Hello

Just a quick question: I have an degree in commerce honours from Canada and I have been accepted to study in England for an LLM in International Trade law. Because I do not have a LLB, does that still qualify me to be able to practice law in the future without the LLB? Makes sense that because it is an LLM that there would be no problem to study law. Please let me know. Thank you.

No. But then an LLB wouldn't either because to practice law in England you have to do a training course of one year to either become a barrister or a solicitor. If you don't have an LLB with certain set subjects you have to do an extra preparatory year in addition to that. Although you argue "Makes sense that because it is an LLM that there would be no problem to study law" the problem is not that you can't study law but that law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. There are probably other requirements if you are professionally as opposed to academically qualified in Canada but I don't know what they are.

Having reread your message and realised you have a B.Comm not a law degree I guess one of the other problems would be that while you might be ok in a commerical LLM you have none of the basics such as Criminal, Land law etc that someone practicing law probably should have. Even if you were to go into quite a specialised area of law you still might need to have a basic idea of other areas and the likelihood on the info you gave us is that you don't

Hi there,
Thank you for the comments to my question. The thing is, I only want to practice commercial law, and when I applied to the LLM International Trade Law program, Commerce OR law was a requirement in order to get into the LLM. I understand that I would definately have had to do a conversion course if I had chosen a field that was not related to my original specilty, but I do not want to practice law that is not commercially related, so therefore I was allowed to bypass the conversion course that most people would have had to do if their undergrad was not in law. It does not make sense to have to go back after a masters to do a conversion course to get into your masters. Lets think about that one. So your point is that I can practice law ( after the training course), but you worry about all other requirements that seem to be required of someone who has not yet entered the LLM. I would hope that allowing me into the LLM would open doors into a future law career. What do you think?
Thank you.

No that's not my point. My point is that you will have to do a 2 year as opposed to 1 year training course. The one year training course is only available to graduates who have completed an LLB (as far as I know it must be in UK/Ire but not too sure on that one) which includes certain subjects. In year 1 of the 2 year training course you will cover some of those subjects. What I was trying to point out earlier was that your reasoning for thinking that you should be qualified after the LLM seemed to me slightly illogical. Many colleges won't accept non-law undergraduates at all to LLM programs or at the very least without some compelling legal experience. And in many cases the reason they do is to provide diversity or to give a graduate in another discipline an insight into the legal aspect of their chosen field. The purpose of an LLM is not to train lawyers as such. And to suggest that after an LLM someone would be able to practice law is not in my opinon valid. That is not to say that after further training you couldn't be a great lawyer but after a one year LLM I don't think it is reasonable to expect that you would have the same fundamental knowledge as another person with 3 or 4 years undergraduate law. A former lecturer of mine did her LLM at a University which accepted non-law graduates and she suggested that I would be better going elsewhere as it caused problems with fundamental issues. On the other hand a friend thought it really broaden the scope of her classes in a Human Rights LLM because of the varying perspectives.

You significantly underestimate the commitment and investment lawyers make in their education if you think that one year of study is sufficient.

LL.Ms are useful to non-lawyers and lawyers alike, generally considered as a good investment in your future career, if you choose a subject that is related to your work.

You cannot practise law by successfully completing an LL.M in any part of the UK, Europe or else where in the world, as far as I know. This website, and many, many others are full of posts and aricles about the route to becoming a UK lawyer and no where will it say that a lone LL.M is enough to practise law. Check through these forums (and Google) for more detail on the route to legal practise. Try looking for "Law Society England" to get you started.

Take practising law in Scotland as an example (it's not that different from the rest of the UK). If your ultimate aim is to practice commercial law in the shortest space of time, I'd suggest quitting any notion of an LL.M for the time being and looking for, at the very least, an accelerated LL.B. That will take you a couple of years to complete. Then you need to sit your Diploma in Legal Education, which is another year. Then you need to join a firm and get two years of experience, and then you become a solicitor and a junior one at that.

I don't see the route to becoming a solicitor is easy, it's not particularly cheap, and it can take several years to get to a comfortable position.

I'm not trying to dissuade you, and anyone reading this from doing an LL.M or becoming a lawyer, but you the decision to become a lawyer, or to sit an LL.M has to be made carefully and at the right time.

Hope this helps a little.

hello
i m a lawyer from pakistan. i have just completed my llb here and now i want to do llm in corporate law from university of southampton uk. and i want to start my legal career there. so plz tell me that what steps would be btr for me to take
thanks

Try checking out the following link:

http://www.lawbritannia.co.uk/How2.htm

It'll help you with some of your doubts.

think its a good website. and will search it thoroughly. thanks again beicon thanks alot.
farhan

It short, no it is not possible to practice law without an LLB regardless if you have a LLM or not. The LLB and/or the JD is a professionnal degree with all the basic courses required to all lawyers (even if they do not want to practice in those fields) Property, Criminal, Torts, Constitutional, etc... However, you may have advanced standing at some institution for your LLM courses (you have to ask for it). With respect to I think that it is very logical. A Barrister and Solicitor has to be qualified to practice general law in the jurisdiction where they have been called. However, what is odd to me is that someone without a LLB or a JD is admitted into a LLM program. If I am not mistaken, in order to be admitted into an LLM program in the US or Canada, you need first a basic legal training (LLB or JD). All the best to you with your LLM program but I am sure that it will be very challenging for a non-LLB graduate (even for someone with a B. Comm ) to complete the program.