As an aspiring lawyer, one has to ask why, of all the jobs in the planet, the law?

It is a question that many of us who are taking the course here in the Philippines normally ask amongst us and yet finding ourselves on virtually a variety of stories and reasons behind the prestige of having this education. However, what is it in the Profession that is worth learning? Actually, the answer can be equated as a double-bladed sword which can be used as a means to uphold justice and the preservation and adherence to the basic humanitarian rights or as a means to unconscionable practice which makes the profession an enticing business rather than a calling and a vocation. In the Philippines, an aspiring lawyer will, basically, spend eight years in college before taking the Bar Examinations; four years of which will be the basic collegiate course and the remaining four will be for the degree of Bachelor of Laws. It is, indeed, a struggle because not only you will spend so much time and effort reading, understanding, and learning voluminous accounts of books and other reading materials but also you must be financially prepared especially here in the country where economic struggle is being experienced. However, despite these barriers or hindrances, a lot of us still appreciate the value and the character of being in the Legal Profession because many of us believe that justice, through the practice of law, is a means of exercising our freedom and our democracy and we are trying to be advocates of this especially to our fellow countrymen who have lesser in life. It is in this wise that all of us might somehow agree as a reason to take the road of the Legal Profession.

Legal education in the Philippines is developed and offered by Philippine law schools, supervised by the Legal Education Board, that has replaced the Commission on Higher Education in respect to legal education. The Supreme Court regulates admission to the Bar and administers the Bar Examinations. Furthermore, the minimum curricular requirements for membership in the Philippine Bar are set forth in the Rules of Court promulgated by the Supreme Court. Law degree programs are considered graduate programs in the Philippines. As such, admission to law schools requires the completion of abachelor's degree, with a sufficient number of credits or units in certain subject areas. Graduation from a Philippine law school constitutes the primary eligibility requirement for the Philippine Bar Examination, the national licensure examination for practicing lawyers in the country. The bar examination is administered by the Supreme Court during the month of September every year. Members of the bar in the Philippines are required to take mandatory continuing legal education in order to continue practicing their profession. Legal education in the Philippines normally proceeds along the following route:

   

Undergraduate education (usually 4 years) Law school (usually 4 years) Admission to the bar (usually by taking a Philippine bar exam) Legal practice and mandatory continuing legal education

History
The University of Santo Tomas established its Faculties of Canon Law and Civil Law in 1733. From 1734 to 1800, of only 3,360 students, only 29 graduated with the degree of Bachelor of Civil Law, 8 with the degree of Licentiate in Civil Law and 3 with the degree of Doctor of Civil Law in that university.[1] In 1899, after the Malolos Constitution was ratified, the Universidad Literia de Filipinas was established in Malolos, Bulacan. It offered Law as well as Medicine, Surgery and Notary Public. In 1899, Felipe Calderon founded the Escuela de Derecho de Manila and adopted the name Manila Law College in 1924. The University of the Philippines opened its College of Law in 1910. There were around 50 Filipino and American students.[1] Justice Sherman Moreland of the Supreme Court of the Philippines was named its first Dean, but after he ultimately declined the position, he was replaced by George A. Malcolm, who is recognized as the college's first permanent dean. [edit]Legal

Systems

The Philippine legal system is an amalgamation of the world's major systems. These systems include the Roman Civil Law which was inherited from Spain; the Anglo-American Common Law which were derived from the laws of the United States; and Islamic Law otherwise known as the Shariah Law of the Muslim world. [edit]Law

degree programs

Law degrees in the Philippines may be classified into three typesprofessional, graduate level, and honorary. [edit]Professional

law degrees

In order to be eligible to take the bar examinations, one must complete one of the two professional degrees: The Bachelor of Laws (Ll.B.) program or the Juris Doctor (J.D.) program. Advanced degrees are offered by some law schools, but are not requirements for admission to the practice of law in the Philippines.  Bachelor of Laws (Ll.B.) - The Ll.B. is the most common law degree offered and conferred by Philippine law schools. It is a standard four-year law program covering all bar exam subjects. Almost

all law schools follow a standard LL.B. curriculum, wherein students are exposed to the required bar subjects. Other schools, like the University of the Philippines College of Law, allow students to substitute electives for bar review subjects offered in the fourth year of study.[2]  Juris Doctor (J.D.) - The J.D. degree was developed and first conferred in the Philippines by the Ateneo Law School in 1991. The J.D. program is a four-year law program. Like the standard Ll.B. program, the J.D. curriculum covers the core subjects required for the bar examinations. Unlike the Ll.B., the Ateneo J.D. program requires students to finish the core bar subjects in 2 years, take elective subjects, undergo an apprenticeship, and prepare and defend a thesis.
[4] [3]

Aside from the

[2]

Ateneo, other law schools offer the J.D.: the University of Batangas College of Law, recently, the University of the Philippines College of Law

and just

The change in degree title from Bachelor

of Laws (LL.B.) to Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree at the University of the Philippines was approved by its president, Dr. Emerlinda R. Roman, on July 31, 2007. In 2009, Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila College of Law and the Silliman University College of Law started its own J.D. curriculum.[5][6] The Central Philippine University in Iloilo City will start to offer this degree by second semester of 2010.[7] University of St. La Salle in Bacolod city is also offering a J.D. program.
needed] [citation

Juris Doctor-Master of Business Administration, (J.D.-M.B.A.), - The J.D.-M.B.A. program is a double degree program in law and management offered at the graduate level. It was introduced and is so far offered only by the La Salle-FEU MBA-JD Program, a consortium of Far Eastern University Institute of Law and De La Salle Graduate School of Business. Under this program, the requirements of the J.D. and M.B.A. programs are satisfied by the taking of concurrent units of study, allowing students to complete the program in five instead of six years.[2]

[edit]Graduate

law degrees

Beyond the J.D. or Ll.B., members of the Philippine bar have the option of pursuing graduate degrees in law.  Master of Laws (LL.M.) - The Ll.M. is a graduate law degree offered to holders of basic law degrees (LL.B. and J.D.). It is generally offered to law graduates and lawyers of any nationality. Six Philippine law schools so far conduct the program--the Ateneo Law School, which offers an International Master of Laws program; the University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Civil Law, which first offered the LLM;University of Manila College of Law; Manuel L. Quezon University College of Law; San Beda Graduate School of Law; and PLM Graduate School of Law of the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (University of the City of Manila). LL.M. programs were once offered by the Far Eastern University Institute of Law, the Escuela de Derecho de Manila (now Manila Law College Foundation),

and the University of the Philippines College of Law but were eventually phased out due to lack of enrollment and funding.[2]  Doctor of Civil Law (D.C.L.) - The D.C.L. program is a doctoral program in law offered to holders of the LL.M degree. Candidates who hold only LL.B. degrees may be admitted upon completion of prerequisite LL.M. subjects. The D.C.L. was pioneered by the University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Civil Law. Their program structure is highly similar to the D.C.L. offered in the Complutense University of Madrid. The PLM Graduate School of Law has already opened its own D.C.L. program.[9] Doctor of Jurisprudential Science (S.J.D. or J.S.D.) - The S.J.D. or J.S.D. program is currently offered only by the San Beda Graduate School of Law. While the candidate for the degree is required some academic units, the grant of the degree relies on the candidates research output as well as his or her participation in international symposia, seminars and programs as lecturer, panel presenter or paper presenter. The candidate presents a doctoral dissertation that is argued before a Panel of Oral Examiners and then delivers a 'lectio coram' -- a lecture in the presence of legal luminaries. The Graduate School of Law of San Beda College is currently the only graduate school of law in the country offering this degree. [edit]Honorary
[8]

law degrees

Some Philippine universities also confer the honorary Doctor of Laws (LL.D.) degree. It is given to famous individuals who, in the discretion of the awarding institution, were found to have made significant contributions to a certain field, or to the improvement of society or development of the conditions of mankind in general. Honorary law doctorates in the past include:    King Juan Carlos I of Spain (LL.D., honoris causa, University of Santo Tomas)[10] UNESCO Director General Koichiro Matsuura (LL.D., honoris causa, University of Santo Tomas)[10] former International Court of Justice Judge Cesar Bengzon (LL.D., honoris causa, Ateneo de Manila University and University of Santo Tomas) [10][11]  former United Nations General Assembly President Carlos P. Romulo (Ll.D., honoris causa, University of Santo Tomas and University of the East)[10][12]  former Philippine President Corazon Aquino (LL.D., honoris causa, University of the Philippines and University of Santo Tomas)    
[10][12]

former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos (LL.D., honoris causa, University of the East)[12] former Philippine President Ramon Magsaysay (LL.D., honoris causa, University of the East)
[12]

former Philippine Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban (LL.D., honoris causa, University of Iloilo)[13] Canadian Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin, P.C. (LL.D., honoris causa, Ateneo de Manila University)
[11]

former Philippine First Lady Aurora Aragon Quezon (LL.D., honoris causa, University of Santo Tomas)[10] former Philippine First Lady Imelda Marcos (LL.D., honoris causa, University of the Philippines).[12] Philippine Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago (LL.D., honoris causa, Centro Escolar University and Xavier University)[14][15] former Philippine Senator Raul Manglapus (LL.D., honoris causa, Ateneo de Manila University)[11] former Philippine Commission on Elections Chairman Christian Monsod (LL.D., honoris causa, Ateneo de Manila University)[11]

