LSAC RESEARCH REPORT SERIES
 Agents of Globalization in Law: Phase 1
Carole Silver
Georgetown University Law Center
 Law School Admission Council
Grants Report 09-01
March 2009
A publication of the Law School Admission Council
The Law School Admission Council (LSAC) is a nonprofit corporation whose members are more than 200 law schools in the
United States, Canada, and Australia. Headquartered in Newtown, PA, USA, the Council was founded in 1947 to facilitate
the law school admission process. The Council has grown to provide numerous products and services to law schools and to
more than 85,000 law school applicants each year.
All law schools approved by the American Bar Association (ABA) are LSAC members. Canadian law schools recognized by
a provincial or territorial law society or government agency are also members. Accredited law schools outside of the United
States and Canada are eligible for membership at the discretion of the LSAC Board of Trustees.
© 2009 by Law School Admission Council, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this work, including information, data, or other portions of the work published in electronic
form, may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and
recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission of the publisher. For information, write:
Communications, Law School Admission Council, 662 Penn Street, Box 40, Newtown, PA 18940-0040.
This study is published and distributed by LSAC. The opinions and conclusions contained in this report are those of the
author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of LSAC.
i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Setting the Scene: The Cast of Characters (Professional Identity and Status). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Ready, Set … (Motivations) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Action! (Mobility) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Concluding Thoughts: The LL.M. as an Agent of Globalization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix 1: Birth Countries of Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix 2: Initial Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Appendix 3: Response Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1
Executive Summary
This project seeks to understand the ways in which U.S. graduate legal education shapes the careers of transnational
lawyers. Since the mid-1990s, U.S. law schools have admitted increasing numbers of non-U.S. law graduates to their
1-year LL.M. degree programs. At about that time, the LL.M. shifted from a degree aimed at students interested in
academic careers to one that was focused on students who intended to practice law. For U.S. law schools, LL.M. students
internationalize their student bodies, offer the promise of building important connections with foreign practitioners and
organizations (including academic organizations), and generate important tuition income. In addition, LL.M.s may also
serve as agents of a process of global exportation of a U.S. approach to law and legal education.
But what is the benefit of the LL.M. to the foreign law graduate? This is the question addressed by the research
reported here. The project has two phases. Phase 1 consists of a survey of foreign law graduates who completed a U.S.
LL.M. in 1996, 1998, or 2000 at one of 11 U.S. law schools. 1 This report pertains primarily to the survey results and
draws on the responses of 360 graduates of the 11 schools. 2 Phase 2 uses interviews to tease out additional information
from survey respondents.
As described in the following report, the LL.M. attracts a geographically diverse group of students who bring quite
different backgrounds and credentials—some but not all with work experience—to their U.S. law schools. The
respondents primarily work with business and commercial clients. Respondents who worked for law firms before the
LL.M. and continue to do so indicated that they are less involved in representing individuals and small and start-up
businesses now than in their pre-LL.M. practices. This points to the LL.M. as a mechanism for mobility but also as one
that deepens the divisions among local practitioners. 3 In addition, while respondents enter their LL.M. programs with
substantial international connectedness to foreign nationals and foreign clients, they report even more in the post-LL.M.
period, particularly in terms of their working with foreign nationals. Finally, the difference between respondents who
work for international law firms (those with international branch offices) and those who work for domestic firms (those
without international branch offices) with regard to their international connectedness appears to disappear after the
LL.M., supporting the hypothesis that the LL.M. is especially helpful to domestic law firms in their efforts to compete
with international firms for talent and clients.
Introduction
Globalization is the current mantra of U.S. law schools. 4 It is the focus of initiatives at Harvard, 5 Stanford, 6 and the
University of Michigan, 7 among other schools, and it has helped New York University create a distinctive “brand” as the
“Global Law School.” 8 The schools emphasize preparing their U.S. JD students 9 for an increasingly internationally
1
Initially, 18 schools agreed to participate in the project. Eleven of the 18 provided contact information for their alumni of the 3 years of the
study, and these are included in the attached report. The remaining seven schools made the survey available to their alumni through various methods.
Respondents from all 18 schools are included in the pool of potential interview subjects, for phase 2 of the project, but only those respondents from the
11 schools that provided contact information for their alumni are included in the analysis of the survey.
2
In all, 409 LL.M. graduates of 18 law schools responded to the survey, and they form the pool of potential interviewees for phase 2 of the
project.
3
Possible important differences along gender lines in terms of the nature of current employer organizations (e.g., business–public), is an issue for
future investigation through interviews.
4
Law schools often follow law firms in the United States, and embracing globalization is an example of this. The very title of the American
Lawyer’s annual listing of the highest grossing and largest firms lends further attraction to the “global” label. “The Global 100,” Am. Law. (Oct. 2007).
See also, Aric Press, “In-House at the American Lawyer,” Am. Law. (June 2007) at p.11 (referring to the introduction to Laura Empson’s book,
Managing the Modern Law Firm, in which “Harvard Business School professor Jack Garbarro writes … ‘As law firms become large and/or global,
they have to develop into …. ‘ambidextrous organizations.’”).
5
In announcing curricular changes, Harvard Law School Professor (now Dean) Martha Minow explained the decision to require students to “take
one of three specially crafted courses introducing global legal systems and concerns,” as follows: “We believe these changes will better prepare our
students to think about and practice in a legal world in which … transactions and interactions among parties are increasingly global in nature.” HLS
faculty unanimously approves first-year curricular reform, 10/2006, avail. at http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2006/10/06_curriculum.php. See also,
Leigh Jones, “Harvard’s Curriculum Changes Announce Trend Towards Global Law,” The Recorder (10/18/06).
6
Stanford Dean Larry Kramer, in announcing the Law School’s “3DJD Model for Legal Education” commented, “‛What counselor can
effectively advise a client about investing in China or India without understanding their particular legal structures, to say nothing of their different
cultural expectations and norms?’ To serve clients capably or address major social and political issues, lawyers now … must also practice law in a
global context. ‛Where only a tiny number of graduates used to practice law across national borders, today only a tiny number do not,’ Kramer noted.
‛International law, particularly the law governing private actors in the international arena, has gone from the periphery to the center, and law schools
have been scrambling to adapt.’” A “3D” JD: Stanford Law School Announces New Model for Legal Education (11/06), avail. at
http://www.law.stanford.edu/news/pr/47/.
7
The University of Michigan now requires all students to take Transnational Law; see list of upper class courses at
http://cgi2.www.law.umich.edu/_ClassSchedule/CourseList.asp. See also Jones, supra n. 4 (“‛When Harvard does it, it becomes news,’ said Evan
Caminker, dean of the University of Michigan School of Law. Since 2001, Michigan’s law school has required its students to complete a three-credit
‘transnational’ course, Caminker said. They have the option to take the course during any one of the three years in law school, he said, adding that
about half of the school’s first-year class takes the course.”).
