PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Can JD's use the title "doctor"
Last Post 05/14/2018 1:39 PM by Irony
35 Replies
AddThis - Bookmarking and Sharing Button
Sort:

--

06/09/2010 12:09 PM
Author: CA Esq [21813]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply


Have a friend who recently completed online JD, and now uses the Dr. prefix in front of his name. Is this an acceptable and understood practice?

0


--
06/09/2010 12:25 PM
Author: Brian Moquin [58]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

I think it's safe to assume the JD was earned in California, so I'll give an answer for that state.  The ethics opinions on this subject do vary by state.

From The Bar Association of San Francisco:

The California State Bar has not yet taken any position with respect to the use of the title "Doctor" by lawyers who possess a J.D. degree. The Board of Governors referred this matter to the Special Committee re Review of the ABA Code of Professional Responsibility in 1970 and this Committee has not yet rendered its report. The Legal Ethics Committee of the San Diego Bar Association, however, in Informal Opinion No. 9 has ruled that use of the title "Doctor" for lawyers who have earned a J.D. degree is proper. For a full discussion of the problem, see Peck, The Right of California Lawyers to Use Academic Degrees: A Juris Doctor's Dilemma, 46 Cal.State Bar J., 189 (1971).

Brian

0


--
06/09/2010 12:36 PM
Author: CA Esq [21813]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

Thanks for the informative answer with a citation. The informal opinion seems rather self-serving. "Doctor" to me conjures up the image of either a medical doctor, or a person who has gone through dissertation/orals to be an expert in a certain field.

Yes, my friend is an online JD in California. IMHO, calling oneself out as a doctor via the online JD route seems to be just one step short of buying a JD from an outfit in the Caribbeans.

0


--
06/09/2010 12:37 PM
Author: Yup [21813]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

^ I agree, however, I only use the prefix of doctor when I'm teaching. Otherwise, it confuses the jury and is viewed by other attorneys and judges as pretentious. But, most other professionals understand it's a doctorate - in fact, in the past few months I've been addressed as such by a neurosurgeon and the superintendent of my county's school system. So, even if you don't use it most people know.

0


--
06/09/2010 12:38 PM
Author: CA Esq [21813]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

Sorry, I meant buying a PhD from an outfit in the Caribbeans.

0


--
06/09/2010 1:25 PM
Author: Wow [21813]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

I disagree. USA is the one of the only countries which they do not call lawyers as Dr. So and so.

It is called juris "Doctor " which means Doctor of Law.
If the person passes the State Bar, why would it matter whether he went to an online school or attended classes in person. Most universities and colleges are adding more and more online classes.

A JD is JD and it doesn't matter from what school was obtained from.
All schools have the same subjects and same case books. Duh!!

0


--
06/09/2010 1:34 PM
Author: CA Esq [21813]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

Wow -
while you have a point about a JD is a JD when it comes to passing the bar, a JD is not a JD if the school conferring the degree is not an accredited school (e.g., SPAMMers who want to sell you degrees)

Also, please do not casually throw in generalizations such as U.S. is the only country that does not call its lawyers Dr. I deal with foreign attorneys all the time (europe, china, india, japan). I do not know of a single attorney who holds himself/herself out as a "Dr so and so" just based on the law degree. In fact, in many countries, the basic law degree is not juris DOCTOR, it is BACHELOR of law.

0


--
06/09/2010 2:14 PM
Author: IloveNY [21813]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

[quote]
Posted By on 09 Jun 2010 01:25 PM
I disagree. USA is the one of the only countries which they do not call lawyers as Dr. So and so.

It is called juris "Doctor " which means Doctor of Law.
If the person passes the State Bar, why would it matter whether he went to an online school or attended classes in person. Most universities and colleges are adding more and more online classes.

A JD is JD and it doesn't matter from what school was obtained from.
All schools have the same subjects and same case books. Duh!!
[/quote]
Trying sitting for another state bar with you license in CA and your online JD degree. That is, see which state thinks a JD is a JD. We struggled to get into ABA approved law school for the very reason of being able to cross the state lines out of CA.

