I have completed my bachelor's B.A.L.L.B law degree in India in the 5 year law course in a regional university and not in any of the more challenging National law schools. My course had 28 core legal subjects apart from other humanities subjects.

To my best understanding of the NY Bar rules I would be eligible to take the exam if my course is held to be substantially and durationally equivalent to a U.S. accredited bachelors law degree course. I believe I meet the other requirements of common law country, eligibility for admission to practice law in home country, accredited university, etc.

I want to know from other applicants from India who have studied in similar 5 year law degree courses whether the same is accepted by NY Bar evaluators as substantially and durationally equivalent to a U.S. accredited bachelors law degree course.

Also, if my course is held to be substantially and durationally equivalent, will I still need a US LLM to take the exam?

Past applicants to NY Bar from India, I hope, would be in a position to help. Looking forward to hearing from someone. Thanks a lot

Hey! As far as I know, u need to have your case checked out by them, so that they can determine if you qualify to write the bar! Why don't u check out the ABA website and contact them.

Substantial equivalency is no longer the rule for NY bar. They require foreign applicants from 2013 to have additional courses. I believe from 2013 you are required to have 5 courses including clinical courses. You can check the NY bar exam website. You may however be eligible to sit for the CA bar.

http://www.nybarexam.org/Docs/Amended_Rule.pdf

However all said and done, less than 40% of U.S. LL.M. graduates clear the bar exam. I suspect the numbers will be abysmal for foreign graduates with no legal training in U.S. The pass percentage among LL.M.'s was 3 to 10% for the NY bar in a couple of the T15 schools.

Thank you for the info...

NY bar rules are getting complicated. It seems from the linked page that those not meeting substantial equivalency and who are relying on their US LLM are to complete particular courses in their LLM. I have sent my papers for evaluation, and dont know what they will decide.

NY bar is definitely more prestigious than other state's bar admission from a foreign lawyers perspective. But is it tougher than the bar exams of other states, say for e.g. California?

NY bar is prestigious. Em, dunno about that. I did that years ago and feel no prestige. CA bar exam is a 3 day test and is more involved. It's probably a little harder compared with the NY bar. There are certain elements which are the same like MBE. A bar exam is just a means to get to the end, a license to practice law. No prestige. 90% of J.D's clear the NY bar exam on their first try.

NY bar is only prestigious to international applicants who do not have the financial means to travel all the way to the west coast. Whilst CA bar is way more prestigious within the borders of the US. Because CA passes more statutory legislature. Not to discourage you, but, you were unaware of that.

International applicants go to top US law schools (mainly ivy league) on the east coast. For reasons of conferring a degree. Which allows students to undergo the NY bar exam. Will international applicants practice in the US? No. The thought of practicing law within the borders of the US during an employment crisis remains legal suicide. Unless you have an awaiting position at a LLC/Inc that complements your decision.

You are correct that NY bar does have a higher pass rate than CA bar. I find it interesting that with international applicants do not consider other state bars. There are 50 states! Some might exclude while others encourage to include international applicants. I will leave that up to you to research. It is safe to state; that applicants, despite having the adequate resources, are lethargic.

olivers

I mean prestigious from a foreign lawyer's perspective from several angles:

NY and NY city is one of the biggest legal markets in the world handling more transactions than most other places. For a foreign lawyer to be admitted to practice law in NY, although that person may never actually practice or work there, it is prestigious.

For the above reason NY admission is more valuable than say a state like Massachusetts

For lawyers in the rest of the world it is always prestigious to be qualified as Solicitor in England and Wales or as Attorney in the United states. It becomes important part of their credentials and marketability

r3b|rth...

I didn't know that CA bar is more more valued within US territory and is more tougher than NY bar. I find your view that international applicants do not go for the CA bar exam because they don't have the means to go to the west coast very confounding...

I have found that most international lawyers who study in any of the states including many who study on the west coast states want to take the NY bar and not the CA bar. I mean a great majority of them, except those who have specific reasons to take CA bar. How does one explain this?

I think I know where this prestige outside of the US originates from. NY was for a long time the only bar which allowed foreign lawyers to practice in US for a long time.{NY is now certainly shutting down it's doors for foreign lawyers with stricter course requirement norms}. CA bar was much much more difficult to get through during that period and even now for most foreign LL.M's. Even the NY bar is no cake walk. There were 3 LL.M's from a T14 law school who passed the NY bar in the year I took the NY bar. That's less than 3% for that law school. I don't have the stats for the other law schools.