 

 

former Philippine Supreme Court Chief Justice and currently a Truth Commissioner Hilario Davide, Jr. (LL.D., honoris causa, University of San Carlos)[11]

founder of Chronicle Broadcasting Network Don Eugenio Lopez, Sr. (LL.D., honoris causa, Silliman University)[16]

[edit]Practicality While advanced law degrees (LL.M., D.C.L., S.J.D., LL.D.) may elevate a lawyer's standing in academic settings, the basic law degree (LL.B., J.D.) remains the most important academic qualification to be admitted to the practice of law in the Philippines.[17] [edit]Ecclesiastical

law degrees

A few Roman Catholic seminaries and graduate schools offer degree programs in Canon Law, an ecclesiastical program that is not required in the Philippine Bar Examinations.The University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Canon Law runs the oldest academic programs of this kind. ItsLicentiate of Canon Law (J.C.L.) and Doctor of Canon Law (J.C.D.) programs are open to priests, nuns, theologians, and even to lay people (i.e., trial court judges, law deans, family lawyers etc.). Judges of the Roman Catholic Marriage Tribunal typically hold academic degrees in the field.[18] Degrees in canon law, strictly speaking, are not considered law degrees in the Philippines. [edit]Developments There is a move among members of the Philippine Association of Law Schools (PALS) to convert their Ll.B. programs into J.D. curricula.[3]There are currently two possible directions for the change: First, the conversion of Ll.B. programs through adopting a model substantially similar to the J.D. curriculum introduced by the Ateneo de Manila Law School (the J.D. Programs of the FEU-La Salle consortium and the University of Batangas Law School are of this mold), and second, simply changing the name of the degree conferred from Ll.B. to J.D. while essentially retaining the same course offerings as those in the DECS Model Law Curriculum (DECS Order No. 27, series of 1989).[3] [edit]Admission

to the practice of law

The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines has given the Supreme Court the sole power to admit individuals to the practice of law in thePhilippines.
[19]

This power is exercised through a Bar Examination Committee,

an ad hoc academic group tasked to formulate questions, administer proceedings, grade examinations, rank candidates, and release the results of the Philippine Bar Examination. To be eligible to take the national bar exam, a candidate must be a Filipino citizen, at least twenty-one years of age, and holder of a bachelor's degree and a law degree obtained from a government recognized law school in the Philippines. Graduates of law schools from other countries must obtain a law degree from the Philippines to qualify for the Philippine Bar.
[20]

In March 2010 the Supreme court issued

Bar matter 1153 allowing Filipino who are foreign law graduates to take the Bar exam provided that applicant complies with the following conditions: a) completion of all courses leading to the degree of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent degree; (b) recognition or accreditation of the law school by the proper authority; and (c) completion of all fourth year subjects in the Bachelor of Laws academic program in a law school duly recognized by the Philippine Government d) must have completed a separate bachelors degree. [edit]Philippine

Bar Examinations

The Philippine Bar Examinations is the national licensure exam for admission to the practice of law. It is conducted during the four Sundays of September of every year. It is arguably the hardest and the most media-covered of all government licensure examinations in the country.[21]It is also reputedly one of the hardest bar examinations in the world.[22] For candidates intending to practice Islamic law in the Philippines, the Special Bar Exams for Sharia Court Lawyers is given every two years. The Supreme Court Bar Office conducts the exam while the Office of Muslim Affairs determines the qualification and eligibility of candidates to the exams.[23] [edit]Attorneys-at-law To be a full-fledged lawyer in the Philippines and be eligible to use the title Attorney, a candidate must graduate from a Philippine law school, take and pass the Philippine Bar Examinations, take the Attorney's Oath, and sign his name in the Rolls of Attorneys of the Supreme Court.
[24]

The full names of lawyers are found in the Rolls of Attorneys of the Supreme Court, and in a similar list included in a Supreme Court publication entitled Law List. [edit]Legal
[25]

Education Board

The Legal Education Board supervises all law schools and continuing legal education providers in the Philippines.
[26]

The Board is headed by a Chairman who is a retired justice of a collegiate court (i.e.,
[26]

Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, etc.). Regular members of the Board include a representative from each of the following:

    

Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Philippine Association of Law Schools (PALS) Philippine Association of Law Professors (PALP) active law practitioners bonafide law students

The Board has made legal reforms which includethe stricter selection of law students and law professors; improvements in quality of instruction and facilities of law schools; provisions for legal apprenticeship of law students; and the requirement of attendance to continuing legal education seminars for practicing attorneys. [edit]Mandatory
[26]

Continuing Legal Education

Lawyers with names appearing in the Rolls of Attorneys of the Supreme Court, unless disbarred, are all members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).[27] However, to be IBP members of good standing, lawyers are required to complete, every three years, at least thirty-six hours of continuing legal education seminars approved by the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Committee (MCLE). Members who fail to comply shall pay a non-compliance fee, and shall be listed as a delinquent member.[28] The Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Office, established by the Supreme Court, is the official government agency tasked to implement compliance with the MCLE requirement.[28] The MCLE Office is headed by former Supreme Court Justice Carolina C. Grino-Aquino, widow of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Ramon Aquino. Its office is located at the fourth floor of the IBP Building in Ortigas Center. Some of the most notable MCLEO staff are as follows: 1. Crisanto Carrillo Jr. 2. Jaime Gonzales Jr. 3. Joel Pastor 4. Jayson Del Rosario 5. Edison Discimulacion 6. Sunie De Leon 7. Bong Mesina 8. Sherwin Peter Seriosa 9. Amor Tuazon-Del Rosario 10. Felicisma Bet Perea 11. Minerva Sancho 12. Sheryl Atienza 13. Micheal Cawa 14. Liza Sevilla 15. Leny Dela Cruz [edit]Philippine

law schools
[29][30]

There are one-hundred-five (105) law schools public universities:[31]

legitimately operating throughout the Philippines.

These include independent law schools, resident colleges, and affiliated units of much larger private and

Name

Location

Adamson University College of Law

900 San Marcelino St., Manila

Aklan Catholic College College of Law Arch.Reyes St., Kalibo, Aklan

Andres Bonifacio College

College Park, Dipolog City

Aquinas University College of Law

2-S King's Building, JAA Penaranda St., Legazpi City

Araullo University College of Law

Bitas, Cabanatuan City

Arellano University Law Foundation

Taft. Ave. cor. Menlo St., Pasay City

Ateneo de Davao College of Law

Jacinto St., Davao City

Ateneo de Manila Law School

20 Rockwell Drive, Rockwell Center, Makati City

Ateneo de Zamboanga University College of Law

La Purisima Street, Zamboanga City Proposed 2011

Basilan State University College of Law Isabela City, Basilan

Bicol Colleges

Daraga, Albay

Bukidnon State University

Malabalay, Bukidnon

Bulacan State University College of Law

MacArthur Highway, City of Malolos, Bulacan

Cagayan Colleges-Tuguegarao

Cagayan

Cagayan State University

Tuguegarao, Cagayan

Camarines Norte School of Law

Itomang, Talisay, Camarines Norte

Central Philippine University College of Jaro, Iloilo City Law

Centro Escolar University

Gil Puyat St., Makati City

Christ the King College

Calbayog City

Colegio dela Purisima Concepcion

IBP Office, Hall of Justice, Roxas City

Cor Jesu College

Digos, Davao del Sur

Cordillera College

Bugayan, La Trinidad, Benguet

De La Salle University College of Law

2401 Taft Avenue, Malate, Manila

Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University College of Law

San Fernando, La Union

Dr. Vicente Orestes Romualdez Education Foundation, Inc.

Tacloban City, Leyte

East Central Colleges

San Fernando City, Pampanga

Far Eastern University Institute of Law

Nicanor Reyes Sr. St., Sampaloc, Manila (The La Salle-FEU MBA-JD Program is offered at De La Salle Professional Schools, RCBC Plaza, Ayala Ave., Makati City. It is offered in consortium with the De La Salle Graduate School of Business.)

