30-year-old Princess Mako’s husband was spotted after taking his New York State Bar Exam for the second time on Tuesday. Former Princess Mako’s ‘commoner’ husband Kei Komuro, 30, was spotted waiting for an Uber outside a test center after taking New York State Bar Exam for the second time this afternoon
初日22日火曜日に2回目の司法試験を受けた後を目撃されたとあります。uberを待つ小室圭 テスト会場をでて、Hell’s Kitchenに向かった。 Komuro was seen leaving the building with several other candidates, having completed the first day of the two-day exam. After leaving the test center, Komuro made his way into an Uber that may well have been taking him back to the Hells Kitchen apartment he shares with his wife
A. Rule 520.6 (b) (1) (most applicants will be applying under this provision) has four major eligibility requirements:
Qualifying Degree (520.6 [b] ). The foreign-educated applicant must have fulfilled the educational requirements for admission to the practice of law in a foreign country other than the United States. The applicant must have a qualifying degree, which must be a degree in law. Qualifying Degree (520.6 [b] ). The foreign-educated applicant must have fulfilled the educational requirements for admission to the practice of law in a foreign country other than the United States. The applicant must have a qualifying degree, which must be a degree in law. Accreditation (520.6[b]). The qualifying degree must be from a law school or schools recognized by a competent accrediting agency of the government of the foreign country and must be deemed qualified and approved. Durational Equivalence (520.6 [b]  [i] [a]). The applicant’s period of law study must be successfully completed. The program of study must also be “substantially” equivalent in duration to a full-time or part-time program required at a law school in the United States approved by the American Bar Association (ABA) and in substantial compliance with the instructional and academic calendar requirements of section 520.3(c)(1)(i) and (ii) and 520.3(d)(1). Substantial Equivalence (520.3[b]  [i] [b]). The foreign country’s jurisprudence must be based upon the principles of the English Common Law, and the “program and course of law study” successfully completed by the applicant must be the “substantial” equivalent of the legal education provided by an ABA-approved law school in the United States. B. Rule 520.6 (b) (2) (English Common Law based on a combination of law school and law office study) has four major eligibility requirements:
Admission to practice law in a foreign country whose jurisprudence is based upon the principles of the English Common Law. Admission is based on a program of study in a law school and/or law office that is recognized by the competent accrediting agency of the government of such other country. The combination of the law school and law office programs of study must be durationally equivalent under Rule 520.6 (b) (1) (i) (a). Applicant must successfully complete a full-time or part-time program under the “cure” provision of Rule 520.6 (b) (1) (ii). NOTE: Applicants from English Common Law jurisdictions who followed the “conversion route” by completing the Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) and the Legal Practice Course (LPC) for Solicitors or the Bar Vocational Course for Barristers must qualify under Court Rule 520.6 (b) (2). Applicants who followed this course of study do not satisfy the durational and substantive requirements under Court Rule 520.6(b)(1). The fact that a foreign law school may combine the GDL and LPC and call it an LL.B. does not change how the applicant’s eligibility is viewed by the Board and such applicants must comply with the requirements in Court Rule 520.6(b)(2). Pursuant to Court Rule 520.6(b)(2) the applicant must provide proof that their combined law study and training contract (i.e., articles) satisfies the durational equivalency requirements. The applicant must also furnish proof of admission in the foreign jurisdiction and proof of having successfully completed an LLM or Master of Laws degree program at an approved law school in the United States pursuant to the “cure” provision.
弁護士の解説： NYBEの受験資格をどう満たすかという問題では、複雑で何通りかある。 法で規定されたRequirement§ 520.6 Study of Law in Foreign Country; Required Legal Educationの中で(b)(1)(ii)か (b)(2) とあるので日本での法学資格の不足は、米国のFordhamでLLMを卒業するかLLMで２年学べばその不足は解消できるし試験は受けられる。 小室さんはＬＬＭを1年で卒業している。フォーダムではＬＬＭからＪＤのトランスファーを認めていないし、24 credit hoursではJDの学位は取れない。
As someone who took and passed the bar exam in my state, I don’t think the bar is that great an assessment tool for whether someone will be a decent lawyer. I sit in court all day and watch attorneys that are clearly dumb as shit, and they all had to pass the bar to practice here.
試験をパスしたアホな弁護士がいるのは確かよ、でも、極めつけのアホは試験に受かんないのよ。でもそれはウイスコンシンでは起こらないのよ。一人残らず一番のカシコと一番のアホも弁護士になって、人の人生をめちゃくちゃにするのよ。 Im not going to argue that dumb lawyers pass the bar exam, but the DUMBEST do not. That doesnt happen in Wisconsin. Every single one, the dumbest and the smartest, become lawyers who can later wreck peoples lives.
ＯＰＴLawyer （元の話題があって）ーーー彼女が弁護士のふりをして弁護士業務をしたら犯罪だよね、違う？ You…do realize that she’s criminally charged more because she forged documents and committed fraud by claiming to be a lawyer when she wasn’t, right?
ＲさんWisconsin そこよ! もし法律大学を卒業して司法試験を受からずに、弁護士業務をしたら他の州では犯罪じゃない。ところがウイスコンシンでは合法なのよ。ウイスコンシンの弁護士なんて、なりすましと一緒よ。 That’s my point. If you graduate law school and then practice law without passing the bar exam its a crime everywhere but in Wisconsin. She was charged with impersonating an attorney. I guess lawyers from Wisconsin are impersonating an attorney every day.
あんた知ってる？ウイスコンシンではね、ヘアカットするにも誰かにマニュキアをするにもライセンス試験をパスしないといけないのに、弁護士とか地方判事になるときには試験がいらないのよ。――ウイスコンシンの法律大学を卒業した低能が弁護士になるのよ。 Even better. Did you know that in Wisconsin, you need to pass a test to cut someones hair or paint someones nails but not if you want to be a lawyer or DA. Wisconsin wont give you a license to cut hair or paint someones nails until you demonstrate minimum competency in services and subjects substantially related to practice and public health and safety. Meanwhile, every moron who graduates from a Wisconsin law school automatically becomes a Wisconsin lawyer, no questions asked and no tests to take.
Ｋｉｗｉさんは ウイスコンシンは他の州から見下さげられてんの？ゆる～い基準のせいで。 ほかの49州の全弁護士は試験をパスしないといけないのに、試験なしで弁護士をやるって褒められるこっちゃないよね。 Are Wisconsin attorneys looked down upon in the US because of these lax standards? I can’t see attorneys from all the other 49 States regarding them too highly if they can practice law without passing an exam EVERY OTHER LAWYER in the country has to pass
Ｍｏｎｋｙさん ウイスコンシン州つ～のはジョークみたいなものだからさ。It’s because WI is a complete joke of a state.
Whiteycnbrさん ウイスコンシンの法律は動かしてるやつらの公正レベルを反映してるのさ。 Their laws reflect the level of justice that is being served