So when you say a "JD is a JD" that is clearly something you were TOLD by your online degree granting institution. Those of us who attended ABA approved law school were NOT allowed to miss more than 6 classes and not able to listen to lecture while hanging out w/ boyfriends or girlfriends and taking exams w/ open books.

0


--
06/09/2010 5:37 PM
Author: could/should [21813]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

Like other posters have pointed out, a JD is a Juris Doctorate. So, technically I guess you could call yourself a 'Doctor.' Whether you should call yourself a 'Doctor' is a totally different question.

I, and almost everyone else I've ever talked to about this subject, think that it's a total farce that people with a PhD refer to themselves as 'Doctor.' You're not a 'Doctor'...I don't care what the piece of paper says. You're exploiting an ambiguity in the English language that erroneously equates graduating #1 in your class at Harvard Med. School with having a PhD conferred on you by whatever skool in whatever garbage field of study. Sorry Jonathan R. Rubenstein, Ph.D. (Communications; Central Michigan Univeristy), you're NOT Dr. Rubenstein; you're just Jon.

So, I guess if you want to call yourself 'Doctor' based on your JD and join the ranks of the Dr. Rubenstein, then you technically can. But, you'll be every bit as much of a 4-star douchebag as him and his ilk. Just be you; that's what garners respect, not a questionable title.

0


--
06/09/2010 6:11 PM
Author: PhD Esq [21813]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

ha ha ha ... that's a good one. I have a Phd and a JD. I have had the pleasure(!) of being asked by someone "are you a real doctor or just a phd?"

I agree with the poster above - only medical doctors should use Dr prefix. Everyone else should use something else. Even PhDs are handed out at a faster rate than JDs... At least nobody gets an honorary JD !

1


--
06/09/2010 9:43 PM
Author: Don't be a tool... [21813]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

Let's be honest, when you earn your jd from an online school, you haven't earned shit. I'm sorry, it's the truth. Now, that having been said, when you pass the bar, you are just as much an attorny as anyone else. So, my point is tell your friend to stop with the doctor shit and focus on studying for the bar. Believe me, it is sooo much sweeter to call yourselve an attorney rather than doctor! :)

0


--
06/10/2010 12:08 AM
Author: pathetic_loser [21813]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

lol@lawyers who call themselves "doctors." these people must suffer from low self-esteem. as if "attorney at law" title is not good enough.

0


--
06/10/2010 10:47 AM
Author: AnnOminous [15]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

To be safe, your friend can buy a PhD in "theology"online for $79.95 from the Universal Life Church, located in California. lol. Then your friend has a back-up. lol.

0


--
06/10/2010 10:50 AM
Author: AnnOminous [15]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

Plus, you can become an ordained minister from that church for free. So you can be "The Rev. Dr. John Doe, Attorney at Law." There is nothing sweeter than that title! lol.

0


--
06/10/2010 10:48 PM
Author: CinciBob [8]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

I googled the topic & found this article:

http://www.kinsellalaw.com/2002/04/...or-lawyer/

“Doctor” Lawyer?

by Norman S. Kinsella on April 5, 2002

Legal terminology, with its liberal use of Latin phrases and other specialized jargon, can be daunting and confusing. In law school I often wondered why the seemingly-redundant phrase “attorney-at-law” was used; what other kind of attorney was there?, I wondered. A peek at http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=attorney">the dictionary, and a little reflection, reveals that “attorney” simply means “agent” for someone else; hence the expression “power of attorney”; both laymen and lawyers can have a “power of attorney”. The better term for those who practice law is probably lawyer or attorney-at-law, since anyong having power of attorney is technically an “attorney” (granted, however, that semantics follows usage, and the most common usage of “attorney” today is used to denote lawyers only).

More annoying than “attorney-at-law” is the practice of some attorneys of using the title “Doctor.” Although there is apparently http://www.sdcba.org/ethicsopinion69-5.html">some dispute over this, I view it as misleading, cheesy, unseemly, and self-embarrassing for a lawyer to refer to himself as “Doctor” such-and-such. In addition, the law degree is usually a Juris Doctor (J.D.), yet many lawyers insist on calling it a a “Juris Doctorate”, I suppose out of ignorance or to make it sound more impressive. (Note: a few law schools apparently do use “Juris Doctorate” on their diplomas—improperly, in my view.)