Fr. Saturnino Urios University

San Francisco St. cor. J.C. Aquino Ave., Butuan City

Fernandez College of Arts & Technology

Gil Carlos St., Baliuag, Bulacan

Foundation University

Dr. Miciano St., Dumaguete City

Harvardian Colleges

San Fernando, Pampanga

Holy Name University College of Law

Tagbilaran City, Bohol

Jose Rizal University College of Law

82 Shaw Blvd., Mandaluyong City

Leyte Colleges

Zamora St., Tacloban City

Liceo de Cagayan University College of Rodolfo N. Pelaez Blvd., Carmen, Cagayan de Oro Law

Luna Goco Colleges

Calapan, Oriental Mindoro

Luzon Colleges

Dagupan City, Pangasinan

Lyceum of the Philippines UniversityCollege of Law

L.P. Leviste St., Makati City

Lyceum-Northwestern University College of Law

Dagupan City, Pangasinan

Manila Law College Foundation (formerly Escuela de Derecho de Manila)

Sales St., Sta. Cruz, Manila

Manuel L. Quezon University College of Law

R. Hidalgo St., Quiapo, Manila

Manuel S. Enverga University Foundation College of Law

Foundation St., Lucena City

Masbate Colleges

Masbate, Masbate

Medina Colleges

Ozamiz City

Mindanao State University College of Law

Marawi City

Misamis University College of Law

Bonifacio St., Ozamiz City

New Era University College of Law

St. Joseph St., Milton Hills Subd., Brgy. New Era, Quezon City

Negros Oriental State University

Dumaguete City

Northeastern College

Santiago City, Isabela

Northwester University College of Law Laoag City

Notre Dame University College of Law Notre Dame Ave., Cotabato City

Pagadian College of Criminology & Sciences

Pagadian City

Palawan State University College of Law

Sta. Monica, Puerto Princesa, Palawan

Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila College of Law

Intramuros, Manila

Philippine Advent College

Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte

Philippine Law School

F.B. Harrison St., Pasay City

Polytechnic University of the Philippines College of Law

Mabini Campus, Santa Mesa, Manila

Samar College

Catbalogan City, Samar

San Beda College of Law

Mendiola St., San Miguel, Manila

San Beda College of Law-Alabang

Don Manolo Boulevard, Alabang Hills Village, Muntinlupa City

San Pablo Colleges

San Pablo City

San Sebastian College RecoletosCollege of Law

Claro M. Recto Ave., Manila

Saint Louis College

San Fernando City, La Union

Saint Louis University, Baguio CitySchool of Law

Bonifacio St., Baguio City

St. Mary's University College of Law

Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya

Silliman University College of Law

Hibbard Ave., Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental

Southwestern University College of Law

Urgillo St., Sambag District, Cebu City

Tabaco Colleges

Tabaco, Albay

University of Batangas College of Law

Batangas City

University of Bohol College of Law

Tagbilaran City

University of the Cordilleras (formerly the Baguio Colleges Foundation) College of Law

Harrison Rd., Baguio City

University of the East College of Law

Claro M. Recto Ave., Manila

University of Eastern Philippines College of Law

Catarman, Northern Samar

University of Iloilo College of Law

Iloilo City

University of Manila College of Law

Mv. delos Santos, Manila

University of Mindanao College of Law Bolton St., Davao City

University of Negros OccidentalRecoletos School of Law

Libertad, Bacolod City, Negros Occidental

University of Nueva Caceres College of Naga City, Camarines Sur Law

University of Perpetual Help-Rizal College of Law

Las Pias City

University of Perpetual Help System College of Law

Bian, Laguna

University of San Agustin College of Law

Gen. Luna St., Iloilo City

University of San Carlos College of Law

P. Del Rosario St., Cebu City

University of San JoseRecoletos College of Law

Cebu City

University of St. La Salle College of Law

La Salle Avenue, Bacolod City

University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Civil Law

Main Building, U.S.T. Campus, Espaa Blvd., Sampaloc, Manila

University of Southern Philippines Foundation College of Law

Cebu City

University of the Philippines College of Malcolm Hall, U.P. Diliman Campus, Quezon City Law

University of Visayas College of Law

Cebu City

Virgen de los Remedios College

10 Fontaine St., East Bajac-bajac, Olongapo City

Virgen Milagrosa University Foundation College of Law

Martin P. Posadas Avenue, San Carlos City, Pangasinan

Xavier University - Ateneo de Cagayan Corales Ave., Cagayan de Oro City College of Law

Western Mindanao State University [edit]Notable [edit]Oldest

Normal Road, Baliwasan, Zamboanga City

law schools

law schools

The fifteen oldest law schools are as follows:[1]  University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Civil Law, established in 1734, is the oldest law school in the Philippines. In 1734, the University of Santo Tomas opened a Faculty of Civil Law and a Faculty of Canon Law. From 1734 to 1800 (66 years), out of 3,360 students, only 40 students graduated from various law programs: 29 in Bachelor of Civil Law, 8 in Licentiate in Civil Law, and 3 in Doctor of Law,

reflecting the rigid training in these courses. The school has produced four Philippine Presidents, three Vice Presidents, and six Chief Justices of the Philippine Supreme Court.  Universidad Literia Filipinas, established in 1898, was the second oldest law school in the country. It is no longer operating. The university was established in Malolos, Bulacan and offered progams in law and notary public. The school later moved to Tarlac.  Escuela de Derecho de Manila (now Manila Law College Foundation) was established in 1899. Don Felipe Calderon, author of the 1899 Malolos Constitution, founded the school. In 1924, the school was renamed the Manila Law School. It was further renamed Manila Law College Foundation.  University of the Philippines College of Law, established in 1910, is the flagship law school of state colleges and universities in the Philippines. In 1910, the College of Law of the University of the Philippines opened with fifty (50) Filipino and American students. Justice Sherman Moreland of the Philippine Supreme Court was named as the first dean, but after he ultimately declined the post, he was replaced by George A. Malcolm, the first permanent dean of the College. The school has dominated past and present memberships in thePhilippine Supreme Court and other collegiate courts.  Philippine Law School was established in 1915. Former Presidents Diosdado Macapagal and Carlos P. Garcia attended the school.  University of Manila College of Law was established in 1918. Cecilia Muoz Palma, the first woman to be appointed Associate Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court and the President of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, earned her Master of Laws from this institution.  Far Eastern University Institute of Law, established in 1934, is the alma mater of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, former Philippine President Corazon Aquino, former Philippine Court of Appeals Presiding Justices Oscar Herrera and Salome A. Montoya, and Sandiganbayan senior associate justice Edilberto Sandoval.  Silliman University College of Law was established in 1935 with a class of 22 freshmen. Carlos P. Garcia, 4th President of the Republic of the Philippines took law subjects in the school before finally proceeding to the Philippine Law School. Atty. Felix Gaudiel, a long serving dean of the college was a member of the 1973 Constitutional Convention.[32][33][34]  Southern College of Law was established in 1935. It is no longer operating.

Ateneo de Manila Law School, established in 1936, is the alma mater of former Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee, 1986 Constitutional Commissioner Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J.., and former Philippine Vice President Teofisto Guingona.

University of San Carlos College of Law in Cebu City, was established in 1937. It is the only law school in the Visayas and Mindanao to be granted license by the Supreme Court to have a Clinical Legal Education Program (CLEP), whereby its senior students are allowed to handle actual cases in the court with the assistance and under the guidance of a licensed member of the Bar. Likewise, it is the first law school outside Manila to be accredited by the Supreme Court to conduct Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) seminar for lawyers.[35]

The Arellano University School of Law, formerly as the Arellano Law College and officially as Arellano Law Foundation, was established in 1938. It formed the early beginnings of Arellano University. Popular broadcaster and former Leyte Representative Ted Failon, former Court of Appeals Presiding Justice Manuel Gaviola, former Senator Francisco Sumulong, and former Congressman Jose Zafra attended the school.

   

University of San Agustin School of Law was established in 1939. Francisco Law School was established in 1940. It is now defunct. Manuel L. Quezon University was established in 1947. San Beda College of Law, was founded in 1948. Famous alumni include former Senator and Education Secretary Raul Roco, former Senator Rene Saguisag, and former Supreme Court Associate Justice Florenz D. Regalado who holds the highest bar exam grade in the history of the Philippine Bar Examinations.

[edit]Bar

Performance

[edit]Bar passing rate The bar passing rate is the proportion of successful bar exam passers in relation to the total number of bar exam takers coming from a particular law school. The national bar passing rate (proportion of all bar exam passers in relation to all bar exam takers) changes every year, and has gone from an all-time high of 75.17% in 1954 to an all-time low of 16.59% in 1999.
[36]

Law schools with the highest average bar passing rates from 1996 to 2005 include: Schools with more than 30 examinees:

    

Ateneo de Manila Law School - 89.19% San Beda College of Law - 85.27% University of the Philippines College of Law - 85.19% University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Civil Law - 56.70% Far Eastern University Institute of Law - 26.25%

Schools with 30 or less examinees:       

[38]

Ateneo de Davao University College of Law - 65.57% University of San Carlos - 54.45% Arellano University - 46.18% Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila College of Law - 41.26% Xavier University - Ateneo de Cagayan - 37.45% Lyceum of the Philippines University - 32.40% St. Louis University - 31.38%[37]

In the 2006 bar examinations, Basilan State University's lone bar candidate passed, giving the school a 100% passing rate.[39] [edit]Bar topnotchers Bar topnotchers are bar examinees who garnered the highest bar exam grades in a particular year. Every year, the Supreme Court releases the bar top ten list. The list contains the names of bar examinees who obtained the ten highest grades. It is possible for more than ten examinees to place in the top ten because numerical ties in the computation of grades usually occur.[40] Schools which have produced bar topnotchers (1st placers)[41] include:         University of the Philippines College of Law - forty-nine (49) bar topnotchers Ateneo de Manila Law School - nineteen (19) bar topnotchers San Beda College of Law - seven (7) bar topnotchers Philippine Law School - seven (7) bar topnotchers University of Manila - six (6) bar topnotchers Far Eastern University Institute of Law - three (3) bar topnotchers University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Civil Law - three (3) bar topnotchers University of the Cordilleras (formerly Baguio Colleges Foundation) College of Law - two (2) bar topnotchers

    

Manila Law College Foundation (formerly Escuela de Derecho de Manila) - one (1) bar topnotcher Manuel L. Quezon University College of Law - one (1) bar topnotcher Divine Word College - one (1) bar topnotcher University of the East College of Law - one (1) bar topnotcher San Sebastian College Institute of Law - one (1) bar topnotcher