8
James Traub, “John Sexton Pleads (and Pleads and Pleads) His Case,” N.Y. Times (5/25/97) (“In 1993, [John Sexton] and several colleagues,
and then alumni, began developing a Global Law program, which perfectly suits Sexton [sic] sense of law’s larger purposes as well as his grandiose
2
connected professional life and instructing them on analytical approaches to transnational problems, but they also
attempt to bring the international home to their campuses and classrooms by enrolling foreign national students. The
presence of foreign nationals in U.S. law classes offers the opportunity for U.S. students to become sensitive to
international perspectives, and it also may introduce a comparative perspective to substantive coursework. 10
The most popular degree program for foreign nationals offered by U.S. law schools is the 1-year post-JD LL.M. 11
This comes as a follow-on to primary legal education earned outside of the United States. The LL.M. has grown in
popularity since the mid-1990s, when it was transformed from a degree that catered to future scholars to one aimed at
law graduates who intend to practice law. 12 There is quite a bit of variation in the details of U.S. LL.M. programs. 13 The
degree is not subject to approval by the American Bar Association, which accredits law schools on the basis of their
3-year JD programs. 14 Consequently, the LL.M. is not standardized by the force of national regulation, although state
regulation, particularly New York’s, has had some influence in establishing norms for the degree, for example with
regard to credit hours necessary for an LL.M. 15 Indeed, likely as a result of the absence of accreditation, there is no
definitive source of information about either the number of U.S. law schools offering the LL.M. or the number of LL.M.
degrees granted each year, 16 in contrast to the JD, which is the mainstay of U.S. law schools. Nevertheless, estimates are
possible: Based on research of law school Web sites conducted in 2004–2005, 17 102 U.S. law schools were identified as
offering LL.M. programs open to foreign law graduates; 18 another source puts the number as high as 135. 19 It is more
difficult to assess the number of foreign law graduates enrolled in LL.M. programs or the number of LL.M. degrees
granted to foreign law graduates. At least three sources offer relevant information: The American Bar Association
Section of Legal Education and Admission to the Bar gathers information on law schools and enrollment, including
enrollment of foreign nationals (although not necessarily limited to LL.M. programs); 20 the Institute of International
Education studies international student enrollment by gathering information from schools (but not limited to law schools)
in the United States; 21 and the National Conference of Bar Examiners reports on bar-examination test takers based on the
source of their legal education. 22 These sources, each of which is imperfect, 23 suggest that annual enrollment of foreign
vision for N.Y.U. ‘Globalization’ was in the air; the new program would confirm N.Y.U.’s status as a leadership school. It would be the first school to
move beyond the traditional study of comparative international law to systematically examine transnational legal issues.”) See also Hauser Global Law
School Program at http://www.nyulawglobal.org/.
9
“U.S. JD student” is used here as a shorthand for a person who was raised and educated in the United States and pursues the 3-year JD degree.
“Foreign national” is used to refer to a person who was raised and educated outside of the United States. Of course, these labels are generalities and
ignore the students who have personal and educational ties to more than one country. Multinationals are present in both JD and LL.M. programs, but
their role in internationalizing U.S. law schools is not separately considered in this report.
10
See Lauren K. Robel, “Opening our Classrooms Effectively to Foreign Graduate Students,” 24 Penn St. Int‘l L. Rev. 797 (2006) (“One
recurrent problem in ‘globalizing’ the curriculum at our schools is our lack of substantive knowledge about other legal systems. But we have foreign
lawyers sitting in our classes with deep substantive knowledge of other systems. They can be asked to present on relevant class topics from the
perspective of their own legal systems. These students are often much more comfortable as presenters than in the give-and-take of classroom
discussion.”)
11
The LL.M. also may be pursued by U.S. JD graduates, but this report does not include them in its discussion. In the remainder of this report, the
reference to “LL.M. programs” is limited to those that include foreign nationals who did not earn a U.S. JD, which excludes many LL.M. programs
offered in the United States. For general information on LL.M. programs, see ABA Section on Legal Ed. & Admission, “Post-JD Programs by
Category” at http://www.abanet.org/legaled/postjdprograms/postjdc.html. The reference to “LL.M. graduates” in this report is limited to persons who
earned their first degree in law outside of the United States.
12
Certain programs continue to require a major writing project, such as the University of Wisconsin’s LL.M. program; see
http://www.law.wisc.edu/grad/prospective/LL.M./overview-LL.M.htm (“The Law School’s LL.M. program is strictly a research and writing one
designed for people who have already received a basic law degree from an American law school or an equivalent degree (e.g., LL.B.) from a university
outside the U.S. The LL.M. is primarily of value to those planning on a career as a legal scholar or researcher. No course work is required; in fact,
degree candidates are actively discouraged from enrolling in courses.”).
13
See Silver, “Internationalizing U.S. Legal Education: A Report on the Education of Transnational Lawyers,” 14 Cardozo J. of Intl & Comp. L.
143 (2006).
14
For the academic year 2007–2008, 43,518 JD degrees were awarded by ABA-accredited law schools, according to the ABA (see Section of
Legal Education and Admission to the Bar, Statistics, Enrollment, http://www.abanet.org/legaled/statistics/charts/stats%20-%201.pdf). The number of
LL.M. degrees awarded is more difficult to ascertain. For information on current enrollment in U.S. law schools of foreign nationals, see
http://www.abanet.org/legaled/statistics/charts/OG%20Left%20Page%202%202008.xls (visited 5/20/08).
15
See 22 NYCRR 520.6 and description at http://www.nybarexam.org/foreign.htm. The number of LL.M. degrees awarded is more difficult to
ascertain. For information on current enrollment in U.S. law schools of foreign nationals, see
http://www.abanet.org/legaled/statistics/charts/OG%20Left%20Page%202%202008.xls (visited 5/20/08).
16
While the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admission to the Bar requests information about LL.M. programs, including the number of
students enrolled, the information it receives has not been complete with regard to either the schools offering such programs or the particular programs
offered by a school. The mismatch of information is observable by comparing information on a law school’s website about its LL.M. programs to that
listed by the Section of Legal Education on its website listing of LL.M. programs, available at http://www.abanet.org/legaled/postjdprograms/postjdschool.html.
17
See Silver, “Internationalizing U.S. Legal Education,” supra n. 13.
18
“Foreign law graduate” is used here to refer to persons who earned their primary legal education outside of the United States.
19
See LL.M. Guide, http://www.LL.M.-guide.com/usa/1 (visited 5/21/08).
20
On the ABA information, see n.15–16, supra.
21
See IIE Open Doors Report, FAQs, at http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/?p=25092#faq3 (“surveys sent to over 2,800 accredited U.S. institutions,
who report on the international students enrolled at their colleges and universities”).
22
See statistics at the NCBEX Web site, http://www.ncbex.org/bar-admissions/stats/.