Way back when, lawyers got an LL.B. (the bachelor of laws—the “LL” meaning, I suppose, “laws”-plural in much the same way that §§ means “sections”). A master’s in law is an LL.M., and a true doctorate in law is an LL.D. (also sometimes given as a straight Ph.D, or as an SJD or JSD—for “doctor of juridical/juristic science”). Apparently, a few decades ago, the American legal bar decided to change the LL.B. to the J.D., in a vain attempt to garner the prestige of Ph.Ds or M.D.s. Under today’s rules, one must obtain a bachelor’s degree in anything, before entering law school. This does make the 3-year law degree technically a graduate degree, but since the undergrad degree need not relate in the slightest to law (my own undergraduate degree is in engineering!), it is not really a graduate degree in the sense of building on some foundation, and it is thus absurd to view the law degree as a true doctorate. Query: if a regular J.D. lawyer is a “Doctor,” what does he become after subsequently obtaining an LL.D.?—a Doctor-Doctor? Many non-American lawyers, incidentally, still obtain LL.B. degrees, though http://www.law.utoronto.ca/prosp_st...pages#J.D.">some seem to be following the American model to change from LL.B. to J.D. (without requiring an undergraduate degree though!).

This may all be academic (I am not sure if the pun is intended), as the prestige behind the Ph.D. degree and the “doctor” title continue to plummet, due to lowering of standards and the explostion of Ph.D.s granted in ridiculous specialties.

Incidentally, the B.C.L. and M.C.L. are the civil-law equivalents of the common-law LL.B. and LL.M., respectively. My alma mater, LSU’s Paul M. Hebert Law Center, now issues both a J.D. and a B.C.L. to all its law graduates, in recognition of the dual common law/civil law–”bi-jural”–education received.

P.S.: If anyone has a link to the real story behind the American change from LL.B. to J.D., please pass it on.


0


--
06/10/2010 11:00 PM
Author: More school than MD or PhD [21813]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

actually, we attorneys do more class room hours than MDs or PhDs. However we also have schools with ridiculous admitance policies and non-existant bar passage. You will never see an online med school...

0


--
06/11/2010 7:48 AM
Author: Brian Moquin [58]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

I had Thanksgiving dinner nearly ten years ago with a medical doctor in Santa Monica (and also with the actor who played David Starsky in the original Starsky & Hutch series -- cool dude) who was in the process of securing funding to start an online med school.  I was incredulous at the time since I thought medical students needed to work with cadavers and such, but he explained to me that the first two years of med school were classroom only, and there was no reason those first two years couldn't be delivered in an online format, with the remaining portion of the education being done at a local hospital.  I'm not sure the reason why, but the project never materialized.  However, I do think we will see online med schools in the near future.

I graduated from an online law school.  Given the fact that I worked more than full-time running several businesses and traveling extensively all over the world, there's no way I could have gotten a JD otherwise.  I do agree with the criticisms regarding low or nonexistent entrance criteria and generally poor preparation for the bar exam, but in terms of legal education, I think it was as solid as that experienced by any of my friends who attended brick-and-mortar law schools, and the amount of work required was more than that required of any of my B&M friends.  There were some serious deficiencies in terms of the technology, but the substance was nearly identical, and the lack of Socratic Method did not strike me as a problem -- in fact, some people in the ABA and many legal education scholars have been questioning the effectiveness of Socratic techniques for quite a while now.

Online law schools also draw a very different student body than B&M schools:  the average age in my class was 46, and nearly half held PhD's or MDs, with the vast majority of the rest being well-established professionals.  In terms of networking potential, I think B&M schools can't hold a candle to that, and the amount of discourse and interaction among students via online media (discussion forums, chats, e-mail lists) was at least an order of magnitude greater than anything else I've experienced in my 29 years of formal education.

In terms of sitting for the bar exam in other jurisdictions, as far as I know, one can sit in Wisconsin, Oregon, and Washington state, and some of my classmates have also obtained waivers to sit in Massachusetts, Utah, and Georgia (and maybe Florida, but I'm not sure).  One can also practice in most federal district courts and of course at the federal appellate level.  I also practice pro hac in several states with a supervising attorney.  Still, if I had the time, I would attend Harvard or Yale to remove the limitation.

