Faculty questions provost's standing
The University of the District of Columbia's faculty Senate is challenging
the hiring decisions of the school's top academic officer, whose credentials
it says are inferior to those of some job applicants and subordinates.
at http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20031017-095147-6802r.htm

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 21:22:03 -0400, "Mike Yared" <myared@erols.com> in
misc.legal, wrote the following:
Faculty questions provost's standingThe University of the District of Columbia's faculty Senate is challengingthe hiring decisions of the school's top academic officer, whose credentialsit says are inferior to those of some job applicants and subordinates.at http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20031017-095147-6802r.htm

For university purposes, it seems the JD degree is sort of _in between_
the MA and the PhD degree, and depends upon the university is how they
may view the JD degree on an individual basis for employment purposes.

I know the university where I worked previously assumes the KSA of a JD
to be above an MA in terms of hiring and seniority, as one has to defend
one's work under juried review in law school (law review, debates,
etc.), but it is not the equivalent of a PhD dissertation, where
original work is orally defended before a juried review board as to its
conclusions.

OTOH, a Doc. Jur. degree is recognized by all universities of which I
am aware as the equivalent of a PhD, for oral defense of a
dissertation-like topic is required.

HTH.

Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J.D.

(formerly of):
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Special Studies

(now):
Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom

http://www.griffis-consulting.com

DISCLAIMER:

Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationship
is created. This response is for discussion purposes only. It
isn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek
out an attorney in your own state who is familar with your
state's laws and applications thereof.

"Mike Yared" <myared@erols.com> wrote:
Faculty questions provost's standingThe University of the District of Columbia's faculty Senate is challengingthe hiring decisions of the school's top academic officer, whose credentialsit says are inferior to those of some job applicants and subordinates.at http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20031017-095147-6802r.htm

Isn't it curious how much like an apple an orange is, at least
insofar as they each have a skin and make excellent frozen juices,
but how inferior an orange is insofar as making apple juice?
Just a random thought.

Back on topic, it seems to me a JD is a superior credential, because
I'll bet a JD is trained to quickly recognize that this particular
silly dispute has nothing to do with JD v. PhD, which is apparently
more than they teach some PhDs. Just a second random thought.

-Merlin

>Subject: Re: JD=Ph.D.?From: Katherine Griffis-Greenberg egylist@griffis-consulting.comDate: 10/18/2003 9:42 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <qa54pv0amu6r3u6t3pf95m1vah5rmhe5ok@4ax.com>On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 21:22:03 -0400, "Mike Yared" <myared@erols.com> inmisc.legal, wrote the following:Faculty questions provost's standingThe University of the District of Columbia's faculty Senate is challengingthe hiring decisions of the school's top academic officer, whose credentialsit says are inferior to those of some job applicants and subordinates.at http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20031017-095147-6802r.htmFor university purposes, it seems the JD degree is sort of _in between_the MA and the PhD degree, and depends upon the university is how theymay view the JD degree on an individual basis for employment purposes.I know the university where I worked previously assumes the KSA of a JDto be above an MA in terms of hiring and seniority, as one has to defendone's work under juried review in law school (law review, debates,etc.), but it is not the equivalent of a PhD dissertation, whereoriginal work is orally defended before a juried review board as to itsconclusions.

However, I think it would be informative to clarify that your own case, and all
the personal information you supplied with regard to yourself, is not meant to
be an example where university "hiring practices" are concerned since the
discussion pertains to those who are hired as "faculty". Your legal education
is described here:

http://www.bsol.com/info.asp

You worked at a University, but perhaps you should have mentioned, in the
interest of clarity, that you were never actually on the faculty of the
university you give after your name below, so your own JD would not have been
considered with respect to hiring you in that capacity. Mind, I am not saying
you asserted you were a faculty member--I just don't want anyone here to be as
confused about that point as many people were (and perhaps still are) who
reported and/or discussed your legal (litigation) history in the media, both on
and off line. You occasionally taught "adult education" at a university over
the years. That is what "Special Studies" means, in case anyone was wondering.
When you worked at the first university you supply below, you had the JD and a
BA.
A look at the actual faculty of that institution shows that most have at least
an MA. The faculty members who teach law there no doubt have a JD, but you
were not hired to teach the law to students as a faculty member.

