As I understand, most good US law schools will not except an applicant without a first law degree except under extraordinary circumstances. Which are you applying to?

With this route, your chances are very slim. Chances would increase slightly if, for example, you have been dealing with tax matters for the past 10 years and you aced an LLM from a top US law school specialising in tax. But in most cases, it's fatal to apply without a JD. Also, understand that LLM carries very little weight in the eyes of the US employers. For practice, JD trumps the LLM all day.

Want me to say it honestly? You could probably guess my answer

Sorry if i did not make it clear. I was referring to your case, ie applying for an LLM without a first law degree (LLB or JD). If you can do the JD by all means do it. But I'm quite doubtful if you could get into a really good school for LLM without a first law degree.
This is an important issue because you are trying to use the LLM to qualify you for the state bar exam.

This post has been edited by academiclawyer: Apr 16 2013, 12:22 PM

Thank you for answering for me That's just my view though.

The only big thing with the JD is cost since it takes three years. But if that's wholly sponsored then no problem.

Yes, I think the law faculties in Malaysia are quite bad compared to say their science counterparts.

This is a difficult question. An important question is your budget.

Then the next question is your grades. How well did you do for your pre-u?

Assuming that all things are perfect, ie you have money and 4A* in your A levels, then obviously Oxbridge is the choice. The fallback would be the London unis.

But whether you graduate from Oxford or Thames Valley University, Msian employers will pay you a flat measly RM3k per month. So you may need at least 10 years to recoup the cost. I'm not exaggerating. Trying doing a simple calculation.

However, assuming that you do well at Oxbridge, you are internationally competitive and need not stay in Msia.

For the majority of us, who have grades (or average grades) but no money, then an alternative option would be the UK transfer or twinning programmes. The downside is that many private institutions where you spend your first two years at are shortchanging the students (in my view, at least). By the time the students transfer to UK in their third year, enough damage has been in terms of their ability to think independently and critically.

Alternatively, you may want to apply to the better local universities. Despite what I said earlier, they are definitely better than the private institutions. At least the lecturers do some research (let us not comment on the quality). But you need to have good grades and even that does not guarantee you a place. The downside is that the student will have no overseas experience, which I think is valuable.

Then there is the most economic option, the UOL external LLB. It suffers from all the drawbacks of the abovementioned options. Specifically, as said earlier, I have an issue with the private institutions that provide the courses.

However, the success of an individual, while strongly affected by the institution he or she attends, is largely dependent on his/her ability and attitude. I know people who have done well despite taking the less advantageous options.

I think understanding is more important than speed. The law is, unfortunately, not always easy to understand.

Try to convert this into simple English:

Keyes v School District No 1, 413 US 189, 211 (1973)
Brennan J: "This is not to say, however, that the prima facie case may not be met by evidence supporting a finding that a lesse degree of segregated schooling in the core city would not have resulted even if the board had not acted as it did".



This post has been edited by academiclawyer: Apr 16 2013, 10:43 PM

Problem is, even with a uol degree, chances of overseas employment is 0.001%. So if you are confined to Msia, MMU is good for it allows you to skip CLP.

3 years of JD + 1 year of bar + 4 years of living cost + the risk of unemployment.

Better just do UOL external la.

Err, I don't think this is correct. Litigation is a big thing in Msia. Lawyers take every little opportunity to bring cases to court. Even if you lose, clients bear the cost anyway. But litigation in Msia is 99% procedures and 1% substance.

We have three law reports which publish several volumes a year. They do not publish all the the cases but merely those that are deemed to be of some importance. Of these reported cases we have an unusually large number dealing with procedures.

I think more important is what you like doing. For example, coveyancing may make you good money (assuming you have the connections). But I will never do it as I find it boring as hell.

This post has been edited by academiclawyer: Apr 18 2013, 09:08 AM

I personally think that a substantial number of lawyers and the judiciary to be seriously lacking in many essential qualities (there are, of course, exceptions). I base this on my personal observation and countless hours plowing through court judgments.

But whether legal practice has a future is a different issue. Even in a terrible and mediocre system, people find ways to get around things and make good money. If you do reasonably well, you should become a partner in about 7 to 10 years. You will start recouping your education cost and start making a profit if you can last that long. The long term prospect is better than in many other professions.

Define "litigation". We refer to litigation as an area of practice, not a legal discipline (unless you count court procedures as a legal discipline). Every case that goes to court is litigated to some extent. Every reported case was litigated. So tell me what kind of "Litigation case" do you want to hear about?

Essentially, as you have said, the process of bringing a case to court (or even any form of dispute resolution) is litigation. You have noted that most your lawyer friends do paperwork till late night. That is litigation. Whether they deal with substance or procedure, that is litigation. And they make money from this. This refutes your earlier point that there is nothing to litigate. Whether the practice itself is meaningful is a different question.