In terms of the "Doctor" title issue, I think it's misleading for someone with just a JD to use that title, but I do think having a PhD does entitle one to use it.  Then again, I don't think such titles hold much value nowadays, i.e., women in nightclubs don't seem to be impressed by it anymore.

Brian

0


--
06/12/2010 3:39 AM
Author: arcady [6]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

Not a legal answer of course, but my gut feeling on this would be "only
if you never want to have 'attorney at law' at the end of your name. As
in, I suspect most state bars would take a dim ethical view on the
practice of tacking on Dr. You -can- put JD on the end, if you're
willing to explain that you're not licensed (assuming you don't also
have to explain what JD stands for).

Its not like putting Dr. on your name if your name is 'DJ Cool'. :)
People seeing it used in a professional manner, or even social but not
'entertainment industry' manner will make reasonable lay-assumptions,
and you will appear to be holding yourself out as something you are not.

At the worst, they may assume you're a medical doctor. At the best,
they'll assume you're Ross from Friends - but even holding yourself out
as that would be shady (not to mention that Ross would be putting PhD on
the end of his name, even though he -could- use Dr. at the front).




0


--
06/13/2010 3:30 PM
Author: last_word [21813]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

Last word on this subject -- anyone who is not a Medical Doctor that calls him/herself "Dr. x" is a 4-star douche with low self-esteem.

0


--
06/16/2010 5:40 PM
Author: @last_word [21813]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

I agree. Physical therapists now call themselves doctors. A doctor is someone who can fix what I have broken or injured and prescribe medicine. A physical therapist is someone who a doctor sends you to after they have diagnosed what is wrong with you.

0


--
06/12/2011 9:07 PM
Author: barjohn [21813]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

For such learned individuals to not research the history of the title and to put out such misinformation is amazing. Please check the history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_(title)

You will find that dating back to the 12th century the original degrees were all law or religious degrees and the Juris Doctor is one of the oldest and earliest degrees and conferred the title Dr on the holder. It is still in use in most countries that are not common law countries. In many countries physicians do not hold a doctoral level degree and the use of the title doctor was borrowed for prestige for more senior practitioners. The academic use for the PHD came much later in history so if anyone is entitled to the use it is individuals that have received the Juris Doctor a doctorate degree (see the definitions and references).

0


--
06/13/2011 11:04 AM
Author: you may but your stupid if you do [21813]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

You may get by calling yourself doctor but your a fool if you do because it is not generally accepted. Deal with your self esteem issues and forget about calling yourself doctor, let the people who really earned and deserve it to use it properly.

Especially don't let the people who earn online executive juris doctor degrees call themselves doctor because they can't even earn a standard JD degree.

0


--
06/13/2011 11:08 AM
Author: too many [21813]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

too many people who JDs, it would dilute the usage of Doctor calling the masses of people with JD degrees. Being an attorney isn't what it used to be. After getting a JD, I understand now why the Jewish mother was disappointed that her son was an attorney and not a Doctor.
Takes more work to become a MD/PHD then a JD.

0


--
01/06/2012 12:17 PM
Author: prof tom [21813]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

I beg to disagree . Many Ph.d and E.D and the like are a mere shadow of what they meant at one time. Admission was selective and quite competitive .Now t seems that anyone with the cash can enroll in a Doctorate program on line or otherwise .
I can tell you this I have a Masters of Arts .Although rigorous not even in the same league as the amount of work put in for my Jurus doctor . I also have an LL.M .The idea that the M.A and LL.M are of the same species is patently absurd .


I get irritated in academia where Dr. this and Dr. that like to refer to me as mister. Thankfully at one of the universities where I had taught at it was common practice and procedure to call a J.D as Dr. in the academic environment
I do not use the title Dr. in anything other than the academic milieu .
Most of my colleagues do likewise


1


--
01/06/2012 12:17 PM
Author: prof tom [21813]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

I beg to disagree . Many Ph.d and E.D and the like are a mere shadow of what they meant at one time. Admission was selective and quite competitive .Now t seems that anyone with the cash can enroll in a Doctorate program on line or otherwise .
I can tell you this I have a Masters of Arts .Although rigorous not even in the same league as the amount of work put in for my Jurus doctor . I also have an LL.M .The idea that the M.A and LL.M are of the same species is patently absurd .