Two bar examinees topped the bar exams without graduating from any Philippine law school:   Jose Diokno - former Senator of the Philippines; 1st placer, 1945 bar exams Carolina C. Grio-Aquino - former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court; 1st placer, 1950 bar exams In the past, non-law school graduates were allowed to take the bar. However, the Revised Rules of Court and Supreme Court Circulars allow only Philippine law graduates to take the bar, necessarily excluding non-law graduates and foreign law graduates from taking part in the exercise. [edit]Law

schools with prestigious alumni

The quality of law schools is often measured by the prestige, influence, or wealth of famous law alumni.[21] Some of the law schools and their famous alumni include:  Ateneo de Manila Law School alumni:[42]          Teofisto Guingona - former Vice President of the Philippines Claudio Teehankee - former Chief Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court Adolfo Azcuna - Associate Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court Renato Corona - Chief Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court Jose Miguel Arroyo - First Gentleman of the Philippines Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J. - Member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission Alan Peter Cayetano - Senator of the Philippines Ignacio Bunye - Presidential Spokesman Arturo D. Brion - former Secretary of Labor and Employment; Associate Justice of the Supreme Court      Rolando Andaya Jr. - former Secretary of Budget and Management Sergio Apostol - Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Ernesto Maceda - former Senate President Hernando Perez - former Secretary of Justice Merceditas Gutierrez - Philippine Ombudsman; former Secretary of Justice

Agnes Devanadera - Acting Secretary of Justice; former Solicitor-General; former Government Corporate Counsel

  

Michael P. Elbinias - Associate Justice of the Philippine Court of Appeals Evelio Javier, former Governor of Antique
[43]

Far Eastern University Institute of Law alumni:    

Corazon Aquino - former President of the Philippines Artemio Panganiban - former Chief Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court Court of Appeals Presiding Justice and Remedial Law expert Oscar Herrera Jose Nolledo - Member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, Delegate of the 1971 Constitutional Convention

     

Salome Montoya - former Presiding Justice of the Philippine Court of Appeals Eliezer R. De los Santos - Associate Justice of the Philippine Court of Appeals Juan Q. Enriquez Jr. - Associate Justice of the Philippine Court of Appeals Edilberto Sandoval - Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan (Philippine Anti-Graft Court) Manuel Collantes - former Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Ambassador to the United Nations Sedfrey Ordonez - former Solicitor General, Secretary of Justice, Ambassador to the United Nations, and Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights

  

Edgar Ilarde - former Senator of the Philippines Wenceslao Lagumbay - former Senator of the Philippines Neptali Gonzales Jr. - former Mayor of Mandaluyong City and Majority Floor Leader of the Philippine House of Representatives

San Beda College of Law alumni:[44]  Florenz D. Regalado - former Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court, obtained the highest rating in entire history of the Philippine Bar Examinations    Raul Roco - former Senator, Education Secretary, 1998 & 2004 presidential candidate Rene Saguisag - former Senator and Human Rights Lawyer Ramon V. Mitra - former Speaker of the House of Representatives and 1992 presidential Candidate  Antonio Eduardo Nachura - Associate Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court, former SolicitorGeneral   Jose Catral Mendoza - Associate Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court Justo P. Torres, Jr. - Associate Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court

             

Antonio Martinez - Associate Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court Romeo Callejo, Sr. - Associate Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court Gregory S. Ong - Associate Justice of the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan Rodolfo Ponferrada, Sr. - Associate Justice of the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan Eugenio Labitoria - Associate Justice of the Philippine Court of Appeals Eloy Bello, Jr. - Associate Justice of the Philippine Court of Appeals Bienvenido Reyes - Associate Justice of the Philippine Court of Appeals Francisco Acosta - Associate Justice of the Philippine Court of Appeals Mario Lopez - Associate Justice of the Philippine Court of Appeals Antonio Eugenio, Jr. - President, Philippine Judges Association Sixto Brillantes, Jr. - Election law expert Rodrigo Duterte - Mayor, Davao City and former Congressman, Davao City Leila De Lima - Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights

University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Civil Law alumni:[45]              Manuel L. Quezon - former President of the Philippines Sergio Osmea - former President of the Philippines Jose P. Laurel - former President of the Philippines Diosdado Macapagal - former President of the Philippines Emmanuel Pelaez - former Vice President of the Philippines Fernando Lopez - former Vice President of the Philippines Arturo Tolentino - former Vice President of the Philippines Cayetano Arellano - former Chief Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court Victorino Mapa - former Chief Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court Manuel Araullo - former Chief Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court Ramon Avancea - former Chief Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court Roberto Concepcion - former Chief Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court Andres Narvasa - former Chief Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court and Chairman, Preparatory Commission for Constitutional Reform      Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez- Associate Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court Rosalinda Asuncion Vicente - Associate Justice of the Philippine Court of Appeals Monina Arevalo Zenarosa - Associate Justice of the Philippine Court of Appeals Diosdado Peralta- Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan (Philippine Anti-Graft Court) Raul Gonzalez - Secretary of Justice and former Tanodbayan (Special Prosecutor)

Arturo Buena - former Associate Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court and Presiding Justice of the Philippine Court of Appeals

Bernardo Pardo - former Associate Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court and Commission on Elections Chairman

Alfredo Benipayo - former Commission on Elections Chairman, Solicitor General, and Supreme Court Administrator

University of the Philippines College of Law alumni (Associate Justices not included; For a more comprehensive list, see List of University of the Philippines College of Law alumni):[46]                   Jose P. Laurel - former President of the Philippines Manuel Roxas - former President of the Philippines Elpidio Quirino - former President of the Philippines Ferdinand Marcos - former President of the Philippines Pia Cayetano - Senator of the Philippines Jose Yulo - former Chief Justice of the Philippines Ricardo Paras - former Chief Justice of the Philippines Cesar Bengzon - former Chief Justice of the Philippines Fred Ruiz Castro - former Chief Justice of the Philippines Enrique Fernando - former Chief Justice of the Philippines Felix Makasiar - former Chief Justice of the Philippines Querube Makalintal - former Chief Justice of the Philippines Pedro Yap - former Chief Justice of the Philippines Ramon Aquino - former Chief Justice of the Philippines Marcelo Fernan - former Chief Justice of the Philippines Hilario Davide Jr. - former Chief Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court Reynato Puno - current Chief Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court Cecilia Muoz Palma - President of the Philippine Constitutional Commission of 1986 and first woman Associate Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court

E. Legal Education of the Filipino Lawyer 1. Poor Pre-Law Education Assailed It appears that there is so much to be desired in the quality of the high school and collegiate prelaw education of the Filipino lawyer. An indication of the low quality of pre-law education in the

Philippines is the fact that the annual passing average in Philippine Bar Examinations is roughly 20 percent only (compared to about 70 percent in the USA). In a recent editorial, thePhilippine Daily Inquirer commented on the poor state of high school and college education in the Philippines as follows: A...But colleges and universities are hobbled by the uneven and even sub-par quality of graduates of basic education. The problem has given rise to understandable calls for the restoration of Grade 7 and short of that, the introduction of a pre-baccalaureate program either in high school or college that will winnow graduating high school students and sort them out either for full college program or a vocational-technical course. In some instances, the failure of the education department to come up with reforms to decisively address the problem of quality has given rise to calls in higher education to increase the number of educational units required for graduation, effectively adding another year to the regular fouryear college program...@. (Editorial - AFatal Truancy@, Philippine Daily Inquirer, June 18, 2002, page A8). 2. History of Philippine Legal Education

Since the introduction by Spain of legal education in the Philippines in 1733, or 266 years ago, when the University of Santo Tomas opened its Faculty of Civil Law and a Faculty of Canon Law,[1] the professional education of the Filipino lawyer has faced many challenges, questions and changes. Filled with the nationalistic confidence that the Filipinos themselves were prepared to educate their own future lawyers, the "Indios" of the ilustrado class, aspired to compete with the "Peninsulares" and the clergy from Spain,by establishing in 1898 the Universidad Literia Filipinas in Malolos, Bulacan which offered courses in law and notary public.[2] In 1899 Don Felipe Calderon (author of the 1899 Malolos Constitution) founded the Escuela de Derecho de Manila, which in 1924 was renamed the Manila Law School.[3] The Americans who replaced the Spaniards in 1899, imbued with the so-called "divine mission" to enlighten the "uneducated" Filipinos on the concepts of democracy and modern civilization, inspired the ilustrados to join them in the intellectual enlightenment of the natives. Thus, in 1910 the College of Law of the University of the Philippines opened with 50 Filipino and American students. The first dean was Justice Sherman Moreland of the Philippine Supreme Court. He was replaced by George A. Malcolm, who later became a Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court.[4] Other law schools followed: Philippine Law School, 1915; University of Manila College of Law, 1918; Far Eastern University Institute of Law, 1934; Southern College of Law, 1935; Arellano Law College, 1938; and Francisco Law School, 1940.[5]

Under the First Philippine Commission (1899) and the Second Philippine Commission (1900), laws were passed requiring the inspection of private schools, e.g. Act No. 74, which created the Department of Public Instruction; Act No. 459, or the Corporation Law; Act No. 2706; Act No. 3075.[6]

