Difference between law degree, masters & diploma? (1 Viewer)

[Bobness]

1) What's a Masters of Law Degree?

2) What's a Diploma Law? Hence what are the differences between the two?

also

3) I was reading a brochure from a second-tier law company and well most of the partners and senior associates had one of the two above degrees. Only one had an LLB which is what i'm kinda looking at doing in uni (if i can make it). Anywho are the two aforementioned degrees postgraduate or honours law degrees of something?

Hmm and most of the partners who held a Dip Law (in particular) did not have any other degrees from their uni (i.e. not combined such as arts/law, commerce/law etc). What gives? They ended up so successful even without that 2nd degree ... although yes they were pretty much old men who might not be able to enjoy their money as much as the younger successful law grads.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Re: Degrees

1. A masters of law degree (LLM) is a postgraduate degree specialising in selected areas of law. You need a law degree (LLB) to undertake a masters of law. It is intended for advanced study in particular subjects.

As to why some practitioners only have LLMs: I believe (I could be mistaken) that back in the day, you could undertake a masters of law without an undergraduate law degree, and this would also be a sufficient qualification (along with practicing certificate) for legal practice. For example, Justice Gummow of the High Court of Australia does not have a Bachelor of Laws. He has a Bachelor of Arts and Master of Laws.


2. A Diploma of Law is given by the Legal Practitioners Admission Board and is an alternative qualification to a law degree for practicing law. It is much easier to gain entrance to the LPAB program than it is for the big universities, but it is a very demanding program.


If you intend to practice law, you need a law degree or a Diploma of Law. If you have a law degree and are seeking further study in law, a masters of law may be right for you.

 

[rnitya_25]

whow whow whow, wait a sec, a law degree obtained from university is not the same thing as a diploma in law that you would obtain from a college of a Tafe institute. To do a law degree, you need a Diploma in Law.

So the lowest in diploma in law, 2nd is degree (bachelors in Law), higher one is Masters in Law.

 

[Frigid]

To do a law degree, you need a Diploma in Law.

what the hell are you smoking?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

whow whow whow, wait a sec, a law degree obtained from university is not the same thing as a diploma in law that you would obtain from a college of a Tafe institute.

You are correct that it is not the same thing, but a Diploma in Law issued by the LPAB does give you the academic qualifications necessary when seeking your practicing certificate.

To do a law degree, you need a Diploma in Law.

That's not true, nor does it make any sense.

 

[hfis]

what the hell are you smoking?

Law degrees are like pokemon, Frigid. They need to evolve. You can't just go straight from Charmander to Charizard, you need to get up heaps of experience and make it turn into Charmeleon first. IDIOT.

But seriously, what are you smoking?

 

[Frigid]

Law degrees are like pokemon, Frigid. They need to evolve. You can't just go straight from Charmander to Charizard, you need to get up heaps of experience and make it turn into Charmeleon first.

i actually like squirtlehttp://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Squirtle_(Pokémon) -> blastoisehttp://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Blastoise_(Pokémon) more.

 

[xeuyrawp]

I think some people have been confused by the word 'degree'.

 

[xeuyrawp]

whow whow whow, wait a sec, a law degree obtained from university is not the same thing as a diploma in law that you would obtain from a college of a Tafe institute. To do a law degree, you need a Diploma in Law.

I'll be the one to clarify.

A 'law degree' usually refers to a LLB, a Bachelor of Laws. The extra L indicates plurality of 'laws' in latin, if you were wondering.

You can't get a Diploma of Law from TAFE, from my understanding. The only place you can get them is from teh LPAB, the Legal Profession Admission Board. This diploma takes 4 years and has numerous defenders and critics - do a search for 'diploma' in the title on these law forums.

To do a Bachelor of Laws (a law degree), you need to gain entrance normally via UAC, ie after the HSC, into University. Universities are the only places that offer a Bachelor of Laws. Therefore, you have two options- DipLaw at the LPAB or a LLB at Uni.

The Diploma of Law requires nothing other than an up-front payment for your studies, LLBs usually have higher UAI entries.