I get irritated in academia where Dr. this and Dr. that like to refer to me as mister. Thankfully at one of the universities where I had taught at it was common practice and procedure to call a J.D as Dr. in the academic environment
I do not use the title Dr. in anything other than the academic milieu .
Most of my colleagues do likewise


0


--
01/23/2012 9:36 PM
Author: josbo51713 [21813]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

[quote]
Posted By on 09 Jun 2010 12:09 PM
Have a friend who recently completed online JD, and now uses the Dr. prefix in front of his name. Is this an acceptable and understood practice?
[/quote]


Yes. It's considered an academic doctorate degree as opposed to a professional doctorate degree (M.D.)

0


--
10/29/2012 7:28 PM
Author: Mrpastewart [21813]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

It's funny how people don't do their homework as stated already by one poster the origins of degrees came from the legal and religious communities so if anyone has misappropriated the use of the word Doctor it is the medical community itself. And also obviously anyone taking online classes should make sure that the program they are taking is 1, not a diploma mill 2, accredited or authorized by the state bar or ABA. As for the original post If your friend went to northwest California school of law which is not accredited but is however authorized to issue degrees and is regulated by the California state bar itself which makes acredation a mute issue as his JD was bestowed upon him by the state itself as authorized by the state bar. So, also understand that the ABA holds a JD equal to a PHD for the purpose of educational employment meaning that a JD holding professor can be tenured as a doctor of law and use the title in an academic environment. Also getting your DHD in law not withstanding what it's called ie. LLM SJB having a PHD entitles you to use the term Dr. Also having a Juris Doctor or a Juris Doctorate is semantical as a Juris Doctor is saying you're a Doctor of Law. Now in a courtroom I believe it's improper to use such title because you are an attorney in that courtroom and doctors usually appear in a courtroom as expert witnesses so in a courtroom use of such is pretentious, intimidating, and misleading however outside the courtroom or in an academic environment you should be respected for being a holder of one of the oldest degrees in academic history a JD. So if people call you Dr. You earned it. Now I do believe that in writing if you use the title Dr. You should also, like any MD or academic, list JD or PHD or MD after your name to avoid confusion.

0


--
02/25/2014 11:29 AM
Author: Ronnie Bray [21813]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

It is an odd opinion that seeks to limit the use of the earned title 'doctor' to persons solely in the medical field. anyone that has an earned doctorate in any field is thereby entitled, legally and morally and academically to call him or herself 'doctor.'


Narrow opinions do not serve anyone except those intent on describing circles that exclude others and include themselves and their kind.

A doctor is a doctor is a doctor is a doctor! If necessary, I can clarify that.

0


--
02/25/2014 11:32 AM
Author: Ronnie Bray [21813]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply


Posted By Anonymous on 06/09/2010 12:38 PM
Sorry, I meant buying a PhD from an outfit in the Caribbean.


If the 'outfit' is a degree ill that has no academic standing, then your friend were better keeping his money a printing his own degree on his computer. It is just as valid as a degree mill doctorate.

0


--
03/06/2014 11:34 PM
Author: No One Can Ban Me! I OWN THIS FORUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [108]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

I love how this topic got most posts than any other. I've heard it discussed before too. PharmD often have the same debate.

I say, "even if" we "could" its best not to use the title for the raw JD. If you get another doctorate then sure. Even if its also in law. There is a bunch of them out there nowdays (both PhD and regular doctorate) some require a JD as a prereq and some don't. Many are online.

But if someone got just an EJD to use the title, it may sound cool at first, but the only people to fall for it are people who you don't need to impress anyways.

0


--
04/05/2017 6:47 PM
Author: floridasun [21813]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

I am not to sure where these "attorneys" are coming out of the wood work from; let me set this clear of the initials at the end of an attorneys name.

The correct and proper initials would be, Esq.
So it would be Floriida Sun, Esq.
Esq is prestige compared to an MD, just saying...

Esq. An abbreviation for esquire, which is a title used by attorneys in the United States. The term esquire has a different meaning in English Law. It is used to signify a title of dignity, which ranks above gentleman and directly below knight.