3
law graduates in LL.M. programs currently is likely to be at least 4,000 persons. 24 Although a precise number for foreign
law graduate LL.M. enrollment is not available, the trend of growth is unmistakable: The number of U.S. law schools
offering LL.M. degrees increased more than 50% from 1998 to 2003, and estimates of enrollment indicate growth of
more than 100% during the period from 1999 to 2004. 25 There is every indication that the size of enrollment and number
of programs has continued to increase. 26
Scholarship on graduates of U.S. law schools has excluded LL.M. graduates. 27 This might have made sense when
LL.M. programs were marginal in terms of size and the relationship of their graduates to the practicing bar. But today’s
LL.M.s occupy a more substantial position in U.S. legal education because of sheer numbers, as well as their importance
both to the global identities of their U.S. law schools and to their home country legal markets. At the same time, the
global expansion of legal practice lends significance to international legal education and LL.M. programs as an aspect of
such a movement. The absence of information about LL.M. graduates and the role of the LL.M. in their careers no longer
makes sense. This report begins to fill the information gap. It describes the results of a survey of LL.M. graduates of 11
U.S. law schools 28 that provide insight into questions about the identities of LL.M.s and their motivations for studying in
23
The ABA gathers information on enrollment of foreign national students. While most of these likely are in LL.M. programs, some certainly are
pursuing the JD degree. In addition, the data suggests that certain law schools did not report enrollment of foreign law graduates in their LL.M.
programs in response to the question about foreign national enrollment. See
http://www.abanet.org/legaled/statistics/charts/OG%20Left%20Page%202%202008.xls (visited 5/20/08). The NCBEX number also is both over
inclusive (because there are repeat test takers who did not recently complete the LL.M., and certain test takers may not have completed an LL.M. at all)
and under inclusive (because not all LL.M. graduates sit for a bar exam in the United States). Finally, IIE’s number is not limited to those persons
studying in a law school degree program; undergraduates pursuing “legal studies” and nondegree students also may be included in IIE’s records.
24
The ABA reported 1,969 foreign nationals enrolled in U.S. law schools for 2008 (see
http://www.abanet.org/legaled/statistics/charts/OG%20Left%20Page%202%202008.xls). This number is almost certainly too low to represent the
number of foreign nationals enrolled in LL.M. programs. In 2004, the ABA reported 4,469 foreign nationals enrolled in U.S. law schools. See Silver,
Internationalizing U.S. Legal Education, supra n. 13 at 149 (Data from the ABA for 2004 was received from the Section of Legal Education and
Admission to the Bar). The NCBEX-reported 4,505 persons who completed their legal education outside of the United States sat for a bar examination
in 2006 (see http://www.ncbex.org/fileadmin/mediafiles/downloads/Bar_Admissions/2006stats.pdf), and IIE reports 6,368 foreign students were in the
United States studying law and legal studies in its 2007 Open Doors Report (see FIELDS OF STUDY, INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS, Open Doors 2007,
Report on International Educational Exchange, Table 16, INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS BY FIELD OF STUDY, 2005/06 & 2006/07
http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/?p=113124). The 4,000 figure is approximately 10% of the number of JD degrees awarded in 2008; see
http://www.abanet.org/legaled/statistics/charts/stats%20-%201.pdf.
25
Silver, “Internationalizing U.S. Legal Education,” supra n. 13 at 147–149.
26
See, e.g., Michael Goldhaber, “They Rule the World,” Am. Lawyer (9/05) (“The 200 students in Columbia’s 2005 LL.M. class (roughly double
that school’s LL.M.s in 1995) hailed from 50 nations.”)
27
A notable exception is Lauren K. Robel, “Opening our Classrooms Effectively to Foreign Graduate Students,” supra n. 10. On U.S. law
graduates generally, see Dinovitzer, Garth, Sander, Sterling, and Wilder, After-the-JD,
http://www.nalpfoundation.org/webmodules/articles/articlefiles/87-After_JD_2004_web.pdf; Wilkins, Dinovitzer, Batra, “Urban Law School
Graduates in Large Law Firms,” 36 Southwestern U. L. Rev. 433 (2007); Sterling, Dinovitzer, Garth, “The Changing Social Role of Urban Law
Schools,” 36 Southwestern U. L. Rev. 389 (2007); Dinovitzer, Garth, “Lawyer Satisfaction in the Process of Structuring Legal Careers,” 41 L. & Soc.
Rev. 1 (2007); Dinovitzer, “Social Capital and Constraints on Legal Careers,” 40 L. & Soc. Rev. 445 (2006); Nelson, Dinovitzer, Garth, Sterling,
Wilder, Adams, “Observations from the After the Bar Survey of the Bar Class of 2000,” 24 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 539 (2006); Gita Wilder, Law School
Debt Among New Lawyers (January 2007), Women in the Profession: Findings from the First Wave of the After the JD Study (August 2007), RaceEthnicity in the Legal Profession (March 2008), all available at http://www.nalp.org/content/index.php?pid=485; Nancy J. Reichman , Joyce S.
Sterling, “Sticky Floors, Broken Steps, and Concrete Ceilings in Legal Careers,” 14 Tex. J. Women & L. 27 (2004); Nancy Reichman & Joyce
Sterling, “Recasting the Brass Ring: Deconstructing and Reconstructing Workplace Opportunities for Women Lawyers,” 29 Cap. U. L. Rev. 923
(2002); Mary C. Daly, “The Structure of Legal Education and the Legal Profession, Multidisciplinary Practice, Competition, and Globalization,” 52 J.
Legl.Ed. 480 (2002); Heinz, Nelson & Laumann, “The Scale of Justice: Observations on the Transformation of Urban Law Practice,” 27 Annual Rev.
of Soc. 337 (2001); David L. Chambers , Richard O. Lempert, Terry K. Adams, “Michigan’s Minority Graduates in Practice: The River Runs Through
Law School,” 25 Law & Soc. Inquiry 395 (2000); John P. Heinz, Robert L. Nelson , Edward O. Laumann, Ethan Michelson, “The Changing Character
of Lawyers’ Work: Chicago in 1975 and 1995,” 32 Law & Soc’y Rev. 751 (1998); Joanne Martin & Bryant G. Garth, “Clinical Education as a Bridge
Between Law School and Practice: Mitigating the Misery,” 1 Clinical L. Rev. 443 (1994); Bryant G. Garth & Joanne Martin, “Law Schools and the
Construction of Competence,” 43 J. Legal Educ. 469 (1993).
28
The survey project initially included graduates of 18 U.S. law schools that had agreed to collaborate on the project. Only 11 schools provided
alumni contact information to me; another six schools sent the survey to their alumni on my behalf, and one school included a description of the project
and my contact information in its LL.M. newsletter. This paper reports on the survey responses of graduates of the 11 schools that provided contact
information to me; there were fewer responses from graduates of the other 7 schools, and it was impossible to determine the response rate from these
schools. Nevertheless, respondents of all 18 schools (a total of 409) are included in the interview portion of the project. Interviews with 64 respondents
have been conducted as of March 2009; the interview project is ongoing.
4
the United States. 29 The survey is part of an ongoing research project investigating the LL.M. experience and its role in
shaping the careers of LL.M. graduates. 30
This report considers the value of the LL.M. experience and credential and its relation to globalization of the
profession. Professional identity (which includes personal qualities that relate to status and entry, generally) provides a
framework for assessing the value of an experience and credential, as does the home base of respondents. Section 1 sets
the scene for discussing expectations of value by describing the demographics of the respondents to the survey; the focus
here is on who the respondents were prior to the LL.M. and what their identities reveal about their status at home.
