Inquiry from JD/American Citizen

What's your actual GPA and class rank for your JD?

2.8 GPA, which I assume is equivalent to a 58% in the UK.

My school does not issue class rank.

I went to the US for an LLM - so I have a little understanding of the US Law School system, but correct me if I am wrong with the following...

To get into one of the law schools you mentioned you must have had a high undergrad GPA in the first place - they will be interested in that too. Also as I understand it, as was at my US law school, all US law schools have bell curves? That isn't the case in the UK, law students are not graded against one another on a bell curve (so everyone can get an A+/1st class paper if that is the standard everybody is at). That means that you can't really directly translate US law school GPAs into 3/2:2/2:1/1 UK classifications, although you might be able to from a US undergrad where there are no bell curves.

So whilst your 2.8 GPA may look worse next to your peers, and when "converted" into UK grades, I think because it comes from a top law school and a bell curve system this may mitigate that fact a bit. As I understand it "Big Law" in the US even has different GPA cut offs for those from different schools, in order to mitigate the bell curve itself too - a 2.8GPA from Harvard, for example, would not do worse than a 3.5 GPA from Pepperdine.

I imagine LLM programs would understand that too (and there may even be a space on the application form to explain this further).

Regarding your side notes:

- I doubt any firm would take you on as a TC with your current level of experience - it would not make sense to either if you were doing the QLTS (as it stands)
- The QLTS could change soon anyway and have a compulsory work experience element to it - these are part of qualification process changes under the SQE consultantions currently taking place and due to be finalised later this year, so sitting the equivalent of the QLTS may need up to 18 months worth of work experience. It isn't clear whether that has to be in the UK though.

Many thanks Sir/Madam for your insight! Yes, my school like most other US law schools grades on a curve. I was hoping my prior and post-grad work experience, coupled with my NY or CA bar admission would help mitigate the GPA. I didn't think my undergraduate 2:1 would have helped, but I'm happy to hear that admission committees may be interested in that, too.

Would you say I still have a shot at UCL or KCL? What about LSE and QMUL? I am looking to get into the best program for banking/finance/competition/international trade law. Not exactly sure which focus it will be yet. I believe the current reputation amongst the 4 are UCL-->LSE--->KCL--->QMUL. Would you say that's a fair assessment?

In addition, are you currently practicing in the UK with your US LLM? How has your experiences been? Please feel free to reach out by private message as well!

Yes - although I'm confused as to whether your experience is as a qualified lawyer. If not, then it may not be the case.

Neither are needed if you are doing the QLTT. I wouldn't see the benefit of either course if you have a JD.

The QLTT might not exist in the not too distant future though.

Were you a paralegal or working in another business function? 6 years of non qualified work means a training contract might actually be better for you, but really depends on which route you choose to take GDL + LPC + TC or QLTS. The only issue with the latter is if you are aiming for NQ roles in the U.K. You might struggle as you do not have the equivalent 2 years experience NQ lawyers in the U.K. have. But it sounds like you haven't got aspirations to work in the U.K., just gain the qualification, so this might not be an issue.

I don't know enough about other jurisdictions, but the GDL will be worthless on its own. There's no point doing it unless you go on to do the LPC and then a training contract. If you are going to take the QLTS to become an English qualified lawyer, then the GDL will not be worth the paper it's written on.

No, at a lot of firms the average age of trainees has been increasing. You get a few people fresh out of uni+GDL+LPC but you also get people with a few years work experience.

It is the experience more than the qualification that matters once you are a few years into your career. I imagine that most of the work in the Caribbean/offshore will involve investment funds work and private client work, perhaps with a bit of general corporate/finance/litigation.

If you have a few years experience in those areas, happy days. But if you decide to become (for example) a real estate lawyer, employment lawyer, competition lawyer, commercial lawyer, start-up supreemo, securitisation specialist etc. etc. then moving to those countries is going to be a lot more difficult regardless of what qualification you have.

It doesn't automatically disqualify you, but any recruiter would wonder why you were putting yourself through 2 years of further qualifications (and probably the best part of £30k worth of fees) when you could take the QLTS and do the equivalent of a TC as a "legal assistant" (this is what some firms do with qualified lawyers from other jurisdictions). There just doesn't seem any sense in taking the GDL + LPC + Training contract route when you can bypass either part of (GDL + LPC) or even all of it if you have relevant work experience.

Ok that's even worse - why would a firm put you through what is close to £45k worth of training (fees + maintenance fees) when they can just ask you to go through the QLTS which will be far cheaper and quicker!?!

The "legal assistant" role is a TC - it is just for those who can't technically be called a trainee where they are qualified in another jurisdiction.

Your 2.2 will be as much as a blocker for a TC as it will be for a "legal assistant" role. If your grades suck, they will still suck when you come round to applying. Few firms will be interested as 1) you have poor grades and they will typically look for a 2.1 (GPA is usually around the 3.3-3.4 mark), 2) it will be more difficult for them to prove they could have recruited someone of the same standard as you from within the UK/EU if your grades suck (your words not mine), and if they have on any of their marketing materials that you need a strong academic background (pretty much any firm that can sponsor you for a Tier 2 visa will say that).

The GDL and LPC will not prove your academic ability - most firms sponsoring a work permit will want to see strong grades throughout, and are more likely to focus on your undergrad and JD grades than the GDL/LPC. Plus you are suggesting the firm would sponsor you before you had done either course, so they would only be able to go on your previous qualifications.

Of course BPP will sign you up - the course could be redundant in less than 6 months time and they need to try and ensure they are getting enough money coming in while they can.

There isn't a straight answer on this. Vast majority of firms will consider you a non lawyer if you have to do the GDL.

However I worked for one firm where they would have considered you a law graduate based on your qualifications.


Some other firms have other quirks though that mean it isn't a standardised policy.

There's no harm - but I'm just trying to manage your expectations having seen these processes from the inside.

Low academics + needing a work permit will make the process far more difficult. Unless firms advertise that they are looking for dual qualified lawyers, the NYB will not balance out a poor performance in your JD, particularly from a work permit perspective.

The undergrads are not just applying with their grades - they are applying with a while CV/application form. I wouldn't under estimate how strong those applications are.

Firms don't get that caught up in GDL/LPC grades. Some ask for a commendation as a minimum but many don't really put weight on them and will look at your degree results far more closely.



Posted from TSR Mobile

I'm trying to help you, there's no reason to be all curt of a sudden. I know these systems well, so although they might be anecdotes, they are those where I've recruited enough people across enough firms to know the challenges of recruiting someone with the type of background you are suggesting.

If firms don't get that caught up in GDL grades then why is this board populated with GDL law students freaking out because they failed modules or did not obtain commendation?

At the end of the day GDL grades are what separate the pack amongst non-law graduates, and I base this from perusing the sites and sales pitch of UK law firms. Most everyone would have obtained 2:1s and firsts in their undergraduate (myself included), but I figure law firms use GDL as a metric to determine who stays and who goes.

That, and an Ivy law degree. Yes, I said it. Hiring committees see "Yale" or "Harvard" and you immediately command attention. I wiggled my way into interviews on the sole basis of the pedigree of where I obtained my law degree.

We always here about the importance of grades and rank, but forget the importance of simple people skills, networking, and recommendations. The latter has gotten me this far, and I'm not going to count myself out on the basis of my grades alone.