I have a Dean that is an attorney and has both, JD and Esq after name with MBA. She is thirsty for recognition for her hard earned work, respectfully so. However the reality is, it looks stupid and hungry for power.

My final thoughts are this.

If you are a licensed attorney to practice law, the only title you should desire to follow suit of your name should be Esq.

If you are no longer a practicing attorney and you are a professor or like this lady a Dean, then you should only have, J.D. behind your name. show off your hard work, if you want to be called "Doctor" then refer yourself as a Doctor because you are, you are a Doctor of Law; Esq is the most prestigious title that one can have. PhD's whoever the one is calling others "dushe bag" chances are ass hat you have no degree at all... When you have worked your ass off for your degree you want to show it off, especially if you do not have an office to share what hell you been through!

Reference to online schooling, online schooling is more challenging then going to campus!!! I write more now then I did on campus! I have to show every bit of my work in math online, in class it was not required because they know you are not cheating they can proctor you.

So get the idea that an ONLINE degree is useless... because folks like me work our asses off to get this degree! For your information ass hat! I am going to be earning my EJD (Executive Juris Doctor) and you know something, I am going to call myself Doctor because I have doctoral degree... I have earned that title... IF you are satisfied with you are not satisfied with your 9th grad education then perhaps you should attend college. Try online beings that it is so "EASY" and "simple" touche!

0


--
05/14/2017 4:46 AM
Author: TruthTeller [21813]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

I don't know why everyone gets so up in arms about this topic. It's really quite simple. Comparing different academic disciplines and judging one based on the standards of another, is simply absurd. Many disciplines that confer PhDs do so differently, some give students a Masters part way through, others only if the student stops the PhD program early but already passed a certain midpoint threshold.

JDs are doctorally terminal degrees in academia. They aren't designed like PhD programs, but they are doctorally terminal. Folks from the PhD mindset want to judge JDs based on the lack of dissertation and the fact that post-JD degrees exist, but their experience in earning a PhD simply doesn't apply to the JD. Good JD programs require rigorous coursework condensed into a heavy 3 year course load with no teaching requirement, with significant writing and research demands. Folks might say a JD is purely a professional degree, but that isn't accurate, though it is the degree required to practice law. Good JD programs teach students to be legal scholars more than they teach students how to be practicing lawyers. Most JD graduates wish their law schools would teach them how to be an actual lawyer, because they don't. They teach students how to research and analyze legal issues, which in the law world is the equivalent of a PhD researching and contributing to their discipline's understanding of their subject matter. Instead of dissertations, the law world uses law journal articles. Folks can argue about whether a dissertation somehow makes a degree materially more challenging to earn, but that is comparing apples to oranges. The law world simply doesn't ask it's scholars to publish dissertations because the need doesn't exist. Publishing analyses of legal issues in an attempt to help the law community wrestle with questions that eventually are debated in the Courts is what the Law world requires, so it is the kind of research it demands of it's scholars. Most JD graduates take their degree and practice the law, but if they instead focus on research and publishing analyses and new ideas, the JD is the doctorally terminal degree for doing so.

In academia, if a school hired a legal scholar to be a professor teaching the subject matter that they are expert in, the JD is the degree they look for, plus evidence of significant scholarly research and publishing. Having more degrees always make them more hireable, but usually that isn't because of the additional degrees. It is because in the process of becoming scholars with significant published work, they end up earning more degrees. However, probably 95% of all professors hired for being scholars in a law-related field only have a JD.

So why the post-JD degrees? Because the legal profession is weird. Originally, to be a lawyer, you earned a bachelor's in the law, just like you did to practice medicine. Then they started requiring folks earn another bachelor's before they could enter a law program, so they switched the degree to JD. LLMs, what folks call a Masters in the law, are more like post-JD certification programs. They are usually one year long and are on specific practice subjects. So, if a lawyer wanted to go more in depth on tax law, they might get an LLM in Tax Law. Most specialty areas of law don't even have LLMs. Instead of earning a PhD in a specific topic in the law, the law world expects scholars to take their JD and earn their credibility by publishing, instead of earning their initial credibility by defending a dissertation. Imagine a world where folks didn't earn a PhD in Music or a PhD in Engineering. They only earned a PhD. How would you determine the subject they are expert in? By looking at their published work. That is how the law world looks at JDs. They either have a CV filled with professional practice or a CV filled with scholarly research. And JDs with significant research in antitrust law, earn their credibility in that subject matter.

