There’s an article in today’s Globe & Mail [1] on the continued JD-vs-LLB debate, and an email list exchange among Queens alumni gone awry on the subject. This post is not about the article directly, as I’m sure many of Slaw’s readers have already read plenty on the subject. But rather, I have a few questions about statements made within the article. And specifically this passage:
“Canadian law graduates typically spend the same seven years in school before they are granted an LLB but, because of its commonwealth roots, the degree is often confused by international employers with the British LLB. Unlike in Canada, British law graduates are not required to earn an undergraduate degree as a prerequisite, and can head straight to law studies from high school. As a result, global law firms typically pay law grads with JDs substantially more than Canadians packing LLBs.”
My understanding has always been that Canadian students could get into law school after 2-3 years of undergraduate study, depending on the program, and Quebec being the exception. But that because of competition, almost no one did so without a degree. Is this correct? And if so, have law schools in other commonwealth countries not seen competition drive up the entry requirements as well?
It is also my understanding that the Canadian LLB is very well regarded with recruiting international firms. And the number of US and UK firms recruiting in Canadian law schools would seem to support that. Does anyone else have a different opinion? because to me, this looks to be inaccurate as well.