Under the Commonwealth Government, C.A. No. 180 was passed which created the Office of Private Schools (later called the Bureau of Private Schools).[7] After World War II,, R.A. No. 74 was passed providing additional budget for the supervision of private schools.[8] Under the present dispensation, the latest law on legal education is R.A. No. 7662, also known as the "Legal Education Reform Act of 1993", which, inter alia, created the Board of Legal Education (BLE). 3. Legal Education Requirements In 1911 the only educational requirements to be a lawyer were a high school degree (as pre-law degree) and a 3-year law course. Later the pre-law requirement was raised to two years of college work (associate in arts degree) in addition to a high school degree.[9] In 1960, Sec. 6 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court was amended by the Supreme Court increasing the pre-law requirement to a 4-year bachelor's degree (Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science) and increasing the law course to 4 years (Bachelor of Laws). This resulted in a dramatic decrease in law enrollment in 1960. For instance, at the University of the Philippines, from an enrollment of 196 students in 1959, it dropped to 28 in 1960.[10] The University of the Philippines started the law aptitude test and interview by a screening committee as requirements for entry into its College of Law.[11] In the 1960s to the 1980s the 4-year law course (Ll.B.) was made up of 122 units which emphasized the bar subjects listed in Sec. 6, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court: civil law, criminal law, remedial law, legal ethics and legal forms, commercial law, political law, tax law, labor law, public corporation and public officers, and international law.[12] The course included non-bar subjects: legal history, legal bibliography, statutory construction, jurisprudence, trial techniques, thesis and legal research, legal medicine, and practice court.[13]

4. Sources of Philippine Legal Education

The sources of Philippine legal education are (a) Spain, which gave it the Roman civil law and the canon law, (b) the United States, which gave it the English common law, and (c) Indonesia (thru the Majapahit Empire and the Shri Visaya Empire), which gave it the Islamic law.[14] In 1988 the University of the Philippines launched a "core-elective curriculum" which allowed law students to enroll up to 20 percent of elective subjects.[15] It hoped to lead to specialization in legal education. In 1989 the Department of Education, Culture and Sports adopted a revised model law curriculum for the 4-year Bachelor of Laws degree composed of 51 subjects (124 units) which took effect in 1990.[16] It offered more subjects on the legal profession, legal ethics, legal counseling, legal research and legal writing.[17] 5. Law Schools in the Philippines

From 1950 to 1960, 35 new law schools were opened.[18] In 1972, there were 80 law schools in the country.[19] In 1982 the number decreased to 45 law schools, 35 percent of which were located in Metro Manila.[20] In the same year, there were 3 state-supported law schools: University of the Philippines College of Law, Mindanao State University, and Don Mariano Marcos University College of Law.[21] The law schools accreditation system proposed by the Standing Committee on Legal Education and Bar Administration of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) is still pending with the Supreme Court for final action.[22] In 1964 R.A. No. 3870 created the University of the Philippines Law Center to conduct continuing legal education programs and legal research and publications.[23] 6. Legal Education Reform Act of 1993

Under R.A. No. 7662 (Legal Education Reform Act of 1993), the focus of legal education are[24]: advocacy, counseling, problem solving, decision making, ethics and nobility of the legal profession, bench-bar partnership, and social commitment, selection of law students[25], quality of law schools, the law faculty, and the law curriculum[26], mandatory legal apprenticeship[27], and continuing legal education[28]. 7. The Crucial Role of the Law Teacher The average law teacher is 51-55 years of age, married, male, with Bachelor of Laws degree as his highest degree, has been teaching for less than 10 years, has a load of 10 to 12 hours a week,

teaches Civil Law, derives less than 5 percent of his income from law teaching, teaches in a private law school, and has not published.[29] More than 80 percent of the law faculty is made up of part-time law teachers. They are underpaid even in a highly subsidized state university such as the University of the Philippines. "A person who embraces teaching as a career takes the vow of poverty".[30] Despite the financial constraints that the law teacher faces, he plays a noble and important role in the training of future lawyers. And he has fundamental professional and ethical duties to fulfill: "xxx The law teachers to be effective must endeavor for deeper understanding of the law, thru research and reflection. Through critical study, they also identify emerging trends and areas for reform and contribute towards making law an instrument of social development. Law teachers must principally assume the critical and predictive functions in the legal profession xxx."[31] 8. British Legal Education

In the case of United Kingdom, according to Prof. Thomas G. Lund, the requisites for admission to the English Bar are as follows: (a) "a test of general education (of approximately the same standard as that required for entry into a university)"; (b) "fulfilled certain conditions of fitness and respectability"; (c) "keep a certain number of terms (generally twelve, which now involves nothing more than dining in hall on a number of days in each term, 4 terms in a year"; (d) "pass a qualifying examination of a largely theoretical nature" ("the examination approximates to those for a university law degree, and Bar students frequently keep their terms while at the university"); (e) as to citizenship, a barrister "may be of any nationality" while a solicitor "must be a British subject".[32] The official association of the solicitors is "The Law Society", organized in 1823 by Royal Charter. Membership in the society is voluntary. In 1951, out of 22,000 solicitors, only 16,000 were members thereof.[33] The society has been entrusted by the Parliament with many powers, obligations and duties with respect to the legal profession. The required legal education for a solicitor is as follows: (a) "to serve a period under articles of clerkship (or apprenticeship) with a solicitor engaged in the active practice of law" (the term is normally five years but is reduced to three years for university graduates, whether in law or arts); (b) "to pass a preliminary examination on general knowledge, an intermediate and a final examination in law and an examination in bookkeeping and trust accounts"; (c) before he can "enter into articles he must obtain the consent of the Law Society and must satisfy the Society of his character, suitability and fitness to do so".[34] The clerk pays his principal a fee for clerkship, which in 1952 was 300 pounds.[35]

The management and control of examinations for solicitors were placed by the Parliament in the hands of the Law Society which was "empowered to make regulations governing the syllabus, the appointments of examiners, and other kindred matters. These regulations, however, must be approved by the Master of the Rolls, the Lord Chancellor, and the Lord Chief Justice".[36] Before taking the final examination, "the articled clerk must have attended a course of legal education at a school of law provided or approved by the Law Society". The required course of legal education is of one year's duration, either part-time at the approved law schools or full-time at the Law Society's School of Law.[37]

The license of the solicitor is renewed yearly by the Law Society.[38] 9. Performance in the Bar Exams Generally, between 20 to 25 percent of bar examinees pass the bar exams annually.[39] A sample of the passing percentage is as follows: 1946, 19.39%; 1957, 19.85%; 1962, 19.39%; 1969, 28.00%; 1974, 35.02%; 1979, 49.51%; 1984, 22.55%; 1989, 21,26%; and 1991, 17.85%.[40] The number of bar examinees has been increasing: 1973, 1,631; 1978, 1,890; 1983, 2,455; 1988, 2,824; and 1991, 3,196.[41] In 1954, there were 14,000 Filipino lawyers; in 1977, 28, 000; and in 1992, 34,922.[42] From 1946 to 1953, the passing percentage of most law schools was below the 50% level of the national passing percentage.[43] The Philippine annual bar exams are administered every September by a committee created by the Supreme Court composed of one justice as chair and 8 lawyers, with a term of office of one year. The bar examinee must be at least 21 years of age, a Filipino citizen and a resident of the Philippines, of good moral character, has completed the required 4-year law course (Ll.B.) in a law school recognized by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (now by the Commission on Higher Education and the Board of Legal Education).[44] It seems that the 1960 rule imposed by the Supreme Court which required a 4-year pre-law AB or BS degree as a prerequisite for enrolling in the degree of Bachelor of Laws (Ll. B.) did not have a dramatic effect in increasing the passing rate of the annual bar examinations. For many decades up to the present, the average passing rate has ranged from 20 to 30 percent.(Coquia, Jose R. The Legal Profession. Manila: Rex Book Store, 1993, pp. 3, 81-82, 231-232). And it appears that the passing rate of a great majority of law schools in the Philippines is below 50 percent of the total number of their respective student-examinees. (id., p. 13).

A Philippine jurist, Ernani Cruz Pano, has commented that Aalthough the bar examination is far from being a precise and accurate gauge of the effectiveness of legal education, the figures on

bar examination results suggest an urgent need for reforms in legal education@. (Ernani Cruz Pano,Judiciary and the Bar, Manila: Rex Book Store, 1995, p. 111). Of the 42 bar examinations conducted by the Supreme Court from 1946 to 1986, Ait was only in eleven bar examinations that more than one-half of the candidates passed@. In 31 bar examinations, the mortality rate was Amore than 50 percent@. From 1982 to 1986 the passing rate ranged from 18.8 percent (1986) to 26.69 percent (1985). (id.). In the 1986 bar examination, 60 law schools sent 2,600 candidates. Sixteen of the law schools failed to have any of their candidates pass the bar exam. Of the 2,600 candidates, 491 passed the bar exam (18.8 percent national passing rate). Of this number, 41 percent were from Ateneo de Manila University, University of the Philippines, and San Beda College of Law. The rest of the successful candidates were from 41 other law schools whose passing rate ranged from 2.63 percent to 28 percent. (id., p. 112). Pano recommends a review of the contents and coverage of the bar exams. He proposes the exclusion of taxation law and labor law from the exams and the increase of the number of units allotted for these subjects in the law curriculum. He recommends the appointment of bar examiners for a longer term, rather than the present ad hoc arrangement, to allow for much preparation. He proposes a consideration of the idea of establishing a quota system in the law profession, that is, the fixing of a limit on the number of candidates that a law school should send to the bar exams, proportionate to the number of successful examinees graduating from these schools. (id., p. 118). It is noteworthy to quote the comments of Justice Pano on the what the real purpose of the bar exams should be: AThere are sectors which doubt any connection between the results of bar examinations and the level of formal education; they question the effectiveness of bar examinations as an instrument to test professional competence and success in law practice. But everyone agrees that until a more effective method of law school supervision is devised, the bar examination provides stimulus to these schools to do their best in legal education. It is for the moment the only means by which the Supreme Court may check on the performance of these law schools. xxxx. One may then view the bar examination either as a necessary evil or an inevitable compromise, but it is here definitely to stay for a while. It would then be useless to argue that legal education should not be >bar oriented=. The law student must be able to pass the scrutiny of the examiner appointed by the Supreme Court to test the proficiency and capacity of the law student aspiring for admission to the bar.

