State bar exams can lead the way in the nascent LL.M. transparency movement

Last year I wrote 8 tips for navigating LL.M. programs and the state bar exam for the International Jurist.  Those who follow Beyond Non-JD may have seen my recent post about LL.M. bar exam information & Georgia’s leadership. And on November 1, 2023, I’m excited to team up with three LL.M. graduates (from three different schools) who passed state bar exams. They will share their wisdom and advice with prospective LL.M. students, current LL.M. students, and LL.M. graduates who aspire to pass state bar exams (RSVP link).

One of the reasons I launched Beyond Non-JD was because I was not confident that U.S. law schools, U.S. regulators, and U.S. rankings services would lead the way in sharing information with prospective LL.M. students. The growth and popularity of Beyond Non-JD demonstrates that prospective LL.M. students are going to continue looking for information.

One option would be for a version of the Required Disclosures to be crafted for LL.M. students. I’ve written in the past about why I don’t think that is likely to happen in the short term. That is especially true for Employment Outcomes and 509 Required Disclosures. But of the three, Bar Passage Outcomes seems to be the easiest to replicate across degree programs. You can read my long piece on Beyond Non-JD to get into a lot of the details. But for this piece, I want to explain why I am trying to build momentum around LL.M. bar passage outcomes.

• Consumer Protection: The ABA Required Disclosures were created at a time when people demanded more transparency around U.S. law schools, particularly in the way they talked about their programs and their post-graduate outcomes. If it was important to protect J.D. consumers (which I agree it was, and wish they were created sooner!), would it not be important to protect LL.M. consumers? How U.S. law schools answer that question would be quite telling.
• Understanding LL.M. Classes:  While I have a good sense of many U.S. law schools’ LL.M. admission standards from my teaching in China, I do not have any comprehensive data or publicly available information. When you look at bar passage rates for ABA Graduates – First Time Takers (J.D.), the results tend to be quite high compared to what international students initially think. For example, the New York pass rate in July 2023 for this category was 85% for this group. For people like me, the question is what leads to such weaker results from foreign-educated takers? Is it a one-year program (or no program!) compared to a 3-year program? Is it based on language abilities? Is it based on admissions criteria? Other factors or some combination? I can’t answer with complete certainty, but if state boards of law examiners and state supreme courts shared LL.M. bar passage data by school, U.S. law schools would at least have to decide whether that warranted changes to their entering classes.
• Reconsidering Recruiting: LL.M. programs are not bundle packages the way you can get TV/internet/phone service in one. The LL.M. does not come with a bar license and a job in the United States (trust me, I wish it did!). The more schools try to package these three separate things, the more I’m noticing expectation management issues at some schools around their LL.M. programs. Separating out the LL.M. (a credential, an education, an alumni network) with what comes after (a bar license and a job) seems like a good strategy for many schools. It’s why I’m very up front about telling every prospect I speak with about LL.M. and J.D. programs and letting them make the better decision for their goals. Some foreign-educated F-1 students will choose an LL.M. over a J.D. and it’ll work out for post-LL.M. work in the United States. For others it won’t. But with a two-year J.D. now available (in addition to traditional 3-year J.D. degrees), F-1 students have a really challenging choice if they have goals that are based on practicing law long term in the United States after successfully passing a state bar exam.

I imagine I’ll get some private pushback on this. More information that is publicly available may hurt certain U.S. law schools’ international LL.M. program bottom lines if some opt for J.D.s instead or schools are required to spend more on LL.M. bar prep resources. My response is that ensuring that all LL.M. students understand the benefits and limitations of their programs before they start will lead to better managed expectations, happier alumni (which is good for your alumni office), and students in the program whose goals align with the programs your school offers.  

How do I hope to build momentum for this project?

1. Work with foreign-educated attorneys who passed state bar exams and are now licensed! We can bring the Georgia model to their state bar exam leaders (courts and boards of law/bar examiners). Every state that allows foreign-educated lawyers to sit for their bar exam can share public results by schools. This can also provide more momentum for other information disclosures for LL.M. students.
2. Use public information about LL.M. pass rates to better advocate for support at schools that need it. Schools will likely have different attitudes towards bar exam support, just like they do for J.D. students. A lot of that depends on the strength of the entering J.D. class. For foreign-educated LL.M. students, I think schools can look at their pass rates and see patterns between (i) common law versus civil law training; (ii) TOEFL/IELTS entering scores; (iii) bar-tested subject coursework; and (iv) commercial bar prep course purchased and amount of time spent on it. Schools with LL.M.s already passing bar exams can highlight that more publicly. Schools that are struggling can determine if they want to revisit their admissions practices, add additional bar exam support for LL.M. students, and/or seek out students not interested in bar exam qualification.

The J.D. transparency movement owes a lot to the people who got the ball rolling. Let’s work together to do the same for LL.M. students and programs!