Something of a stir was caused where the media is concerned by your accusing me
of writing that you had received your degree from "a Crackerjack box". Yes, I
did say this years ago, but this post will serve to clarify that this statement
had nothing to do with your JD. You did, indeed, receive that from a very nice
law school, I am sure. That it is not accredited by the ABA is their business
and no concern of mine whatsoever. Since the "Crackerjack box" statement was
in the context of Egyptology, that should have been plain--but, alas, it was
not to many, even some of the most prominent judges in a certain state. So much
confusion...over the course of six years of litigation. Your attorneys, of
course, were not that helpful in sorting out the confusion, I am sorry to say.
But, of course, one doesn't receive degrees from boxes of sweets, so.....

You did not receive your actual MA degree in Egyptology until this past summer,
by your own public admission. Now you have just begun the doctoral program at
Oxford.
(And, in case you believed that I am ever going to let you or anyone else
forget this, now you know better.) You are not a "practicing attorney" because
you do not have a license to practice the law anywhere.
OTOH, a Doc. Jur. degree is recognized by all universities of which Iam aware as the equivalent of a PhD, for oral defense of adissertation-like topic is required.HTH.Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J.D.(formerly of):University of Alabama at BirminghamSpecial Studies(now):Oriental InstituteOriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology]Oxford UniversityOxford, United Kingdomhttp://www.griffis-consulting.comDISCLAIMER:Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationshipis created. This response is for discussion purposes only. Itisn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seekout an attorney in your own state who is familar with yourstate's laws and applications thereof.


"THE EXODUS CHRONICLES: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding the
Exodus of the Jews from Egypt" by Marianne Luban
You'll never think about the Biblical Book of Exodus in the same way again!
http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Exodus2.html

mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote in
news:3f923bdf.11892062@news.sf.sbcglobal.net:
"Mike Yared" <myared@erols.com> wrote:Faculty questions provost's standingThe University of the District of Columbia's faculty Senate ischallenging the hiring decisions of the school's top academic officer,whose credentials it says are inferior to those of some job applicantsand subordinates. athttp://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20031017-095147-6802r.htm Isn't it curious how much like an apple an orange is, at least insofar as they each have a skin and make excellent frozen juices, but how inferior an orange is insofar as making apple juice? Just a random thought. Back on topic, it seems to me a JD is a superior credential, because I'll bet a JD is trained to quickly recognize that this particular silly dispute has nothing to do with JD v. PhD, which is apparently more than they teach some PhDs. Just a second random thought. -Merlin

It is common for US law faculty to have only a JD plus an undergraduate
degree. This is not surprising as it represents 7 years of education.
Typically if they are faculty they use the prefix 'Dr', and if they are
not they are called 'Mr'. Non-law faculty with a JD could be a grey area,
but I would think they could use the title 'Dr', having a Juris Doctor
degree. There is no apparent reason why they can't. IANAL

"Katherine Griffis-Greenberg" <egylist@griffis-consulting.com> wrote in
message news:qa54pv0amu6r3u6t3pf95m1vah5rmhe5ok@4ax.com... For university purposes, it seems the JD degree is sort of _in between_ the MA and the PhD degree, ..


Here's what I was told about it, although I can't vouch for the accuracy of
what might be, in part, a professional urban legend:


In the past, the basic law begree was not called a J.D. -- it was something
else (I forget what). At some point, the lawyers complained that
they were being treated, in the civil service ranking system, as if they had
MAs, even though the law degree took longer to obtain. (Of course, by the
same token, the law degree also generally takes less time to earn than a
Ph.D.)

So, a compromise was reached: Law schools would begin conferring the degree
of "Juris Doctor", which would improve the lawyer's standing in ranking
systems such as the Civil Service -- but, on the understanding that lawyers
would
NOT go around calling themselves "doctor" on the basis of a JD alone.

For purposes of qualifying to teach law at universtities, my understanding
from
speaking with some law professors is that, although there are further
degrees available, the JD is considered the "terminal degree" (a term you
may be familiar with, in academic context) in this field.

I both a JD and Ph.D.

An advanced degree in law is a llm. You get a JD then go to another
university, for a masters in law specializing in some aspect of law, ie
tax, intellectual property, environment etc.

It took three years to get the JD.

It took five years to get the Ph.D.

After the Ph. D., in Chemistry, I could walk into the laboratory, and do
the work I was trained for. An employer could tell what the problem
was, I would recommend the solution, how I would do it, and the time
required to do it. I was equipped to work in a laboratory.