Legal educators agree that the bar examinations should not merely be conducted for the purpose of testing information, memory or experience. The computer would be better lawyers if the gauge of admission would be the capacity to store information and the possession of a photographic memory. The law student is also without any experience to be tested. Rather, the bar examination should test the candidate=s ability to reason logically, to analyze accurately the problems presented to him and to exhibit a thorough knowledge of the fundamental principles of law and their application. xxx. Is this task being performed by our law schools? Judging on the results of the bar examinations, it would appear that except for perhaps three or even five law schools, the rest have failed miserably in developing among its students the needed orientation, language capacity, analytical proficiency and the capacity to pass judgments which would enable the students to pass the bar examination and be professionally competent in law practice@. (Id., pp. 112-114). The relevant provisions of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court on bar examinations and admission to the Bar are reproduced below: ASec. 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. C Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character, and resident of the Philippines; and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines. Sec. 3. Requirements for lawyers who are citizens of the United States of America. C Citizens of the United States of America who, before July 4, 1946, were duly licensed members of the Philippine Bar, in active practice in the courts of the Philippines and in good and regular standing as such may, upon satisfactory proof of those facts before the Supreme Court, be allowed to continue such practice after taking the following oath of office:

I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., having been permitted to continue in the practice of law in the Philippines, do solemnly swear that I recognize the supreme authority of the Republic of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of may knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well as to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.

Sec. 4. Requirements for applicants from other jurisdictions. C Applicants for admission who, being Filipino citizens, are enrolled attorneys in good standing in the Supreme Court of the United States or in any circuit court of appeals or district court therein, or in the highest court of any State or Territory of the United States, and who can show by satisfactory certificates that they have practiced at least five years in any of said courts, that such practice began before July 4, 1946, and that they have never been suspended or disbarred, may, in the discretion of the Court, be admitted without examination. Sec. 5. Additional requirements for other applicants. C All applicants for admission other than those referred to in the two preceding section shall, before being admitted to the examination, satisfactorily show that they have regularly studied law for four years, and successfully completed all prescribed courses, in a law school or university, officially approved and recognized by the Secretary of Education. The affidavit of the candidate, accompanied by a certificate from the university or school of law, shall be filed as evidence of such facts, and further evidence may be required by the court.

No applicant shall be admitted to the bar examinations unless he has satisfactorily completed the following courses in a law school or university duly recognized by the government: civil law, commercial law, remedial law, criminal law, public and private international law, political law, labor and social legislation, medical jurisprudence, taxation and legal ethics. Sec. 6. Pre-Law. C No applicant for admission to the bar examination shall be admitted unless he presents a certificate that he has satisfied the Secretary of Education that, before he began the study of law, he had pursued and satisfactorily completed in an authorized and recognized university or college, requiring for admission thereto the completion of a four-year high school course, the course of study prescribed therein for a bachelor's degree in arts or sciences with any of the following subjects as major or field of concentration: political science, logic, english, spanish, history and economics. Sec. 7. Time for filing proof of qualifications. C All applicants for admission shall file with the clerk of the Supreme Court the evidence required by section 2 of this rule at least fifteen (15) days before the beginning of the examination. If not embraced within section 3 and 4 of this rule they shall also file within the same period the affidavit and certificate required by section 5, and if embraced within sections 3 and 4 they shall exhibit a license evidencing the fact of their admission to practice, satisfactory evidence that the same has not been revoked, and certificates as to their professional standing. Applicants shall also file at the same time their own affidavits as to their age, residence, and citizenship. Sec. 8. Notice of Applications. C Notice of applications for admission shall be published by the clerk of the Supreme Court in newspapers published in Pilipino, English and Spanish, for at least ten (10) days before the beginning of the examination.

Sec. 9. Examination; subjects. C Applicants, not otherwise provided for in sections 3 and 4 of this rule, shall be subjected to examinations in the following subjects: Civil Law; Labor and Social Legislation; Mercantile Law; Criminal Law; Political Law (Constitutional Law, Public Corporations, and Public Officers); International Law (Private and Public); Taxation; Remedial Law (Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, and Evidence); Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises (in Pleadings and Conveyancing).

Sec. 10. Bar examination, by questions and answers, and in writing. C Persons taking the examination shall not bring papers, books or notes into the examination rooms. The questions shall be the same for all examinees and a copy thereof, in English or Spanish, shall be given to each examinee. Examinees shall answer the questions personally without help from anyone. Upon verified application made by an examinee stating that his penmanship is so poor that it will be difficult to read his answers without much loss of time., the Supreme Court may allow such examinee to use a typewriter in answering the questions. Only noiseless typewriters shall be allowed to be used. The committee of bar examiner shall take such precautions as are necessary to prevent the substitution of papers or commission of other frauds. Examinees shall not place their names on the examination papers. No oral examination shall be given. Sec. 11. Annual examination. C Examinations for admission to the bar of the Philippines shall take place annually in the City of Manila. They shall be held in four days to be disignated by the chairman of the committee on bar examiners. The subjects shall be distributed as follows: First day: Political and International Law (morning) and Labor and Social Legislation (afternoon); Second day: Civil Law (morning) and Taxation (afternoon); Third day: Mercantile Law (morning) and Criminal Law (afternoon); Fourth day: Remedial Law (morning) and legal Ethics and Practical Exercises (afternoon). Sec. 12. Committee of examiners. C Examinations shall be conducted by a committee of bar examiners to be appointed by the Supreme Court. This committee shall be composed of a Justice of the Supreme Court, who shall act as chairman, and who shall be designated by the court to serve for one year, and eight members of the bar of the Philippines, who shall hold office for a period of one year. The names of the members of this committee shall be published in each volume of the official reports.

Sec. 13. Disciplinary measures. C No candidate shall endeavor to influence any member of the committee, and during examination the candidates shall not communicate with each other nor shall they give or receive any assistance. The candidate who violates this provisions, or any other

provision of this rule, shall be barred from the examination, and the same to count as a failure against him, and further disciplinary action, including permanent disqualification, may be taken in the discretion of the court. Sec. 14. Passing average. C In order that a candidate may be deemed to have passed his examinations successfully, he must have obtained a general average of 75 per cent in all subjects, without falling below 50 per cent in any subjects. In determining the average, the subjects in the examination shall be given the following relative weights: Civil Law, 15 per cent; Labor and Social Legislation, 10 per cent; Mercantile Law, 15 per cent; Criminal Law; 10 per cent: Political and International Law, 15 per cent; Taxation, 10 per cent; Remedial Law, 20 per cent; Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises, 5 per cent. Sec. 15. Report of the committee; filing of examination papers. C Not later than February 15th after the examination, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable, the committee shall file its report on the result of such examination. The examination papers and notes of the committee shall be filed with the clerk and may there be examined by the parties in interest, after the court has approved the report. Sec. 16. Failing candidates to take review course. C Candidates who have failed the bar examinations for three times shall be disqualified from taking another examination unless they show the satisfaction of the court that they have enrolled in and passed regular fourth year review classes as well as attended a pre-bar review course in a recognized law school. The professors of the individual review subjects attended by the candidates under this rule shall certify under oath that the candidates have regularly attended classes and passed the subjects under the same conditions as ordinary students and the ratings obtained by them in the particular subject@. (Rule 138, Rev. Rules of Court). 10. 1989 Survey by the Bureau of Higher Education

In 1988-1989 the Bureau of Higher Education (which was replaced by the Commission on Higher Education) conducted a survey of law schools in the Philippines to evaluate the quality and state of legal education in the country. It was funded by the Asia Foundation. (Bureau of Higher Education,State of Legal Education in the Philippines, 1989. Manila: Department of Education, Culture and Sports, 111 pp.). The survey had influenced the adoption of the Legal Education Reform Act of 1993 (R.A. No. 7662). The respondents included 57 law deans, 360 law faculty members, 3,036 students, and 365 law graduates. It concluded that Athe quality of instruction given by the law schools leaves much to be desired.@ It proposed future analytical study of the law students, the law faculty, the validity and reliability of the bar examinations, and a comparative study of law schools.