MA bar wasn't foreign lawyer friendly until a couple of years ago. Even today they have course work requirement for foreign lawyers. The VA bar will let you take their bar exam after LL.M. with a substantially equivalent program determination. In my opinion, VA bar and CA bar are among the most difficult bar exams. VA even requires you to appear in professional attire if I am not mistaken. DC bar requires you to take all courses on the bar exam. By that time you will be a J.D. and you really should pass any bar exam. It's extremely expensive though taking 36 credits for an LL.M.

The subject requirements of the bars should make all International lawyers stop and think about what they are doing in U.S. They can't specialize. They will have a general LL.M. with contract law, constitutional law and ethics courses. While these areas are better developed in US than in many foreign legislatures the value of the LL.M. was always in the advanced courses. So the new LL.M graduates will learn less and pay the same.

Good luck with your substantial equivalency determination. I haven't seen NY grant that in the past 20 years. It's going to be difficult. I have however seen them use this rule to allow Japanese lawyers with a 2 year fast track law program in Japan to sit for the bar exam after their LL.M. in US, instead of completing another year in Japan. Even this determination is made on appeal by the NY appellate court and not the NY BOLE.

There is another reason this rule persists. Mutual recognition of eligibility is required by some of the International agreements US has entered into. There are law programs in Canada, Mexico and US which theoretically allow you to practice in all three jurisdictions. These programs will require the use of these rules as well. These courses have not taken off and there are just a handful of schools which offer these programs. Oh well anyways so long ...

olivers

I mean prestigious from a foreign lawyer's perspective from several angles:

NY and NY city is one of the biggest legal markets in the world handling more transactions than most other places. For a foreign lawyer to be admitted to practice law in NY, although that person may never actually practice or work there, it is prestigious.

For the above reason NY admission is more valuable than say a state like Massachusetts

For lawyers in the rest of the world it is always prestigious to be qualified as Solicitor in England and Wales or as Attorney in the United states. It becomes important part of their credentials and marketability

r3b|rth...

I didn't know that CA bar is more more valued within US territory and is more tougher than NY bar. I find your view that international applicants do not go for the CA bar exam because they don't have the means to go to the west coast very confounding...

I have found that most international lawyers who study in any of the states including many who study on the west coast states want to take the NY bar and not the CA bar. I mean a great majority of them, except those who have specific reasons to take CA bar. How does one explain this?

I think I know where this prestige outside of the US originates from. NY was for a long time the only bar which allowed foreign lawyers to practice in US for a long time.{NY is now certainly shutting down it's doors for foreign lawyers with stricter course requirement norms}. CA bar was much much more difficult to get through during that period and even now for most foreign LL.M's. Even the NY bar is no cake walk. There were 3 LL.M's from a T14 law school who passed the NY bar in the year I took the NY bar. That's less than 3% for that law school. I don't have the stats for the other law schools.

MA bar wasn't foreign lawyer friendly until a couple of years ago. Even today they have course work requirement for foreign lawyers. The VA bar will let you take their bar exam after LL.M. with a substantially equivalent program determination. In my opinion, VA bar and CA bar are among the most difficult bar exams. VA even requires you to appear in professional attire if I am not mistaken. DC bar requires you to take all courses on the bar exam. By that time you will be a J.D. and you really should pass any bar exam. It's extremely expensive though taking 36 credits for an LL.M.

The subject requirements of the bars should make all International lawyers stop and think about what they are doing in U.S. They can't specialize. They will have a general LL.M. with contract law, constitutional law and ethics courses. While these areas are better developed in US than in many foreign legislatures the value of the LL.M. was always in the advanced courses. So the new LL.M graduates will learn less and pay the same.

Good luck with your substantial equivalency determination. I haven't seen NY grant that in the past 20 years. It's going to be difficult. I have however seen them use this rule to allow Japanese lawyers with a 2 year fast track law program in Japan to sit for the bar exam after their LL.M. in US, instead of completing another year in Japan. Even this determination is made on appeal by the NY appellate court and not the NY BOLE.

There is another reason this rule persists. Mutual recognition of eligibility is required by some of the International agreements US has entered into. There are law programs in Canada, Mexico and US which theoretically allow you to practice in all three jurisdictions. These programs will require the use of these rules as well. These courses have not taken off and there are just a handful of schools which offer these programs. Oh well anyways so long ...

"Prestige" is irrelevant when you finally finish the degree/certification. What matters at that point is if you are a good lawyer and can (more importantly) bring in work. Some of America's most successful lawyers practice outside the "prestigious" states of NY and California. If you read any business magazine, you would realize that the new business states are Texas, Utah, Florida and Georgia. California and NY are far down the list. But, please continue to seek the "prestigious" NY Bar certification. The NY Bar certainly can use your money.