With JD, I did not even know where the Court Clerk's office was, much
less what to file in a case. I knew, to some extent, what I was
supposed to do, but not what documents to file, or even where to file
them. That I learned working in an attorney's office.

This is a common complaint in law school. That we learn theory but not
application.


jerry

If you want to know how the world works study science. If you want to
know how societies work, study law.







Merlin wrote: "Mike Yared" <myared@erols.com> wrote:Faculty questions provost's standingThe University of the District of Columbia's faculty Senate is challengingthe hiring decisions of the school's top academic officer, whose credentialsit says are inferior to those of some job applicants and subordinates.at http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20031017-095147-6802r.htm Isn't it curious how much like an apple an orange is, at least insofar as they each have a skin and make excellent frozen juices, but how inferior an orange is insofar as making apple juice? Just a random thought. Back on topic, it seems to me a JD is a superior credential, because I'll bet a JD is trained to quickly recognize that this particular silly dispute has nothing to do with JD v. PhD, which is apparently more than they teach some PhDs. Just a second random thought. -Merlin

"Merlin" wrote
"Isn't it curious how much like an apple an orange is, at least insofar as
they each have a skin and make excellent frozen juices but how inferior an
orange is insofar as making apple juice?"

I gotta hand it to you, Bobby... nobody knows fruits more than you do. Just a
random thought.
"Back on topic, it seems to me a JD is a superior credential...."

Back on topic, according to Black's, a JD is now the basic law degree,
replacing the "LL.B" in the late 1960's. In other words, its *just* a
BACHELOR'S degree. The LL.M is the lawyers "masters" degree.

So, a *trade school* bachelor's degree is more impressive than a Ph.D ???

Why is this a relevant hairsplitting exercise for you anyway.... is Jon stuck
in a hole again ?? Quick, Lassie. Go get Pa.

----
have a GREAT day !!!!!
Solar

Jerry wrote
"With JD, I did not even know where the Court Clerk's office was, much less
what to file in a case. I knew, to some extent, what I was supposed to do, but
not what documents to file, or even where to file them. That I learned working
in an attorney's office.

Wow !!!! Intership/on the job training. What a concept.
This is a common complaint in law school. That we learn theory but not
application."

Hmmmm. After seeing some of the lawyers here in action, i am no longer
surprised by THAT relevation. Do they at least teach "simpel" spelling ??

-----
have a GREAT day !!!!
Solar

On 20 Oct 2003 19:11:24 GMT, Alun Palmer <elektros@yahoo.com> wrote:It is common for US law faculty to have only a JD plus an undergraduatedegree. This is not surprising as it represents 7 years of education.Typically if they are faculty they use the prefix 'Dr', and if they arenot they are called 'Mr'.

I've never met a law professor without a Ph.D (or a medical license)
who uses the courtesy title Dr.

------------------------------
Bob Stock, California Attorney
Nothing I've said should be relied on as legal advice.
------------------------------

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:30:12 -0400, "Ted Kerin" <tf.kerin@gte.net> in
misc.legal, wrote the following:
"Katherine Griffis-Greenberg" <egylist@griffis-consulting.com> wrote inmessage news:qa54pv0amu6r3u6t3pf95m1vah5rmhe5ok@4ax.com... For university purposes, it seems the JD degree is sort of _in between_ the MA and the PhD degree, ..Here's what I was told about it, although I can't vouch for the accuracy ofwhat might be, in part, a professional urban legend:In the past, the basic law begree was not called a J.D. -- it was somethingelse (I forget what).

The basic degree for 2-3 years of legal training was/is an LL.B. -
Baccalaureate (or Bachelor) of Legal Letters, which was begun after 2 or
3 years of undergraduate baccalaureate training in college.
At some point, the lawyers complained thatthey were being treated, in the civil service ranking system, as if they hadMAs, even though the law degree took longer to obtain. (Of course, by thesame token, the law degree also generally takes less time to earn than aPh.D.)So, a compromise was reached: Law schools would begin conferring the degreeof "Juris Doctor", which would improve the lawyer's standing in rankingsystems such as the Civil Service -- but, on the understanding that lawyerswould NOT go around calling themselves "doctor" on the basis of a JD alone.

This is pretty much urban legend.