In 1989 there were almost 20,000 law students. There were 40 law schools distributed as follows: Metro Manila, 16; Central Visayas, 8; West Visayas, 4; East Visayas, 4; Bicol, 4; Southern Mindanao, 4. (at p. 3). Almost one-half of all law schools were situated in Metro Manila and Cebu. The survey found that 70.28 percent of the law faculty members were practicing lawyers; that 51.67 percent of the faculty had four to six years of teaching experience; that 50.83 percent had no formal training in teaching methods; that the number one teaching method used was the recitation method, followed by lecture method; that 54.72 percent did not give out written course syllabi to students; that 69.17 percent were not revising/updating their syllabi; that 85 percent of the faculty were males; that 49.72 percent was between 45 to 49 years old; that 89.72 percent took their Ll. B. degree in private law schools; and that the pre-law degree of 65.28 percent faculty was in the field of social sciences. The survey studied the admission policies of law schools. It discovered that 29.6 percent of law schools based their admission solely on interviews of the students and that 17.58 percent considered the pre-law grades of the students. The survey described the profile of a law student as follows: that 55.77 percent of law students were between the ages 25 and 29; that 62.91 percent were male; that 59.29 percent were single; that 44.56 percent finished a degree in social sciences and 30.73 percent in business; that 86.63 percent took their pre-law in private schools; that 62.25 percent were working; that 43.05 percent owned textbooks in all subjects; that 94 percent of law students were enrolled in private law schools; that 50 percent of the students were enrolled in Metro Manila; that the national survival rate at law schools was 36 percent and 50.82 percent in Metro Manila; that 40.70 percent of law graduates were from Metro Manila;

The survey established that from 1978 to 1987 the average passing rate in the bar examinations was 31.15 percent; that the average passing rate of the University of the Philippines for the period was 77.32 percent; that the average passing rate of private law schools for the period was 27.13 percent; and that the common reasons given by respondents for failure in the bar examinations were English language deficiency, poor preparation, inadequate pre-bar review, lack of pre-bar review materials, poor teaching methods, absenteeism of faculty, extensive coverage of the bar exams, and the grading system of the bar exams. The survey commented on the law schools and the law faculty as follows: ALawyers are not professionally trained to be teachers and most likely, are not imbued with the mission for teaching. In all probability, they have diverse motivations for joining the ranks of

teachers, ranging from the materialistic to the idealistic. Law deans seem to have supervisory problems with faculty who regard teaching not as a mission but merely as a additional source of income. It is a fact that almost all law schools are staffed by part-time faculty, who are either active in practicing the law profession or are employed on a full-time basis in private or government agencies. They cannot devote much time to their responsibilities as teachers, such as syllabi preparation, conferences with students having academic problems, and other duties which they leave to the administration to handle. Because of their tight schedule, the part-time faculty excuse themselves from faculty meetings and the usual assignments given to full-time faculty. In view of the part-time status of most law faculty, as well as their apparent independence from certain administrative expectations and requirements, law school deans are constrained from undertaking a program of faculty development. Considering the type of law faculty and their heavy schedules in their regular jobs it does not seem possible to have law faculty participate in faculty development programs, except in short in-service training programs to enhance their teaching competencies. Due to time constraints, administrators and law faculty do not have enough opportunities for developing ideal relationships between them. Contacts are few and often are confined to general faculty assemblies and big university functions which do not allow for close interaction@. (id., pp. 78-79).

F. Continuing Legal Education 1. Few are Active Practitioners In a 1976 survey among lawyers conducted by the UP Law Center, it was discovered that only 23.4 percent were engaged in active private practice and that the rest were either employed in the government (32.2 percent) or private sector (38.6 percent).[45] In 1962, 25 percent of lawyers were in active private practice.[46] It appears that only one out of every five Filipino lawyers is actively engaged in private law practice and that the rest are employed either in the government or in the private sector or an engaged in private business. Most of the practitioners are located in the cities and are mostly solo practitioners or belong to small to medium law firms. In a 1982 survey conducted by the UP Law Center, it was established that 55 percent of Filipino lawyers were employed with the government. Of those in private practice, 78 percent were based in Metro Manila; all in all, 89 percent of lawyers were based in major cities throughout the Philippines; and 18 percent of the respondents was made up of independent (solo) practitioners, 7 percent were employed in law firms, and 7 percent was employed in private

companies. (Manuel Bonifacio and Merlin M. Magallona, "Survey Of the Legal Profession", in Coquia, supra, pp. 308-353). Sixty-eight (68) percent of the respondent-lawyers felt that their legal training in law school was Anot adequate@. Ninety-seven (97) percent recommended continuing legal education (CLE) for all law practitioners. But the subject of legal ethics occupied only the fifth rank among the various subjects that the respondents recommended for inclusion in the CLE programs. The top ranks for the CLE subjects the respondents recommended pertained to pragmatic, trial-oriented, and business-related subjects. (id.). 2. Law is Complex

Law practice is complex and it requires specialization. Under the martial law regime alone (1972-June 12, 1978), there were 1,473 presidential decrees, 708 letters of instructions, and 62 general orders.[47] As of the end of 1911, under the regime of the Philippine Commission, there were 2,092 statutes. As of the end of 1970, there were 10,078 statutes (Republic Acts [RAs], Philippine Commission Acts [Acts], Commonwealth Acts [CAS]).[48] The figures excluded local ordinances and administrative rules and regulations.[49] 3. Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Bar Matter No. 850, promulgated by the Supreme Court on August 22, 2000 and amended on October 2, 2001, contains the Rules on the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) for members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The rules were recommended by the IBP, endorsed by the Philippine Judicial Academy, and reviewed and passed upon by the Supreme Court Committee on Legal Education. The rules took effect on September 15, 2000, following its publication in two newspapers of general circulation. The MCLE Committee of the Supreme Court, assisted by the IBP national office, implements and evaluates this national activity. (Bar Matter No. 850, Sec. 2, Rule 2). Continuing legal education is now required of all Filipino lawyers (IBP members) to ensure that throughout their career, they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the standards of the practice of law. (Id., Sec. 1, Rule 1). Members of the IBP not exempt under Rule 7 of the Rules shall complete every three (3) years at least thirty-six (36) hours or credit units of continuing legal education activities approved by the MCLE Committee. Of the 36 hours: (a) At least six (6) hours shall be devoted to legal ethics equivalent to six (6) credit units. (b) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to trial and pretrial skills equivalent to four (4) credit units.

(c) At least five (5) hours shall be devoted to alternative dispute resolution equivalent to five (5) credit units. (d) At least nine (9) hours shall be devoted to updates on substantive and procedural laws, and jurisprudence equivalent to nine (9) credit units. (e) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to legal writing and oral advocacy equivalent to four (4) credit units. (f) At least two (2) hours shall be devoted to international law and international conventions equivalent to two (2) credit units.

(g) The remaining six (6) hours shall be devoted to such subjects as may be prescribed by the MCLE Committee equivalent to six (6) credit units. (Id., Sec. 2, Rule 2). Members may participate in any legal education activity wherever it may be available to earn credit unit toward compliance with the MCLE requirement. (Id., Sec. 2, Rule 3). Please see Figure 2, infra, for the list of the accredited MCLE service providers as of March 2002 (cf.www.ibp.org.ph, website of the IBP national office). Credit units are either participatory or non-participatory. (Bar Matter No. 850, Sec. 1, Rule 5). Participatory credit units may be claimed for: (a) Attending approved education activities like seminars, conferences, conventions, symposia, in-house education programs, workshops, dialogues or round table discussion. (b) Speaking or lecturing, or acting as assigned panelist, reactor, commentator, resource speaker, moderator, coordinator or facilitator in approved education activities. (c) Teaching in a law school or lecturing in a bar review class. (Id., Sec. 2, Rule 5). Non-participatory credit units may be claimed per compliance period for: (a) Preparing, as an author or co-author, written materials published or accepted for publication, e.g., in the form of an article, chapter, book, or book review which contribute to the legal education of the author member, which were not prepared in the ordinary course of the member=s practice or employment. (b) Editing a law book, law journal or legal newsletter. (Id., Sec. 3, Rule 5).

The following members of the Bar are exempt from the MCLE requirement: (a) The President and the Vice President of the Philippines, and the Secretaries and Undersecretaries of Executive Departments; (b) Senators and Members of the House of Representatives; (c) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, incumbent and retired members of the judiciary, incumbent members of the Judicial and Bar Council and incumbent court lawyers covered by the Philippine Judicial Academy program of continuing judicial education;

(d) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries of the Department of Justice; (e) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitors General; (f) The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government Corporate Counsel; (g) The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions; (h) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman; (i) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions; (j) Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of law who have teaching experience for at least ten (10) years in accredited law schools; (k) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of Professors and Professorial Lecturers of the Philippine Judicial Academy; and (l) Governors and Mayors. (Id., Sec. 1, Rule 7). The following Members of the Bar are likewise exempt: (a) Those who are not in law practice, private or public. (b) Those who have retired from law practice with the approval of the IBP Board of Governors. (Id., Sec. 2, Rule 7).

A member may file a verified request setting forth good cause for exemption (such as physical disability, illness, post graduate study abroad, proven expertise in law, etc.) from compliance with or modification of any of the requirements, including an extension of time for compliance, in accordance with a procedure to be established by the MCLE Committee. (Id., Sec. 3, Rule 7). Subject to the implementing regulations that may be adopted by the MCLE Committee, continuing legal education program may be granted approval in either of two (2) ways: (1) the provider of the activity is an accredited provider and certifies that the activity meets the criteria of Section 2 of this Rule; and (2) the provider is specifically mandated by law to provide continuing legal education. (Id., Sec. 1, Rule 8). All continuing legal education activities must meet the following standards: (a) The activity shall have significant current intellectual or practical content. (b) The activity shall constitute an organized program of learning related to legal subjects and the legal profession, including cross profession activities (e.g., accounting-tax or medical-legal) that enhance legal skills or the ability to practice law, as well as subjects in legal writing and oral advocacy.

