the Legal Education in the United States and the Creation of the Juris Doctor sections of this article.
  123. ^ See Historical Context section of this article
  124. ^ Hall, James Parker, American Law School Degrees, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Dec., 1907), pp. 112-117.
  125. ^ Rosenberg, Ralph P. (1962). "Eugene Schuyler's Doctor of Philosophy Degree: A Theory Concerning the Dissertation". The Journal of Higher Education. 33: 381–386. (subscription required)
  126. ^ [ http://www.pb.uillinois.edu/aaude/documents/graded_glossary.doc Glossary of Terms for Graduate Education], Association of American Universities Data Exchange.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Juris_Doctor&oldid=214900088"