For more information on the history of the J.D. over the LL.B. see

http://www.arc.miami.edu/people/LLB%20to%20JD%20for%20school%20website.pdf

From where I attended law school, a J. D. (Juris Doctor) degree was
conferred upon an individual who had graduated from a four year college,
with a baccalaureate in another field, and who _then_ undertook the
study of law for 3-4 years _in addition_ to the baccalaureate. In
short, most people with an LLB had undertaken 3 years of college (but
not graduated with a baccalaureate from said college), and then
undertook 2-3 additional years of legal training. Thus, when they
graduated they were achieving their full baccalaureate degree _and_
legal degree at the same time. This pretty much follows the historical
basis for the J. D. being conferred over the LL.B, as referred to in the
above URL.

Today, most law schools confer the J. D. as a matter of course as the
primary legal degree (although a few states still retain the LL.B.
degree in their universities). Many law schools whose requirements are
posted on the Web noted that a minimum of 88 semester hours are required
to achieve a J. D., while a lesser number of hours can achieve an LL.B.
For purposes of qualifying to teach law at universtities, my understandingfrom speaking with some law professors is that, although there are furtherdegrees available, the JD is considered the "terminal degree" (a term youmay be familiar with, in academic context) in this field.

This is true: the J. D. IS considered a "terminal degree," and the Doc.
Jurisprudence is a course of advanced study in law from the more
theoretical/philosophical/academic point of view. IOW, one does not
necessarily logically go from a J. D. to a Doc. Jur. as a matter if
advancing study: it's a separate academic path for a person to choose
_after_ achieving a law degree.

It is because of the J.D.'s status as a "terminal degree" which caused a
number of universities to consider the J.D. higher than that of an M. A.
status (which is not a terminal degree), but lesser than a Ph.D. status,
which is another form of terminal degree. The in-between status comes
about, as I noted earlier, because a J. D. does not require independent
and innovative research in a dissertation and/or an oral defense of
dissertation.

However, the requirements of legal training DO require the ability to
think logically, argue persuasively and on one's feet, and basically
have a command of legal precepts to support one's own case and
countermand that of his/her opponent's case. In short, a person with a
legal degree is under the condition of using his/her legal skills in
research, persuasion, logic and legal finesse as required by the
function of his/her job - as a lawyer, government employee, accountant,
etc. - in sort of a daily "oral defense" style mode. As such, many
universities considered the training for a law degree (J.D.) to have
many of the same features as a Ph.D. degree in terms of intensity of
training and delivery of results of research. However, as the Ph.D. is
based upon independent and _innovative_ research, while a J. D. is not,
thus the consideration of the J. D. as an "in-between" degree arose.

Attorneys are also required by their state bar associations to maintain
these skills by continuing education - referred to as CLE's - so they
are always up to date on changes in law, procedures, and so on. They are
required to obtain so many CLE units per year to maintain their law
practice license. Those who work in fields which often require legal
training [but not court/trial practice for clients] must also keep
current in their specific field of expertise (contract law, trusts,
wills, etc.) as a matter of career maintenance and advancement, although
they are not regulated by the bar association in doing so.

HTH.

Regards --

Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J.D.

(formerly of):
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Special Studies

(presently)

Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom

http://www.griffis-consulting.com

DISCLAIMER:

Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationship
is created. This response is for discussion purposes only. It
isn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek
out an attorney in your own state who is familar with your
state's laws and applications thereof.

On 20 Oct 2003 19:11:24 GMT, Alun Palmer <elektros@yahoo.com> wrote: It is common for US law faculty to have only a JD plus an undergraduate degree. This is not surprising as it represents 7 years of education. Typically if they are faculty they use the prefix 'Dr', and if they are not they are called 'Mr'. Non-law faculty with a JD could be a grey area, but I would think they could use the title 'Dr', having a Juris Doctor degree. There is no apparent reason why they can't. IANAL

In some states the bar rules specifically prohibit lawyers using the
prefix Dr. to refer to their J.D. degrees. I guess those rules would
only apply to a licensed attorney, but it's a least one reason why someone
would not do so. In fact some rules indicate that lawyers shouldn't
use J.D. or Juris Doctor on their business cards as well.

Isaac

Faculty questions provost's standingThe University of the District of Columbia's faculty Senate is challengingthe hiring decisions of the school's top academic officer, whose credentialsit says are inferior to those of some job applicants and subordinates.at http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20031017-095147-6802r.htm

It involved the Psychology Department.