(c) The activity shall be conducted by a provider with adequate professional experience. (d) Where the activity is more than one (1) hour in length, substantive written materials must be distributed to all participants. Such materials must be distributed at or before the time the activity is offered. (e) In-house education activities must be scheduled at a time and location so as to be free from interruption like telephone calls and other distractions. (Id., Sec. 2, Rule 8). Accreditation of providers shall be done by the MCLE Committee. (Id., Sec. 1, Rule 9). Any person or group may be accredited as a provider for a term of two (2) years, which may be renewed, upon written application. All providers of continuing legal education activities, including in-house providers, are eligible to be accredited providers. (Id., Sec. 2, Rule 9). Each IBP member shall secure from the MCLE Committee a Compliance Card before the end of his compliance period. He shall complete the card by attesting under oath that he has complied with the education requirement or that he is exempt, specifying the nature of the exemption. Such Compliance Card must be returned to the Committee not later than the day after the end of the member=s compliance period. (Id., Sec. 1, Rule 11).

Each member shall maintain sufficient record of compliance or exemption, copy furnished the MCLE Committee. The record required to be provided to the members by the provider pursuant to Section 38 of Rule 9 should be a sufficient record of attendance at a participatory activity. A record of non-participatory activity shall also be maintained by the member, as referred to in Section 3 of Rule 5. (Id., Sec. 2, Rule 11). The following shall constitute non-compliance by the IBP members: (a) Failure to complete the education requirement within the compliance period; (b) Failure to provide attestation of compliance or exemption; (c) Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance (including evidence of exempt status) within the prescribed period; (d) Failure to satisfy the education requirement and furnish evidence of such compliance within sixty (60) days from receipt of non-compliance notice; (e) Failure to pay non-compliance fee within the prescribed period;

(f) Any other act or omission analogous to any of the foregoing or intended to circumvent or evade compliance with the MCLE requirements. (Id., Sec. 1, Rule 12). Members failing to comply will receive a Non-Compliance Notice stating the specific deficiency and will be given sixty (60) days from the date of notification to file a response clarifying the deficiency or otherwise showing compliance with the requirements. Such notice shall contain the following language near the beginning of the notice in capital letters: IF YOU FAIL TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE MCLE REQUIREMENT BY (INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF NOTICE), YOU SHALL BE LISTED AS A DELINQUENT MEMBER AND SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ADEQUATE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE IS RECEIVED BY THE MCLE COMMITTEE. Members are given sixty (60) days to respond to a Non-Compliance Notice may use this period to attain the adequate number of credit units for compliance. Credit units earned during this period may only be counted toward compliance with the prior compliance period requirement unless units in excess of the requirement are earned, in which case the excess may be counted toward meeting the current compliance period requirement. (Id., Sec. 2, Rule 12) A member who, for whatever reason, is in non-compliance at the end of the compliance period shall pay a non-compliance fee. (Id., Sec. 1, Rule 13)

A member who fails to comply with the requirements after the sixty (60) day period for compliance has expired, shall be listed as a delinquent member of the IBP upon the recommendation of the MCLE Committee. The investigation of a member for non-compliance shall be conducted by the IBP=s Commission on Bar Discipline as a fact-finding arm of the MCLE Committee.(Id., Sec. 2, Rule 13). Membership fees shall continue to accrue at the active rate against a member during the period he/she is listed as a delinquent member. (Id., Sec. 3, Rule 13). The involuntary listing as a delinquent member shall be terminated when the member provides proof of compliance with the MCLE requirement, including payment of non-compliance fee. A member may attain the necessary credit units to meet the requirement for the period of noncompliance during the period the member is on inactive status. These credit units may not be counted toward meeting the current compliance period requirement. Credit units earned during the period of non-compliance in excess of the number needed to satisfy the prior compliance period requirement may be counted toward meeting the current compliance period requirement. (Id., Sec. 1, Rule 14).
Why should I take the bar exam in the United States? A lot of you probably already know the answer to this. Indeed, many choose to pursue an LL.M. in the United States precisely because they want to take a US bar exam. But for lawyers studying in the USA for other reasons, there are many reasons to do it. First, it can look good on your CV both to US and foreign employers if you obtain a US legal qualification rather than just pursuing a degree. Moreover, by passing the bar, you can demonstrate your understanding of US Law often a real challenge after just a year of study in the USA. Finally, passing a states bar exam will, subject to the individual attorney admission requirements of the state, allow you to practice law in that state as a fully admitted lawyer. This can be much more challenging, and can offer better job prospects than working as a law clerk or foreign legal consultant. Of course, only you can decide whether taking a bar exam is right for you. In what state should I take the exam? Like the decision to take any bar exam at all, the decision on which states exam to take is a highly personal one. When deciding which states bar exam to choose, remember that, with extremely limited exceptions, you will only be admitted to practice law in the state where you pass the examination. Therefore, if you are planning to continue practicing in the USA after taking the examination, it might be a good idea to base the decision on where you would like to work or live rather than which state has the easiest admission requirements. On the other hand, if you don't plan to live in the USA after the exam, you might consider the simplicity of the states requirements. For instance, New York is a very popular state for foreign lawyers seeking a US legal qualification (although the bar examination is by no means easy), while

California is considered one of the more difficult states in which to obtain a qualification. What can I expect generally from the exam? The examination is taken in several parts over two or more days. Most states dedicate one day to the Multistate Bar Examination, a multiple-choice examination covering such topics as Contracts, Torts, Property, Constitutional Law, and Evidence, not specific to the law of any one state. Another day would cover the law of the specific state administering the exam. This could be a multiple-choice exam or an essay exam, or both. In addition, the exam may include the Multistate Performance Test, designed to evaluate lawyering skills rather than substantive law. In addition, some states such as California have a first-year law student examination, but foreign law graduates may be exempt from this requirement. Finally, you will most likely be required to pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam, which is administered on a separate occasion from the regular bar exam, and tests your knowledge of professional ethics. As a foreign lawyer, am I eligible to take the bar exam? Many US states permit foreign law graduates to sit their bar examinations if they meet specific requirements. A discussion of some of the requirements of two major states: New York: Section 520.6 of the New York Rules of the Courts of Appeals for the Admission of Attorneys and Counselors at Law, 22 NYCRR 520.1-520.15 contains eligibility requirements for individuals who have a foreign legal education. Under this section, an individual with a foreign legal education can qualify for the bar examination if the legal education was: 1) successfully completed; 2) at least three years in duration; and 3) taken in a country where the legal system is based on the English common law system. If either 2) or 3) does not apply to you, you may be able to cure the problem by pursuing a course of study at a law school in the USA. In other words, if you either do not have a three-year degree in law from your country, or your country does not follow the English common law legal system, then you may still be eligible to take the bar after pursuing a course of study in the USA at a law school approved by the American Bar Association. Please note that under no circumstances would a course of study shorter than two years from a common-law country, or three years from a noncommon-law country, be acceptable, even in connection with additional study in the USA. The study itself is also subject to different requirements. First, it must be an actual program of study, meaning that you must be matriculated at your chosen university rather than just taking a course or two. One possible course of study is an LL.M., but this is not required. The program must involve a minimum of 20 semester hours of academic credit in order to qualify, which means that you would be required to complete 20 hours per week of study, per semester. The program you choose must be successfully completed, even if that involves completing more than the 20 semester hours

of credit. The courses must be in professional law subjects, rather than independent study or non-law subjects. At least two courses must be in subjects that are tested on the New York bar exam (known under the New York Rules as basic courses in American law). Under New York Board of Law Examiners rules, these subjects are: business relationships; conflict of laws; constitutional law (New York and federal); contracts; criminal law and procedure; evidence; family law; New York and federal civil jurisdiction and procedure; professional responsibility; real property; remedies; torts (including statutory no-fault provisions); trusts, wills and estates; and Uniform Commercial Code articles 2, 3 and 9. To determine exactly which courses are acceptable, you may want to check with your university. To learn more about the eligibility requirements for the New York Bar exam, visit the websiteof the New York State Board of Law Examiners. California: The requirements for taking the California bar exam are similar to those in New York, except that every foreign law graduate must complete an entire year of law study at an approved law school in the US except those who are admitted to the practice of law in their home country. Foreign-admitted lawyers do not require any additional study. On the subject of the first-year law students examination, there appears to be conflicting information on whether foreign law students are required to pass it before becoming eligible to take the California bar. It is highly recommended that you contact the California Conference of Bar Examiners to obtain an individual evaluation of your eligibility. To learn more about the eligibility requirements for the exam, visit the website of the State Bar of California. Other states: Each state has its own requirements. Many of the requirements are extremely complex, and may include reduced or different requirements for applicants who are already admitted to the bar of another US state or of their home country. It is strongly recommended that you contact the state where you seek to be admitted to learn their requirements and, if possible, have them individually assess your eligibility.