So the lowest in diploma in law, 2nd is degree (bachelors in Law), higher one is Masters in Law.

Whilst usually a diploma is 'worse' than a bachelor's degree, it is not, in this case. For intrinsic purposes, the LLB is exactly the same as a DipLaw - they are just held in different regards. The LLB and the DipLaw qualifications are both equal in the eyes of admission to become a professional laywer. The issue revolves around prestige and employability.

 

[turtleface]

Therefore, you have two options- DipLaw at the LPAB or a LLB at Uni.

Or you undertake the 3rd option, a JD
Only takes 2 years too, and satisfies admission requirements

 

[xeuyrawp]

Or you undertake the 3rd option, a JD
Only takes 2 years too, and satisfies admission requirements

Firstly, none of the options above take two years - a DipLaw takes 4 years, a LLB takes 3 at minimum.

Secondly, these are the only accredited law courses in NSW that are acceptable to become a lawyer:

<table border="1" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="50%">Name of Institution</td><td width="50%">Degree</td></tr> <tr valign="top"><td width="50%">University of Sydney</td><td width="50%">LLB</td></tr> <tr valign="top"><td width="50%">University of New South Wales</td><td width="50%">LLB</td></tr> <tr valign="top"><td width="50%">Macquarie University</td><td width="50%">LLB or Bleg S</td></tr> <tr valign="top"><td width="50%">University of Technology, Sydney</td><td width="50%">LLB or MLLP</td></tr> <tr valign="top"><td width="50%">University of Wollongong</td><td width="50%">LLB</td></tr> <tr valign="top"><td width="50%">University of New England</td><td width="50%">LLB</td></tr> <tr valign="top"><td width="50%">Southern Cross University</td><td width="50%">LLB</td></tr> <tr valign="top"><td width="50%">University of Newcastle</td><td width="50%">LLB</td></tr> <tr valign="top"><td width="50%">University of Western Sydney</td><td width="50%">LLB or MLP</td></tr> </tbody></table>

If you haven't got one of the above that doesn't fall under the Mutual Recognition Act, you may have to do a bunch of further training courses. The LPAB site isn't really explicit which courses fall under that act and which don't... I'd assume an LLB from Canberra would be acceptable, but it's just a guess, though.

 

[turtleface]

Originally Posted by turtleface
Or you undertake the 3rd option, a JD
Only takes 2 years too, and satisfies admission requirements

Firstly, none of the options above take two years - a DipLaw takes 4 years, a LLB takes 3 at minimum.[/quote]

When I say too I mean that: "a second benefit of the JD, is that it only takes 2 years to complete, as well as being a third option." I do not mean that it takes 2 years like other law degrees. I'm not sure many reasonable people would take my post to mean that either. Read my post more carefully next time. If anyone else believes my expression is faulty, please tell me, so I can correct it. Otherwise I'll just assume that PwarYuex was overzealous in his attempt to correct me.

Also, was it necessary to highlight the too in my post? I'm not a complete idiot.

Secondly, these are the only accredited law courses in NSW that are acceptable to become a lawyer:

You could be right about this, cause the JD I refer to is offered by Monash and Melbourne Uni's (Victorian) (their JD is acceptable for admission as a solicitor, or at least thats what it says on their websites. I mean, people do the JD for the purposes of becoming a lawyer so I don't see why they would bs about it.)

EDIT: ironically, to clear up my expression

 

[Bobness]

Re: Degrees

As to why some practitioners only have LLMs: I believe (I could be mistaken) that back in the day, you could undertake a masters of law without an undergraduate law degree, and this would also be a sufficient qualification (along with practicing certificate) for legal practice. For example, Justice Gummow of the High Court of Australia does not have a Bachelor of Laws. He has a Bachelor of Arts and Master of Laws.

mr beethoven (hahaha ...) is this still the case?

If i were to undertake a BA at uni could i still do a masters of law as a postgraduate form of study? Or are there other qualifications necessary before you are accepted to do an LLM course (i.e. distinction average at uni, LLB etc)?