Section 2 delves into motivations for pursuing the LL.M. and the respondents’ perception of the LL.M. as a symbol of a
global persona. In Section 3, the role of the LL.M. as a factor in career trajectories and mobility generally is considered
by examining the current professional positions of the respondents. The role of the LL.M. as a basis for segmentation of
the profession also is discussed. Section 4 concludes by relating the research to globalization generally and suggesting a
context for the LL.M. experience.
Setting the Scene: The Cast of Characters (Professional Identity and Status)
In order to assess the value of an LL.M., we must know something about the status of the students before they
enrolled in an LL.M. program. Is the LL.M. an equalizer, offering opportunities for those with limited resources and few
personal or professional connections? Or is its primary function to offer global socialization to those predestined for
greatness in their home countries? There is support for each hypothesis. The law schools argue that they are offering
opportunities to level the playing field for international students, just as for U.S. JD students. 31 At the same time,
however, the most common advice given by U.S. law school LL.M. program directors to students looking for postLL.M. jobs is to rely on their home country contacts, which of course presumes that students have existing home country
networks to support their professional growth. 32 Also on the “equalizer” side is the existence of external scholarships for
supporting students without the means to pursue an LL.M.; 33 these are, however, quite limited. All LL.M.s must have a
good command of English, 34 which in certain jurisdictions comes only at a cost and, as such, it is an indication of
privilege. Finally, certain reports of influential LL.M. graduates, such as the following, give rise to the suspicion that the
LL.M. is more an indication of status already attained, ideally suited to those awaiting recognition and an appropriate
opportunity to step into positions of power:
29
The study originally was designed to yield results that are representative of LL.M. graduates generally. LL.M. graduates from the years 1996,
1998, and 2000 from 11 U.S. law schools were sent a written questionnaire (in hard copy and electronically). The schools provided me with the last
known addresses for their graduates; I updated contact information, where possible, and contacted graduates directly. The 11 schools included 3 that
were ranked among the top 15 law schools according to the 2005 U.S. News & World Report rankings; 3 ranked from 16 to 30; 3 ranked from 31 to 50;
and 1 each ranked from 51 to 100 and below 100. The schools, thus, were weighted toward more elite status based on U.S. News rankings. Location of
the 11 schools was as follows: 5 on the East Coast, 2 in the South/Southeast, and 4 in the Midwest; 6 schools are public institutions and 6 are in major
urban centers. The response rate for the 11 schools was 28%. Respondents were weighted toward the elite group of participating law schools: 55% of
respondents graduated from a school in the top 15 of the U.S. News rankings; 23% from schools ranked from 16 to 30; 16% from schools ranked from
31 to 50; and 3% each from schools ranked from 51 to 100 and below 100.
30
In addition to the survey and follow-up interviews with respondents described here, my research on LL.M.s (programs and students) includes
interviews with LL.M. graduates (during and after their LL.M. experience) and LL.M. program directors, as well as with hiring partners, managing
partners, and partners responsible for international strategy at law firms on the American Lawyer 200 and Global 100 lists, as well as with managing
partners of non-U.S. firms that compete with these U.S. firms (certainly for talent and often for clients) in markets located outside of the United States.
See generally, Silver, “Local Matters: Internationalizing Strategies for U.S. Law Firms,” 14 Indiana University Journal of Global Legal Studies 67
(2007); Carole Silver & Mayer Freed, “Translating the U.S. LL.M. Experience: The Need for a Comprehensive Examination,” 101 Northwestern
University Law Review Colloquy 23 (2006), available at http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/colloquy/2006/3/ ; Silver, “Internationalizing
U.S. Legal Education,” supra n. 13; Silver, “The Case of the Foreign Lawyer: Internationalizing the U.S. Legal Profession,” 25 Fordham Journal of
International Law 1039–1084 (2002).
31
See, for example, New York University Law School, http://www.law.nyu.edu/llmjsd/index.htm (“Our graduate students ... are provided with a
tool box which specifically responds to the evolving nature of law in the 21st century.”). One LL.M. director from another law school commented that
the purpose of that school’s LL.M. program was “to educate lawyers that can contribute to the building of a world community based on the rule of law
and who have the skills and knowledge to make a contribution to their own societies.” This information was collected in 2003 as part of a study of
LL.M. programs, through a survey and conversations with LL.M. program directors; it is referrred to in this report as “LL.M. Program Research.” The
LL.M. Program Research is reported generally in Silver, “Internationalizing U.S. Legal Education,” supra n. 13.
32
Id. Home country contacts are “critical” for obtaining a job in the US following the LL.M., according to one LL.M. program director. A director
at a second school explained that home country contacts “help … in home countries and here [in the U.S.] too. Those contacts have contacts here in the
U.S. If they can use a name when reaching out to employers on an information basis, it helps a great deal. If they don’t have that, we encourage them to
use lists of LL.M. alumni that we have. But … it is a big plus if they have their own contacts.” The director at a third school noted that “most students
have their own contacts or have a job before coming to the U.S. to study.” LL.M. Program Research (2003).
33
Among the well-known scholarship programs that support LL.M. studies are Fulbright scholars, the Muskie fellows program for students from
Russia, see http://www.irex.org/programs/muskie/, and the Soros Foundation for students from former Soviet countries, see
http://www.soros.org/initiatives/scholarship/focus_areas/global_supplementary/guidelines. These are by no means the only sources of support
available, and national scholarship programs also may provide funding for students from particular countries. These scholarships (international and
national) themselves are sources of symbolic capital.
34
English language ability is continuously discussed among faculty, deans, and directors of LL.M. programs. For information on the TOEFL, see
http://www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/menuitem.fab2360b1645a1de9b3a0779f1751509/?vgnextoid=69c0197a484f4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD&
WT.ac=Redirect_ets.org_toefl.
5
A recent class of entering students [in Columbia University’s 2005 LL.M. program] included the
general counsel of Haiti's Central Bank and the dean of Mozambique's law school, as well as senior
advisers to the Guatemalan Truth Commission and to New Zealand's Ministry of Maori Affairs.
Lawyers like these are unstoppable when armed with another degree. Former LL.M.s Giuliano Amato
of Italy and Mary Robinson of Ireland rose to become heads of state. A third of the judges on the
International Court of Justice hold graduate degrees from U.S. law schools. And in Taiwan, which
rivals Georgia for LL.M. power, U.S. alumni include the vice president, the mayor of Taipei, and at
least two grand justices. 35
The LL.M. certainly serves both equalizer and global socialization functions as well as others, for different groups
and even simultaneously for the same students. To shed light on these issues, this project began by investigating the
backgrounds of respondents in order to evaluate their status prior to their LL.M. experience within the profession and
more generally. Indicia of status include the professional characteristics of respondents who worked prior to enrolling in
the LL.M., and the ability of all respondents to fund the LL.M. through personal and family savings.