What about the SJD? The SJD is a very new degree and very few people go and get it. DBAs, the doctorate in business administration, has a genesis similar to the SJD. MBAs were long considered the terminal degree in business (unless you wanted to get a PhD in economics or accounting, etc.). But eventually you started having people with 30 year old MBAs that didn't know the most current material and you had foreign students with foreign degrees wanting US degrees that could help them enter the US job/academic market. Additionally, you had a handful of professionals in business that wanted to transition to Academia and didn't have decades of scholarly work. So, the DBA appeared. Now, as the MBA has become so prolific and of wildly varying quality, the DBA is growing in popularity and has increasingly become the standard in academia because the MBA has become so focused on teaching how to do business as opposed to how to research and analyze business issues.

SJDs originally started popping up for similar reasons. The most common takers? Foreign legal professionals that wanted to practice in the US and JD graduates of poorly ranked schools that wanted to be academics. If you had a JD from a third tier school, you might get an SJD from a tier 1 and suddenly be considered for academic hire. The SJD is offered in very few schools and enrollment is very small. It simply hasn't taken off the way the DBA has. Why? Largely because of the design of the good JD programs. As I wrote, JDs don't teach graduates how to be lawyers as much as how to be legal scholars. The academy of the law world has never really moved to the SJD as a new entry expectation. The JD with a CV of scholarly work has always sufficed.

So, in academia, a JD would be considered the same rank as a PhD, regardless of someone's individual opinion of the comparative challenge of earning one or the other. The JD tends to require less original research to earn but does have a more rigorous course-load. But, if you want to be considered a credible legal scholar, you're expected to publish scholarly research independent of any writing required to earn the JD. No one would say a renowned law scholar that regularly publishes is less a scholar than a professor of engineering with a PhD. The day after you earn a PhD, you have more credibility as a scholar but again, the JD that wants credibility as a scholar must then continue to publish after earning the JD. And once their CV starts filling, their scholarly credibility quickly becomes parable with the scholarly credibility earned by a successful dissertation defense.

In terms of hiring, a JD might not be hired for certain professorships, but neither would a PhD in the wrong discipline. Most JDs teach law or policy. You find them in engineering, healthcare, and business schools, but more to teach the law specific to those disciplines than to teach the discipline itself. As for the scholar-side of being a professor, a JD professor would be expected to publish at a similar rate as any other PhD, regardless of the fact the JD didn't require a dissertation to earn.

As for calling a JD "Dr. So and so", that isn't common. But it isn't common due to societal norms more than because of a ranking of degrees. For a long time the law world frowned on calling lawyers Dr. Smith because of the fear that laypeople would be confused if they hired a lawyer calling themselves Dr. Smith. It was about the good of the clients and the view that clients might be confused or misled by the use of "Dr", because laypeople generally connotate "Dr" with medicine. Eventually the law world thought some more about it and decided a lawyer could call themselves Dr. Smith, but only if they made sure their clients understood what that meant. And currently, it is only really used in academia, and not even there all that much. Again, not because of ranking degrees, but because the law world never really adopted it because of the lasting impact of the legal profession's history: their degree wasn't always called a JD and because the profession feared confusing laypeople. The law world is also paranoid about coming off pretentious, they are already villified enough as it is.

0


--
06/05/2017 7:59 AM
Author: Yawn [21813]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

In short: lawyers who refer to themselves as doctors are insecure douchebags.

0


--
07/18/2017 12:57 PM
Author: Sjd [21813]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

What if they have the post Kim sjd? That is out version of a PhD right ?

0


--
05/12/2018 7:57 AM
Author: dr123 [21813]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

In academia, if you hold only a J.D. then you do not use Dr. If you hold a Ph.D. with a J.D. you use Dr. A J.D. is not recognized as an academic doctorate but a practitioners degree.

0


--
05/14/2018 1:39 PM
Author: Irony [21813]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

And yet ironically an EdD gets allowed...the joke degree.....

0

Add Reply


Copyright by All4JDs.com