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003, Merlin wrote:
Back on topic, it seems to me a JD is a superior credential, because I'll bet a JD is trained to quickly recognize that this particular silly dispute has nothing to do with JD v. PhD, which is apparently more than they teach some PhDs. Just a second random thought. -Merlin

Does this mean that Merlin does not have a JD?
Isn't it curious how much like an apple an orange is, at least insofar as they each have a skin and make excellent frozen juices, but how inferior an orange is insofar as making apple juice? Just a random thought.

Speaking of fruit trees, perhaps Ken can go 'cherry picking' for a
forensic social psychologist in their psychology department to help him
with his bar admissions case. He could ask them to argue that the bar
examiners who dorked him didn't have a JD, PhD, or MD degree.

dhm
underground bar

also: founder, 'professionals without credentials'

Thanks, Katherine -- very interesting.

solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote:"Merlin" wrote
Back on topic, according to Black's, a JD is now the basic law degree,replacing the "LL.B" in the late 1960's. In other words, its *just* aBACHELOR'S degree. The LL.M is the lawyers "masters" degree.So, a *trade school* bachelor's degree is more impressive than a Ph.D ???Why is this a relevant hairsplitting exercise for you anyway....

Are you the relevance police?

-Merlin

Daniel Myers <dhm@best.com> wrote:
Faculty questions provost's standingThe University of the District of Columbia's faculty Senate is challengingthe hiring decisions of the school's top academic officer, whose credentialsit says are inferior to those of some job applicants and subordinates.at http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20031017-095147-6802r.htmIt involved the Psychology Department.On Sun, 19 Oct 2003, Merlin wrote: Back on topic, it seems to me a JD is a superior credential, because I'll bet a JD is trained to quickly recognize that this particular silly dispute has nothing to do with JD v. PhD, which is apparently more than they teach some PhDs. Just a second random thought. -MerlinDoes this mean that Merlin does not have a JD?dhm, underground bar, also: founder, 'professionals without credentials'

It means that (I think) a JD ought to be able to recognize that
the dispute is no more about whether a JD is superior or inferior
to a PhD, than is a quarrel between fifteenth century monks
over whether Christ owned the clothes he wore.

-Merlin

When I first had aspirations of becoming university educated when I
was 20 years old, after my first time in prison, I became interested
in a political science degree because it required the least amount of
math.

Many lawyers, apparently, felt likewise, for any four-year degree is
apparently sufficient to qualify for going on into law school to
receive a J.D.

That's one of the reasons that I found it so ludicrous that back when
Bounds v. Smith was decided (later overruled or putatively 'modified'
in Lewis v. Casey), Justice Rhenquist declared that prisoners would
not be able to effectively use law libraries nor cogently argue the
law.

The irony is that the practice of law, in essence, is only reading and
writing about a particular subject. And, reading and writing is common
enough, even among prisoners, that it is not the act of a rare genius.

However, with just one relatively new rule of evidence regarding the
admissibility of scientific evidence, lawyers may now actually have to
understand some math and science to practice their craft in the
courtroom, unless of course they can establish the admissibility of
scientific evidence by farming that out to an expert witness, which is
probably more likely than Chief Justice Rhenquist becoming a
mathematician.

I, too, would like to know if there are better law degrees for lawyers
than J.D., and this interesting thread has me about half convinced
that an LL.M degree is such a degree, but I have trouble imagining a
true Ph.D-level law degree in someone who may know no more than
intermediate college algebra.

Very Respectfully,
Ray

I, too, would like to know if there are better law degrees for lawyers than J.D., and this interesting thread has me about half convinced that an LL.M degree is such a degree, ...


Depends on what you (or millions of other people) individually consider
"better".

If I'm not mistaken, the post-JD degrees are more about scholarship (a fine
thing in itself) than a sign of superior qualifications for practice -- with
the possible exception of constitutional law, a narrow specialty that is
very much about scholarship.

There is no skill, no background education or extra-collegiate study or
talent, that cannot be used in the practice of law. A working lawyer may be
called upon to use math or science, as you mention, as well as engineering,
medicine, technology, and indeed theatre....the list is endless. A top-notch
lawyer, unless hyper-specialized, is often required to become an "instant
expert" on the underlying subject of litigation, which could be literally
anything on earth or beyond. This can be helped by formal education in the
relevant area (which is actually required, for patent attorneys), but a lot
can also depend on the lawyer's willingness and ability to study hard and
learn lots of new things for each case.

So, there is no short-hand way for the legal consumer to assess the quality
of prospective counsel on the bare evidence of the attorney's degree.

Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in
news:slrnbp912t.j2.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org:
On 20 Oct 2003 19:11:24 GMT, Alun Palmer <elektros@yahoo.com> wrote: It is common for US law faculty to have only a JD plus an undergraduate degree. This is not surprising as it represents 7 years of education. Typically if they are faculty they use the prefix 'Dr', and if they are not they are called 'Mr'. Non-law faculty with a JD could be a grey area, but I would think they could use the title 'Dr', having a Juris Doctor degree. There is no apparent reason why they can't. IANAL In some states the bar rules specifically prohibit lawyers using the prefix Dr. to refer to their J.D. degrees. I guess those rules would only apply to a licensed attorney, but it's a least one reason why someone would not do so. In fact some rules indicate that lawyers shouldn't use J.D. or Juris Doctor on their business cards as well. Isaac

Interesting. I know that in the actual case that started the discussion
the woman was not a practicing lawyer or a member of law faculty either.
Also, much obviously depends on what state you are in.

Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in
news:slrnbp912t.j2.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org:
On 20 Oct 2003 19:11:24 GMT, Alun Palmer <elektros@yahoo.com> wrote: It is common for US law faculty to have only a JD plus an undergraduate degree. This is not surprising as it represents 7 years of education. Typically if they are faculty they use the prefix 'Dr', and if they are not they are called 'Mr'. Non-law faculty with a JD could be a grey area, but I would think they could use the title 'Dr', having a Juris Doctor degree. There is no apparent reason why they can't. IANAL In some states the bar rules specifically prohibit lawyers using the prefix Dr. to refer to their J.D. degrees. I guess those rules would only apply to a licensed attorney, but it's a least one reason why someone would not do so. In fact some rules indicate that lawyers shouldn't use J.D. or Juris Doctor on their business cards as well. Isaac

Presumably faculty could use Dr in those states if not licenced as
attorneys.

On 24 Oct 2003 03:19:00 GMT, Alun Palmer <alun@1stcounsel.com> wrote:
Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote innews:slrnbp912t.j2.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org : On 20 Oct 2003 19:11:24 GMT, Alun Palmer <elektros@yahoo.com> wrote: It is common for US law faculty to have only a JD plus an undergraduate degree. This is not surprising as it represents 7 years of education. Typically if they are faculty they use the prefix 'Dr', and if they are not they are called 'Mr'. Non-law faculty with a JD could be a grey area, but I would think they could use the title 'Dr', having a Juris Doctor degree. There is no apparent reason why they can't. IANAL In some states the bar rules specifically prohibit lawyers using the prefix Dr. to refer to their J.D. degrees. I guess those rules would only apply to a licensed attorney, but it's a least one reason why someone would not do so. In fact some rules indicate that lawyers shouldn't use J.D. or Juris Doctor on their business cards as well. IsaacInteresting. I know that in the actual case that started the discussionthe woman was not a practicing lawyer or a member of law faculty either.Also, much obviously depends on what state you are in.

I actually doubt that. I would like someone to cite this supposed law
or bar rule that forbids lawyers from using the title "Dr" to denote a
Juris Doctor.

- Jon Beaver

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 20:43:38 -0700, Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote: On 24 Oct 2003 03:19:00 GMT, Alun Palmer <alun@1stcounsel.com> wrote:Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote innews:slrnbp912t.j2.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org : On 20 Oct 2003 19:11:24 GMT, Alun Palmer <elektros@yahoo.com> wrote:>> It is common for US law faculty to have only a JD plus an> undergraduate degree. This is not surprising as it represents 7 years> of education. Typically if they are faculty they use the prefix 'Dr',> and if they are not they are called 'Mr'. Non-law faculty with a JD> could be a grey area, but I would think they could use the title 'Dr',> having a Juris Doctor degree. There is no apparent reason why they> can't. IANAL In some states the bar rules specifically prohibit lawyers using the prefix Dr. to refer to their J.D. degrees. I guess those rules would only apply to a licensed attorney, but it's a least one reason why someone would not do so. In fact some rules indicate that lawyers shouldn't use J.D. or Juris Doctor on their business cards as well. IsaacInteresting. I know that in the actual case that started the discussionthe woman was not a practicing lawyer or a member of law faculty either.Also, much obviously depends on what state you are in. I actually doubt that. I would like someone to cite this supposed law or bar rule that forbids lawyers from using the title "Dr" to denote a Juris Doctor.