To introduce the respondents, some basic demographic details are offered. As described earlier, the survey was
distributed to graduates of 11 U.S. law school LL.M. programs, who earned their LL.M.s in 1996, 1998, or 2000. 36
Responses were received from 360 individuals, 34% of whom were female and 66% male. Median age of respondents at
the time of graduation from the LL.M. program was 28; ages ranged from 22 to 50 at graduation. The largest group of
respondents (32%) was born in the EU, followed by those born in Asia-Pacific countries (25%) and in Mexico, Latin
America, and the Caribbean (23%). Ten percent of respondents were born in non-EU countries in Europe, 3% each in
Canada, Africa, and the Middle East, and 2% in the United States. Appendix 1 lists respondents’ birth countries.
The regional distribution of respondents likely is quite different than that of today’s group of LL.M. graduates from
the same schools. The EU countries are not as well represented today, in large part because of the popularity of EU
exchange and graduate programs on the one hand, and the development of high-quality LL.M. programs in other
common law, English-speaking jurisdictions on the other hand. 37 Students from Asia-Pacific countries, especially China,
are taking the place of the Europeans. But by the summer of 1997 (nearly mid-point of the period covered by the survey),
the Asian financial crisis was in full swing and may have had a negative impact on students’ ability to spend a year in the
United States. 38
Nearly 80% of respondents worked prior to enrolling in the LL.M. program; Table 1 reports pre-LL.M. employment
settings. One indication of status is connection to an international environment. The level of international connection is a
proxy for high status. 39
35
Michael Goldhaber, supra n. 26 (“Mikheil Saakashvili left the former Soviet Republic of Georgia in the early 1990s to get a degree at Columbia
Law School—then returned to lead a democratic revolt. In late 2003 Saakashvili rallied his countrymen against corruption in the so-called Rose
Revolution, elbowing out former president Eduard Shevardnadze. Today Georgian cabinet meetings have the feel of an Ivy League seminar, with the
foreign minister and deputy justice minister also trained in American law. Such is the power of the LL.M., the 1-year advanced degree that allows
foreign lawyers to attend U.S. law schools. These degrees are rarely regarded as revolutionary—and yet they promote political change. ‘LL.M.s are
undoubtedly the most effective rule-of-law programs,’ says Bryant Garth, the incoming dean at Los Angeles’s Southwestern University School of Law
and the longtime director of the American Bar Foundation. ‘You create friends. You create people who understand U.S. models. You build an army of
advocates for reform.’”).
36
The survey was sent to all graduates of the 11 participating schools for which the schools provided contact information or for whom contact
information could be determined from searches of public records, such as Martindale-Hubbell (www.martindale.com), general internet searches, Lexis
and Westlaw directories, and the New York State bar records (http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorney/AttorneySearch): 1,284 persons, in all. Twentyeight percent of respondents graduated from the LL.M. program in 1996 (compared to 27% of the group of all graduates to whom the survey was sent
[the “all graduate group” is composed of the potential respondents to the survey]); 33% graduated in 1998 (31% for the all graduate group); and 39%
graduated in 2000 (39% for the all graduate group).
37
On Erasmus, the European Union’s exchange program, see http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-programme/doc80_en.htm (visited
8/18/09). LL.M. programs in England, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, among others, attract increasing numbers of European law graduates.
(Interview with European global law firm hiring partner, summer 2008.).
38
But see Hey-Kyung Koh, Open Doors 2000, International Educator (winter 2001), p.29, at p.30 (reporting that 54% of all international students
come from countries in Asia. “Europeans, who represent 15 percent of overall international enrollments, follow the Asians.”).
39
This hypothesis about the connection between work for international clients and high status was based on casual conversations with non-U.S.
lawyers, both LL.M. students and those who have never studied in the United States.
6
TABLE 1
Pre-LL.M. work setting
% of Rs in Each Employment
Category
Solo practice
Private law firm
Government
Judiciary
Prosecutor
NGO/Public interest
organization
Educational institution
Non-law professional service
firm
Corporation/business
organization
Other
Total
2.1
52.3
8.2
4.6
.4
2.5
6.4
2.1
14.2
7.1
100.0
Three elements of international connectedness were investigated through the survey. Respondents were asked
whether they worked with foreign nationals during the past 12 months, whether they represent foreign individual or
corporate clients, and whether they work for an organization with offices outside of the country in which the respondent
resides. These three questions were asked with regard to the work of respondents as they entered their LL.M. program (if
they then were employed), as well as for their current position. For the pre-LL.M. period, there is tension between the
international connectedness of the respondents and the international characteristics of their employers (Table 2).
Generally, the respondents who worked prior to the LL.M. for private law firms were substantially internationally
connected in their work, but their law firms were national—rather than international—organizations. Nearly three
quarters of this group of private-law-firm lawyers reported working with foreign nationals in their pre-LL.M. jobs, and
78% represented foreign individual or corporate clients. However, only 39% worked for firms that had offices outside of
the home country. That is, most were working for domestic law firms that did not support an international presence
through branch offices. From this perspective, the LL.M. may hold promise for individuals to gain leverage to a more
prestigious place within their employer organization, which may involve work with international clients. At the same
time, hiring LL.M.s may offer domestic firms a means to compete with international law firms, both for clients—by
showing themselves to have internationally trained lawyers—and also in the hiring market for lawyers. 40
TABLE 2
International Connection of Respondents in their Pre-LL.M. Positions
% of Rs Who Represented
Foreign Individual or
% of Rs Who Worked With
Foreign Nationals
Corporate Clients
Rs who worked for private
law firms
74
78
Rs who worked for
corporations/bus. orgs.
63
40
Rs who worked for other
organizations (combined)
36
33
% of Rs Who Worked for
Organization With Offices
Outside Home Country
39
75
21
In contrast to the law firm group, those respondents who worked for corporations prior to the LL.M. were more
likely to work for international organizations: Three-quarters reported that their employer had offices outside of their
home country, compared to just 39% for the law firm group. Well over half of corporate employee respondents indicated
that they interact with foreign nationals, similar to the law firm group. Only 40% of the corporate employee respondents
reported representing foreign clients, but this is likely explained by the particular in-house role in which the “client” is
the corporation itself.
Respondents who worked in a setting other than a private law firm, on their own as sole practitioners or with
corporations, reported substantially lower international connectedness; these are reported as working for “other
organizations” in Table 2. For this group, because their jobs did not involve representing clients, the most useful question
to gauge international connectedness relates to working with foreign nationals. Only 36% reported working with foreign
40
See “Between Diffusion and Distinctiveness in Globalization: U.S. Law Firms Go Glocal” (with Nicole De Bruin Phelan and Mikaela
Rabinowitz), Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics (forthcoming 2009); Silver, “Local Matters,” supra n. 30.
7
nationals, 33% represented foreign individual or corporate clients, and only 21% reported that their employer had offices
outside of their home country.
