Talk:Juris Doctor/Archive 2

message: Here is a link for the ABA law school approval standards, I think some of the stuff in this article might misrepresent them. . Peyna 11:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABA law school approval standards 

message: 69.208.124.146 has repeatedly reintroduced wording to the effect that the J.D. is a doctoral-level degree. Peyna requested an RfC. The consensus appeared to be that evidence support the contention that the J.D. is not a doctoral-level degree. 69.208.124.146 invoked the U.S. Department of Education and reintroduced the doctoral-level wording. I have provided the link to and quotation from the U.S. DOE that unequivocally states that the J.D. is *not* a doctoral-level degree and, in fact, may not even be considered a graduate level degree. I incorporated this citation and made appropriate changes to the article. 69.208.124.146 has *again* introduced the doctoral-level wording. I'd appreciate others commenting on what appears to me to be a complete disregard for NPOV. Wikiant 14:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's the favored and oft-repeated circular argument: "A doctorate is a doctorate because it is conferred as a doctorate." How then do you deal with the lawyers who had been awarded LL.B.'s when the name of the LL.B. was changed to J.D.? By your argument, those folk weren't doctors then, presto-chango, became doctors. Wikiant 19:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to add a clarification about the Harvard graduation robes. Looking at the Harvard bookstore link mentioned above, the robes for the JD graduands are not the same as the ones for LLD and SJD and instead are the same as the robes for non-PhD/LLD graduate students such as M.A. graduands. --Aquarius Rising 13:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ignoring external sources

message: I reverted the previous edit for the following reason. The editor made the comment that the ABA has deemed it ethical for lawyers to use the title "doctor." If you look at www.sfbar.org/ethics/opinion_1973-7.aspx, you'll see that the ABA deemed it ethical for a lawyer who holds a doctorate *in addition to the J.D.* to use the title (the example given is a lawyer who is also a practicing dentist). I have not yet found corroborating evidence to the position that one who holds the J.D. alone can use the title. Wikiant 12:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd take "esquire" over "doctor" any day. =] Peyna 12:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, and I don't think you offered this for the purpose of demonstrating that the JD is not a doctorate anyway, but the main reason the use of "doctor" is/was prohibitted is because it might mislead potential clients into thinking either (1) you're more qualified than an attorney holding an L.L.B., or (2) you're a specialist in another field.  Peyna 12:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe Wikiant is misreading 1973-7. A fair reading of the entire opinion Indicates that an attorney with a J.D. can use the title Doctor whether or not he/she holds another doctorate.75.13.146.44 14:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I reverted what sounded more like an argument than an entry. Most lawyers don't use it; that's a fact. JJL 14:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Informal Opinion 1973-3