 

[_dhj_]

Re: Degrees

mr beethoven (hahaha ...) is this still the case?

If i were to undertake a BA at uni could i still do a masters of law as a postgraduate form of study? Or are there other qualifications necessary before you are accepted to do an LLM course (i.e. distinction average at uni, LLB etc)?

---

1. A masters of law degree (LLM) is a postgraduate degree specialising in selected areas of law. You need a law degree (LLB) to undertake a masters of law. It is intended for advanced study in particular subjects.

 

[Bobness]

Re: Degrees

thanks!

haha its just that

For example, Justice Gummow of the High Court of Australia does not have a Bachelor of Laws. He has a Bachelor of Arts and Master of Laws.

made me think maybe others could do this today?

the old generation were luckier

 

[xeuyrawp]

Otherwise I'll just assume that PwarYuex was overzealous in his attempt to correct me.

Dude, calm the fuck down.

Firstly: If you meant that, you should have used the word 'too' paratactically and wrapped it in commas. Alternatively, you could have phrased it with a less ambiguous word.

Secondly: I thought you meant something different - do you realise that this isn't about you, but the person on the other end who needs help? If someone misunderstands you, you correct them and not launch into an attack. Did it also occur to you that if I took what you said differently, so would have other people?

Also, was it necessary to highlight the too in my post? I'm not a complete idiot.

umm ....

as well as being a third option." I do not mean that it takes 2 years like other law degrees.

Just to clarify -

as well as being a third option." I do not mean that it takes 2 years like other law degrees.

just to clarify again -

as well as being a third option." I do not mean that it takes 2 years like other law degrees.

I think that's what they call hypocrisy, no?

Edit:

If anyone else believes my expression is faulty, please tell me, so I can correct it.

Sure thing:

You could be right about this, cause the JD I refer to is offered by Monash and Melbourne Uni's

Go here.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Re: Degrees

thanks!

haha its just that made me think maybe others could do this today?

the old generation were luckier

I'd say it's because BAs used to be the undergraduate degree of the day. You basically did a BA in history and law, and then did a Masters of Laws as the kind of professional degree. I could be wrong, but that's my understanding.

 

[turtleface]

why is it that i cannot win either way?

Firstly you complain that I'm too ambigious:

Firstly: If you meant that, you should have used the word 'too' paratactically and wrapped it in commas. Alternatively, you could have phrased it with a less ambiguous word.

Then, when I try to clarify my meaning, you accuse me of hypocrisy by using underlining to make it friendly for your apparently poor comprehension skills.

Go here.

Sorry for the typo, I must have made an aboutface on what I was going to say, and typed something different. Regardless, do you realise posts like that embarrass you?

 

[xeuyrawp]

why is it that i cannot win either way?

Probably because you're wrong on both accounts.

Firstly you complain that I'm too ambigious:


Then, when I try to clarify my meaning, you accuse me of hypocrisy by using underlining to make it friendly for your apparently poor comprehension skills.

No, I was complaining that you expressed yourself incorrectly and launched into a long and silly post when I 'misunderstood' you, as well as your clear hypocrisy with the underlining statement.

I bolded 'too' so you knew what I was talking about - it had nothing to do with emphasis. End of story.

Regardless, do you realise posts like that embarrass you?

I'm usually good with remembering people, but I've seemed to have forgotten when we met, or when we've talked about this... I don't see how you could possibly claim that I'm embarrassed when you don't even know me?

Please, just for clarity's sake, point out where I told you I was embarrassed by my grammar Nazism, because I've seemed to have forgotten. Thanks. It would be best to PM me, because this is not helpful to people that actually use the site. End of story.

 

[Bobness]

Re: Degrees

You basically did a BA in history and law, and then did a Masters of Laws as the kind of professional degree.

Come again?

How can you do law in a Bachelor of Arts? Nowadays if you do that its a combined degree = BA/LLB.

NO FU*KING WAY GENERATION X (BAH WHATEVER THOSE PEOPLE WHO DID UNI IN THE 80S ARE CALLED) COULD DO LAW IN THEIR BA?

could they?