The private practitioner group of respondents reported concentrating their practices on business organization clients
rather than on individuals. This raises the question of whether the dual hemisphere of individual and business
organization clients that characterizes the U.S. legal profession also might be descriptive of professions outside of the
United States. 41 Of those respondents working for law firms, only 16% reported that a substantial portion of their clients
were high-income individual clients, and 10% reported that non–high-income individuals represented a substantial
portion of their clients. In contrast, 43% of this group reported that a substantial number of their clients were public
companies, and 37% counted banks among their primary client group. In order to consider the relationship between
business clients and status, lawyers working for private law firms were further divided on the basis of their employer
organization having offices outside of the home country. Table 3 reports the results; here, respondents who reported that
the particular client group comprised a substantial portion of their practice were included.
The difference between the two groups in representation of public companies and banks is striking and suggestive of
a correlation between representation of business clients and international presence, analogous to the U.S. divisions and
illustrative of a global influence on the legal profession. In addition, the proportion of lawyers in both groups working
for business clients, compared to the proportion working for individual clients, suggests that the two-hemisphere analysis
of lawyers for businesses and lawyers for individuals may also be descriptive of lawyers outside of the United States, at
least to the extent that these non-U.S. lawyers enroll in LL.M. programs. 42
TABLE 3
Client groups of respondents who worked for law firms before enrolling in the LL.M. 43
% of Rs
% of Rs
Representing
% of Rs
Did Employer
% of Rs
Representing
Non–HighRepresenting
Have Offices
Representing
Public
Income
High-Income
Outside Home
Banks
Companies
Individuals
Individuals
Country?
Yes
17
7
59
44
No
15
11
32
33
% of Rs
Representing
Insurance
Companies
13
11
% of Rs
Representing
Small/Start-Up
Businesses
17
19
Apart from employment, status also can be inferred from information relating to the way respondents paid for the
LL.M. The LL.M. is an expensive proposition. 44 Nevertheless, 40% of respondents relied exclusively on personal and
family resources to pay for the LL.M. (68% of whom worked for law firms, 10% of whom worked for corporations, and
just over 20% of whom worked for all other employer organizations combined). Nearly three-quarters of all respondents
reported that personal and family savings contributed to funding their LL.M. The principal reliance on personal or family
savings for the combined group of respondents is consistent with funding for international students generally. 45 Finally,
there is no particular significance to geography with regard to reliance on personal funds. Respondents who used only
personal or family savings to fund the LL.M. are relatively evenly distributed across the three geographic regions that
were home to most respondents: Asia-Pacific (21%), Mexico and Latin America (27%), and the European Union (37%).
A scholarship offered either by the U.S. law school or by an outside source, such as the employer or a home country
government or organization, contributed to funding for slightly more than one third of all respondents. Certain law
schools do not fund LL.M.s, and this is true for certain of the schools that participated in this research, as well. Just two
schools accounted for the law school funding reported by 63% of the LL.M.s who received funding from their U.S. law
school. Only eight respondents (2% of all) relied exclusively on funding from their U.S. law schools. External funding
includes that offered by employers, and this is a popular means of support for respondents who worked for corporations
or business organizations prior to the LL.M.; 56% of the corporate-employee group were supported (to some extent) by
their employers or another external source of funding, and this accounted for a larger group of these respondents than
41
In the United States, the legal profession is described as divided based on the type of clients served. See generally Heinz et al., Chicago
Lawyers.
42
See Heinz & Laumann, Chicago Lawyers: The Social Structure of the Bar (1982).
43
The survey asked respondents to indicate whether each client group constituted a substantial amount, a few, or none of his or her clients. The
results in the table include responses that indicated either a substantial amount or a few.
44
Tuition for an LL.M. student is the same as that for a JD student at Stanford Law School ($40,880 in 2008–2009), as at most law schools.
Stanford estimates that support during the LL.M. plus tuition would require a minimum of $64,118 for 2008–2009. See
http://www.law.stanford.edu/program/tuition/advanced/.
45
IIE reported that for approximately the same period as the years during which the respondents were enrolled in their LL.M. programs, “[t]hreequarters of all international students receive their primary support from non-U.S. sources of funding. Personal and family sources support 67 percent of
international students overall and constitute the largest percentage of the non-U.S. sources of funding.” Open Doors 2000 at p.31, see 2000–2001
(available at http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/?p=31669 [Open Doors: Welcome > Data Tables > 2001 Data > International Students > Source of
Funds]).
8
those who relied on personal or family savings to support the costs. 46 This distinguishes them from law firm-employee
respondents, only one third of whom were supported by an employer or external scholarship. In all, 57 respondents (16%
of all) relied exclusively on an external scholarship to fund the LL.M. Table 4 sets out data on source of funding based
on type of pre-LL.M. employer organization for those respondents who worked before enrolling in the LL.M., as well as
for those who did not work and the combined group of all respondents.
TABLE 4
Sources of funding for LL.M.s (categories of funding [columns] are not exclusive)
% of Rs in This Category
% of Rs in This Category
% of Rs in This Category Who Received Funding From
Who Used Personal/Family Who Received Funding From Employer or Other External
Savings
Law School
Scholarship
Sole practitioner
Private law firm
Government
Judiciary
Prosecutor
NGO/Public int. org.
Educational institution
Non-law prof. service
Corporation/bus. org
Other (uncategorized, but
who worked)
Rs who did not work prior to
LL.M.
All Rs combined
83
85
50
54
0
80
39
50
44
85
33
14
10
31
100
60
39
17
8
15
17
33
50
62
0
40
39
67
56
25
80
14
29
73
16
37
The picture of LL.M.s that emerges from this data on pre-LL.M. employment and funding does not provide a clear
message about status of the respondents. More than 80% of respondents who worked for law firms prior to the LL.M.
(which comprises the largest group of respondents) dug into their own pockets for at least part of the cost of their
programs. So, too, did 80% of those who did not work prior to enrolling in the LL.M. Corporations, business
organizations, and non-law professional service firms tended to take care of their own in terms of funding; this is
consistent with reports from interviews that corporate employers willingly fund the LL.M. in exchange for an agreedupon period of work for the company after returning from the United States. Besides corporate and other business-entity
employees, those most likely to have received funding from their employers or other outside sources (that is, not the U.S.
law school) worked in the judiciary prior to the LL.M. Sources of funding for these individuals may include rule-of-law
programs interested in exposing officials to the U.S. approach to law.47
The employment data generated through the survey is suggestive of relatively high-status backgrounds of
respondents. The low proportion of respondents who focused their practices on individual clients (high-income and non–
high-income) may be an indication of prestige. In addition, to the extent that international connection indicates status,
this too reveals that the respondents are relatively high-standing members of their communities before they enter the
LL.M. programs. Interestingly, in the first interviews conducted with respondents, the theme of international connection
during the pre-LL.M. period is not reported as an important part of their professional identities. Rather, it is in the
personal characteristics and experiences of respondents that an international mindedness often is revealed during
interviews. Through interviews gathering personal and professional biographies, including family background and even
travel histories, a more complete picture of the respondents can be revealed.
More meat is put on the bones of the “ideal” LL.M. in the next section, which describes what respondents reported
of their motivations for enrolling in a U.S. LL.M. program.
