Online Graduate May Sit For Massachusetts Bar

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has granted permission to a graduate of an online law school, waiving the requirement of graduation from an ABA accredited school. The applicant’s qualifications:

In July of 2002, Mitchell received hisundergraduate degree, a bachelor of science in law, from Concord, andin July, 2004, he received his juris doctor degree from the sameinstitution. In connection with the law degree, Mitchell graduated with”highest honors,” and was the class valedictorian. Following hisgraduation, he sat for and passed the California bar examination, andwas admitted to the bar of California in November, 2004. He wasadmitted to practice before the United States Court of Appeals for theFirst Circuit in December, 2004, and before the United States DistrictCourt for the Central District of California in March, 2005.

The court concluded:

The record contains quite specific informationabout the required and elective courses that Mitchell took as a lawstudent at Concord–the course subjects, an overview of topics covered,and the legal texts and authors that were used–as well as adescription of the extensive online research resources that wereavailable to him. Our review of these materials indicates thatMitchell’s core course of study, and legal research resources, weresubstantively very similar to the core content offered by ABA-approvedlaw schools. See Osakwe, 448Mass. at 92-93. Moreover, and of great importance, the record revealsthat Mitchell achieved an exemplary degree of success as a law student.Thus, he won “outstanding achievement” awards in three of his firstyear courses, an award for best oral advocate and best brief in hismoot court exercise in the third year, and over-all academic honors in allfour of his law school years, graduating with highest honors and asvaledictorian of his class in July of 2004. [FN10] Finally, we find thefollowing factors significant: (1) the State of California, through itsbureau for private postsecondary and vocational education, hadspecifically approved Mitchell’s law school, Concord, to grant a jurisdoctor degree at the time Mitchell was a student; (2) Mitchell hastaken and passed the California general bar examination and did so thefirst time he took it; (3) Mitchell has taken and passed the multistateprofessional responsibility examination with a scaled score well abovethat required by the board (see note 3, supra

There was a dissenting opinion:

Here, because of present ABA standards, there is no imminent ABA approval.   Ante at,. Indeed the court states that the ABA process of reviewing its current standards has just begun.  Anteat. In addition, the plaintiff here does not state that he was somehowunaware of the hardships he could face when he chose to enroll in anunaccredited law school. See Matter of Tocci, supraat 545, 547 (denying waiver to sit for bar examination even though factthat applicant had to attend different law school from accredited onehe enrolled in was not his fault; applicant made informed decision toattend unaccredited law school and recognized difficulty he would face).
      The plaintiff points out, among other things, that his career made itmore convenient to attend law school online and that his law school wassignificantly less expensive than traditional law schools. Theseconsiderations are hardly extraordinary. Many people give up careers,or attend law school while working full-time, all the while incurringgreat costs to themselves, financially and otherwise. Presumably partof the calculation of those who choose to incur those costs is that, todo otherwise, would be to incur a risk they would rather not take.
      Finally, I conclude that the court’s claim that it can limit itsholding to the circumstances in this case is illusory. We do not knowwhen the ABA will complete its review or, more importantly, what theresult will be. The review for the current 2006 ABA standards began in2003. As noted, the new ABA review has just begun. In the interim, I amconcerned with the potential for having to assess large numbers ofgraduates from other online law schools.

The case is Mitchell v. Board of Bar Examiners, decided November 20, 2008. (Mike Frisch)