The NY Bar exam - first we take Manhattan, then we take Burnley

What people forget is how difficult the NY Bar exam is. The pass rate is around 50%. And that is for mainly US attorneys familiar with American multiple choice exams. This is no easy option!

Anonymous -19 Mar 2010 | 15:05

I agree with the article that the London offices of US law firms do not stand to gain much from a dual-qualified lawyer as they are here for English law expertise and therefore, do not put a premium on a NY qualification. However, in the unlikely event that they do take interest in hiring one, they will look for those who have gained their JDs from a top 10-15 US law school.

However you look at it, a JD from the College of Law is definitely a joke compared to a JD earned from a respected US law school.

Anonymous -19 Mar 2010 | 17:29

And by the way, passing the NY Bar exam is nothing really special. Most NY firms take it that once they've hired someone as an associate, it is a given that the associate will pass the exam on the first try (or at the most, second try), or else, they get sacked. It's really only people abroad who make it more than what it really is.

Anonymous -19 Mar 2010 | 17:37

As someone based in Hong Kong doing multi-jurisdictional work, I can say the NY Bar would be useful for impressing the locals. However, professional conduct rules still wouldn't let me near any US work in a meaningful sense - without real experience, how could I advise effectively? And I'd still have to punt most contracts to lawyers in Delaware or Virginia or whichever state the counterparty is insisting on for governing law.

NY Bar is just a bit of fluff really.

Anonymous -23 Mar 2010 | 10:17

I'm both English and NY qualified. I qualified in both jurisdictions via the traditional route (i.e. went to a top UK law school for my LLB and a top US Ivy League law school for my JD, did the LPC and sat the NY Bar exam). When it came to accepting a job, I had to choose between practising English law or NY law - just like many of my friends who are dual qualified.

Moral lesson of the story:

1) Be dual-qualified if that gives you a sense of personal achievement; but at the end of the day, this will NEVER put you ahead of the competition. Bear in mind that 99.99% of the legal jobs out there only require an applicant to be qualified in a specific jurisdiction so anything more than that isn't really relevant to employers. Ultimately, what employers will be looking for is ability, talent and experience.

2) If you are going to be NY qualified, better do it properly (i.e. live in the US, go to a good US law school and sit the bar there). At least, come job interviews, you can talk about your experiences living America/NY whilst doing your legal education. Employers would undoubtedly value this more than a JD from the College of Law. Remember, a JD is only as good as where it came from.

Anonymous -23 Mar 2010 | 11:55

Useless?

Before commencing my LPC I took a year out to gain some legal experience to see if this was the area that i wanted to go into. I had a pretty cushy job and so decided to do the NY Bar - having always seen adverts for it university presses and always having a fascination with NY. It has in hindsight - given me more interviews and also something interesting to talk about when i have gone to the magic circle and top 20 firms for interviews. I have no doubt it got my foot in the door. And besides... where else would you get the chance to sit through two full days of exams with quite literally a few thousand other people all under one roof!

Anony -25 Mar 2010 | 16:53

training contract/pupilage

The Law Society and the Bar Council must find a way round the problems of the inability of not getting a training contract and training contracts. These are the mao those individuals if they have to practise outside the New York.

The inability to provide training contract and pupilage has been the major issue why most opted for the New York Bar exam, which at the end of the day is utterly worthless to them, except for the fact that on admission in New York they can be classified as an lawyer, which is always the joy of anyone who has spent precious years and money through the University and the Law School/Bar. The issue of training contract/pupilage must be re-addressed.

ola -30 Apr 2010 | 22:25

I agree with Ola on this. The issue of the lack of training contracts/pupillages needs to be reviewed and addressed. Law students need to be made aware that law is elitist and ONLY if you have gone to certain universities and obtained certain grades will you be able to get a training contract in a TOP firm. Re the NY BAR. I am seriously considering this route as a way to qualification. Unlike some people I am not under the illusory impression that once I do the NY Bar a wonderful job will fall from the sky. I will do the NY bar as a way to qualify as a solicitor whilst gaining legal experience; in my case, in-house experience. Thus, my in-house experience is effectively what will get me to where I need to be. The NY Bar route will just give me the qualifying status. As the person stated above, that the NY Bar in hindsight did give them a foot in the door - I am keen to hear what difference the NY Bar has made in your career and whether you regret doing it.

Anonymous -22 Nov 2010 | 12:22