Ready, Set … (Motivations)
U.S. law schools generally are in the business of producing lawyers. To practice law in the United States requires
bar admission. Every U.S. jurisdiction allows JD graduates of accredited law schools to sit for the bar, but most deny that
privilege to most foreign law graduates who earn only the LL.M. 48 The frustration that LL.M.s feel regarding U.S. bar
admission is captured by one respondent:
46
Only 44% of the corporate employees relied on personal or family savings to fund the LL.M. While this ratio of external scholarship to
personal/family savings as the means of support for more respondents also describes respondents who worked for the judiciary and non-law
professional service firms, the number of respondents in these groups is extremely small (judiciary, 13; non-law professional services, 6).
47
See comments of Bryant Garth in Goldhaber, supra n. 26.
48
See text at n. 11, supra, regarding the ABA’s acquiescence to LL.M. programs. According to the ABA Section of Legal Education and
Admission to the Bar, the absence of accreditation is grounds for argument that the LL.M. is insufficient to qualify for the bar; see ABA Section of
9
And this [referring to the inability to sit for the bar in many major commercial U.S. jurisdictions] keeps coming
up again, again and again. You know, it’s a huge issue because the U.S. is extremely attractive for people to
work in. The labor market is very, very fluid in everything but law, it seems. It’s very difficult actually getting
here and getting practicing and then actually get[ting] a job. Because a lot of the big law firms won’t look at you
unless you’re going to get qualified, understandably so. And so, I find a lot of the states are really kind of
difficult still. 49
The question, then, is why would a foreign law graduate pursue a U.S. LL.M.? The law schools proclaim in large
print their warning about bar admission, and also discourage LL.M.s from planning to work in the United States after
graduation. 50 In light of these limitations and warnings, one might wonder what foreign law graduates see in the LL.M.
This is a complicated issue in large part because LL.M.s, like international students in other fields of study, often change
their minds midstream, entering the programs with “value” assessed through home country judgments, but shifting
toward a U.S.-based evaluation as they become assimilated into the U.S. law school community. 51 The survey provides
insight into the entering mindset of LL.M.s, as reported in Table 5.
TABLE 5
Motivations reported for deciding to pursue LL.M.
Motivation
Expansion of professional opportunities in home country
Interest in a particular area of law
Desire to improve English skills
Career advancement
Desire to live in the United States
Influence of colleagues/friends who had an LL.M.
Path to a job in the United States
Family considerations
Necessity for U.S. bar exam
% of Rs Who
Indicated This Was
Important
82
54
51
39
39
29
29
21
16
The notion of value of the LL.M. should be viewed through the eyes of the students, and their diverse geographic
home bases make this challenging. As Ronit Dinovitzer and John Hagan explain, “the worth of a particular form of
symbolic capital is based on its recognition as valuable in local settings.”52 The LL.M.’s value to a person in one country
may relate to access to particular prestigious law firms. In another country, it may allow access to international clients
and the work they bring. In yet a third country, the value of the LL.M. may relate substantially to regulatory structures
that restrict opportunities, as in Korea and Japan where bar passage rates have been, until recently, so low that students
pursue the LL.M. in order to qualify to sit for the New York bar. 53
The survey responses indicate that motivations for the LL.M. embrace both universal and local values: The most
important reason for pursuing an LL.M., cited by most respondents, is that the LL.M. expands professional opportunities
Legal Education and Admission to the Bar, “Council Statement Concerning LL.M. and Other Post-JD Degrees,” available at
http://www.abanet.org/legaled/standards/standardsdocuments/Council%20Statements.pdf.
49
Int.#1. Interviews of respondents to the survey are cited as “Int.#-.” Interviews with LL.M. students and graduates who were not respondents to
the survey, and with law firm leaders (managing partners, hiring partners, partners responsible for international strategy, and partners working outside
of their home countries), are cited as “Int.GLS#-.”
50
These warnings have become more common since the mid-1990s, when LL.M. programs shifted from primarily academic-focused programs to
embracing practitioners. See, for example, the description on the website of the University of Pennsylvania about the challenges of obtaining a position
in the United States following an LL.M., at http://www.law.upenn.edu/cpp/prospective/llm/ (visited 8/18/09). (“ Each year, several LL.M. students
attempt to find employment in the United States, either permanently or on a temporary basis [e.g., several months to a year or two to before returning
to their home countries]. Unfortunately, it is very difficult for LL.M. graduates to find law-related jobs in the United States today. Experience has
shown that only a very, very small percentage of LL.M. graduates from all United States law schools find work here. We want you to be very clear
about your employment options before you enroll at Penn Law. This may apply to you even if you have often been the top student in all of your
previous academic endeavors. … Contrary to the difficulty that LL.M.s face finding legal positions in the United States after they graduate, many of
our LL.M.s do obtain wonderful opportunities in their home countries.”)
51
Heike C. Alberts and Helen D. Hazen, “‘There are always two voices…’: International Students’ Intentions to Stay in the United States or
Return to their Home Countries,” 43 Int’l Migration 131 (2005); see also Silver, “The Case of the Foreign Lawyer,” supra n. 30.
52
Dinovitzer and Hagan, “Lawyers on the Move: The Consequences of Mobility for Legal Careers,” 13 Int’l J. of the Legal Prof. 119, 121 (2006).
53
According to one LL.M. student, “in Korea, LL.M. value is first, American license, bar exam. LL.M. is a process to get license. [The] second
value of law school is prestige … it convinces clients of credibility. They say, ‘Oh, you graduated from —, you can have this business.’ [The] third
value of LL.M. is English improvement. Really, English is more important, but credential of license is [also] important.” Int.GLS#5 (LL.M. 2003).
10
at home. But several respondents also considered the LL.M. important as a “universal” credential: “I wanted to have
more opportunities in the international market place and get a degree that would have a certain value in every country.” 54
But what exactly does the LL.M. do to expand home country opportunities? The comments of one respondent during
a follow-up interview give a bit more insight into the idea of home country opportunities. He was working prior to the
LL.M. and here explains his thoughts about why it was worth interrupting his career to come to the United States:
… I could tell there was a huge gap between me … and more senior attorneys working in some of the big law
firms in Buenos Aires. And all of them had one thing in common: they all had done an LL.M. in the States and
most of them had also worked for … an associates program; I guess that every big New York law firm has this
program. There was some kind of myth around it. I attributed the difference in skills and knowledge and
experience and everything else to their experience in the U.S. Today I realize there was much more to it, but
that was the biggest, I still believe it was a big component. 55
This notion of “myth” is common to LL.M.s, although rarely so clearly described. Another respondent explains it a bit
differently:
And then in the universities the word was spread that if you really wanted to have a chance with these big
international firms you needed a LL.M. So it was at the time that also, really, this wave, that everybody thought
LL.M. was like this buzz word that people learned. And I thought I really need this to stick out, if you want to
be able to be competitive in 5–6 years from now. People will look at that. 56
Often, respondents attribute belief in the myth to clients rather than to themselves. For example, an LL.M. from the
EU explained, “people will look even more differently to you if you’ve had an American law firm experience. They
think you know more than they know or people will … kind of value you more. It’s kind of a becoming part of a group
of lawyers that did an LL.M.” 57 A Latin American helped unpack the components of the mythical quality in his
description of the value of the LL.M. to lawyers and clients in his home country:
… [L]aw firms once you go and do a … LL.M., they are assuming first of all, … your social skills are good
because you came to the States all alone. You did this by your own, you just spent a lot of money, so that talks
very good things about you. You know, that you are self-sufficient …. Self-motivated … First of all, you had
the money so you come from a family that can pay this. So, you have social skills; … you might have contacts
when you go back. So, there’s a lot of things that … really, … really count at the time of hiring somebody. …
[Y]ou talk good English and they need people who talk in English because they have clients permanently U.S.
and British, … European that speak in English because it is a universal language. So they need a lot of people
like you after the masters. 58
The myth, then, includes several of the other specific motivating factors considered separately by the survey, including
improving English language ability and the desire to live in the United States.
