I'm currently doing my SJD in Australia. Here the SJD and PhD are described as equivalents.

The difference between the two is found in the type of assessment applied to each. The SJD is a combination of coursework and thesis. (masters level course work with a thesis of about 60-70000 words.

PhD's can be three or four years in length (full-time) and are mostly comprised of about 100,000 words thesis length.

The advantage of the Australian system is that the stringency of education is relatively homogenous and the standard is high because with few exceptions the universities are government owned.

The value of completing an SJD is that it provides expertise in a particular area of law.

I have designed my own thesis so that it will be commercial. The anticpated resultant expertise will cover the field of management and law. The thesis is an action study. All these attributes should provide a set of marketable skills.

The applicant for an SJD may be eligible for advanced standing based on prior education. Eligibility can be based on the fact that the applicant is a solicitor.

I believe the value in completing an SJD lies in this:

i) Not all lawyers get into the field of practice that they have set their hearts on and the research provides a method by which to circumvent employers' preconceived notions; and

ii) The holder of a doctorate is automatically accorded expert status thereby making the holder i) a more attractive proposition for an employer or ii) referred to consultant.

Not all universities require the applicant to be a holder of distinction level qualifications but all graduates are recognised as Doctors. So there is some status value.

There are many who have not attained the Honours level academic credential but there are many in that lower end group of graduates that have the commitment to be successful in research particularly where it concerns an area of interest.

The SJD provides credit towards the MCLE requirements.