Here is the source in which I found the information. It's an ABA discussion
of the matter and it may be somewhat dated. I expect that the answer will
vary from state to state, and the article gives some suggestion of the
variance in state bar positions on the subject.

http://www.lawcorps.com/resources/JD.pdf

Isaac

Anyone can use the title 'Dr'. You just can't make a living representing
yourself as one.

Dr. Johnson, ace mechanic. Dr. Smith, tree pruner. In my case, Dr Roberts,
master fisherman.

Get the picture?


"Alun Palmer" <alun@1stcounsel.com> wrote in message
news:Xns941DEDE04288Belektrosmdonet@130.133.1.4... Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in news:slrnbp912t.j2.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org: On 20 Oct 2003 19:11:24 GMT, Alun Palmer <elektros@yahoo.com> wrote: It is common for US law faculty to have only a JD plus an undergraduate degree. This is not surprising as it represents 7 years of education. Typically if they are faculty they use the prefix 'Dr', and if they are not they are called 'Mr'. Non-law faculty with a JD could be a grey area, but I would think they could use the title 'Dr', having a Juris Doctor degree. There is no apparent reason why they can't. IANAL In some states the bar rules specifically prohibit lawyers using the prefix Dr. to refer to their J.D. degrees. I guess those rules would only apply to a licensed attorney, but it's a least one reason why someone would not do so. In fact some rules indicate that lawyers shouldn't use J.D. or Juris Doctor on their business cards as well. Isaac Presumably faculty could use Dr in those states if not licenced as attorneys.

On 24 Oct 2003 03:19:00 GMT, Alun Palmer <alun@1stcounsel.com> wrote: Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in news:slrnbp912t.j2.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org: On 20 Oct 2003 19:11:24 GMT, Alun Palmer <elektros@yahoo.com> wrote: It is common for US law faculty to have only a JD plus an undergraduate degree. This is not surprising as it represents 7 years of education. Typically if they are faculty they use the prefix 'Dr', and if they are not they are called 'Mr'. Non-law faculty with a JD could be a grey area, but I would think they could use the title 'Dr', having a Juris Doctor degree. There is no apparent reason why they can't. IANAL In some states the bar rules specifically prohibit lawyers using the prefix Dr. to refer to their J.D. degrees. I guess those rules would only apply to a licensed attorney, but it's a least one reason why someone would not do so. In fact some rules indicate that lawyers shouldn't use J.D. or Juris Doctor on their business cards as well. Isaac Interesting. I know that in the actual case that started the discussion the woman was not a practicing lawyer or a member of law faculty either. Also, much obviously depends on what state you are in.

And actually the question in that case seems to be less about what the person
can or should call themselves and more about the prestige and dignity due to
the JD degree. That's a somewhat separate question than is dealt with by
the bar rules I alluded to.

Isaac

I read one state bar opinion that said an attorney could use the prefix Dr.
provided it was used in a manner that didn't imply anything other than a JD.
Don't see how that's possible, but that's what it said. It was an advisory
opinion by the bar association as I recall. I think it was TX, but I'm
not sure.



"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in message
news:rp7hpvg5ubs0em6brrburol4c6p5g5r2u1@4ax.com... On 24 Oct 2003 03:19:00 GMT, Alun Palmer <alun@1stcounsel.com> wrote:Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote innews:slrnbp912t.j2.isaac@latveria.castledoom.org : On 20 Oct 2003 19:11:24 GMT, Alun Palmer <elektros@yahoo.com> wrote:>> It is common for US law faculty to have only a JD plus an> undergraduate degree. This is not surprising as it represents 7 years> of education. Typically if they are faculty they use the prefix 'Dr',> and if they are not they are called 'Mr'. Non-law faculty with a JD> could be a grey area, but I would think they could use the title 'Dr',> having a Juris Doctor degree. There is no apparent reason why they> can't. IANAL In some states the bar rules specifically prohibit lawyers using the prefix Dr. to refer to their J.D. degrees. I guess those rules would only apply to a licensed attorney, but it's a least one reason why someone would not do so. In fact some rules indicate that lawyers shouldn't use J.D. or Juris Doctor on their business cards as well. IsaacInteresting. I know that in the actual case that started the discussionthe woman was not a practicing lawyer or a member of law faculty either.Also, much obviously depends on what state you are in. I actually doubt that. I would like someone to cite this supposed law or bar rule that forbids lawyers from using the title "Dr" to denote a Juris Doctor. - Jon Beaver