While improving ability in English is a substantial motivating factor for LL.M.s, it rarely is the sole or even most
important consideration. 59 As one respondent explained, the LL.M. “had an appeal apart from … getting some new
expertise and getting some knowledge about some other laws and all that, and obviously improving your English skills
… English language skills.” 60 English-language ability was cited as a motivating factor by substantially more male
respondents (56%) than female (41%). 61 It is often mentioned by law schools in discussing challenges for LL.M.
students. Fluency in English affects participation in class as well as comfort in social interactions with U.S. students (and
with other international students). English language ability also is repeatedly brought up in follow-up interviews as
54
R.#317; the same idea was expressed by R.#172 and R.#412. Another LL.M. graduate interviewed as part of the larger research project (but not
a survey respondent), describing her impending move back to her home country and her search for an in-house job there, explained her surprise that the
LL.M. was considered an important asset: “… I was expecting for in-house position—the lawyer, the LL.M. could be, kind of, not a waste of—kind of
a waste money. But I started—last week I start looking at advertisement and stuff like that, and positions, what I was—and all of them preferred [an]
LL.M. or U.S. experience, or English language, MBA, or—I was really surprised. I mean, for an in-house position.” Int.#GLS25 (LL.M. 2004)
55
Int.#22.
56
Int.#3
57
Int.GLS#3 (2003 LL.M.).
58
Int.GLS#8 (1999 LL.M.).
59
“One main reason I’m here is to practice [my] English. That’s important because 70% of clients are U.S.-based companies. The better deals
involve international parties. If you want to be on these deals, you must be able to speak, read, write in English as if it’s your own language—almost
mandatory. Most law firms require knowledge of English before hiring in a job as a lawyer.” Int.GLS#4.
60
Int.#13.
61
This difference is statistically significant; p = .008. Another motivating factor that generated substantially different responses along gender lines
was whether family considerations were a deciding issue. Thirty percent of female respondents indicated its importance, compared to just 17% of male
respondents.
11
important because working in English is becoming increasingly common. 62 The LL.M. is a signal that English ability is
sufficiently good for these purposes, as was explained by one respondent:
A couple of guys from the [World Bank] … came specifically on campus to recruit LL.M. people. … And again
what they told me during the interview, they used to . . . they hired a couple of people without LL.M. degree[s]
and then they decided it would be better to get somebody with [an] LL.M. degree because first of all the English
language and the particular education would help. Then they actually became so picky they were hiring
exclusively LL.M. degree people . . . people with [an] LL.M. degree. 63
English, then, is a motivating factor but also an important part of the symbolic value of the LL.M. experience. To this
extent, the emphasis LL.M.s place on English as a reason for pursuing the LL.M. is well placed.
Slightly more than half of all respondents indicated their motivation for the LL.M. related to interest in a particular
area of law. More respondents indicated an interest in business-related law (corporate, corporate finance, securities,
banking) than in other areas, although intellectual property and international law also were popular. Interest in a
particular area of law may be especially important to those who considered the experience as a way to shift gears in their
careers, from one area to another. As one respondent explained, “I wanted to switch my career away from litigation and
towards corporate law—advisory.” 64 Related to this idea of interest in a particular substantive area of law is the more
general consideration of the experience of a U.S. law school. From exposure to the Socratic method to common law, and
law and economics, these are cited as important aspects of the LL.M. experience. 65
The personal aspects of an experience outside of one’s home country, and an interruption from a budding career,
intertwine with the more professional motivations such as interest in a particular area of law or even perfecting English
language ability. For nearly 40% of respondents, the experience of life in the United States was an important motivation
for pursuing the LL.M. One comment captures this idea nicely: “I needed to live the great American campus experience,
especially in light of my young age … at the time—22 years old.” 66 For others, the LL.M. was as much about time off
from work as the U.S.-cultural aspect of the experience. One respondent described his motivation as to “take a sabbatical
and enjoy the ride.” 67 These personal experiences of growth (and relaxation!) are as much a part of the LL.M. “myth” as
the more distinctive U.S. law school experience.
Finally, to return to jurisdictional differences, responses to questions on motivation for the LL.M. were relatively
similar across jurisdictional lines. For example, grouped by birth region, respondents answered similarly regarding the
importance of the LL.M. to expanding opportunities in the home country. Slight differences emerged between
respondents born in Asia-Pacific countries, for example, who were not as interested in living in the United States as a
motivation for the LL.M. as were those born in the Mexico–Latin America–Caribbean region and in Europe (both EU
and non-EU). Slightly more respondents born in Asia-Pacific and Mexico–Latin America–Caribbean countries, as
compared to respondents from other birth regions, indicated that their interest in a particular area of law motivated their
decision to pursue the LL.M. Interviews may reveal more significant jurisdictional differences regarding these
motivation issues. The message of the survey, however, is that value—as seen through motivation—has a global,
common meaning. The LL.M. is construed as the door to a worldwide legal community. The “worldly” aspect almost
certainly has particular meaning and value in each home country, but there is quite universal agreement as to the
worthiness of the LL.M. experience. 68
Action! (Mobility)
The LL.M. is a way to shake things up. This may involve an early career interruption, the equivalent of a “gap year”
for new law graduates before they begin working, a more personal sojourn, or one intensely focused on professional
development. The very essence of the experience, for all, is movement. It is not surprising, then, that LL.M.s often end
up living in different places and pursuing different paths after the LL.M. than before. In this section, physical mobility is
considered first, followed by a discussion of career mobility apart from the physical.
62
This appears to be the case almost regardless of jurisdiction. Lawyers from jurisdictions as different as Chile, Germany, and Israel report
working in large part in English. See, e.g., Int.GLS#6, describing work in Israel: “We try to keep all the documents in English in order to preserve it for
the future. So even if both parties are Israelis it’s like the documents are going to be in English and even some of them are only in English. There is
always someone who doesn’t speak Hebrew for some reason. But the documents are in English.”
63
Int.#13.
64
R.#250.
65
R.#13 (“Enrich my legal studies, experience a U.S. law school, work and research in one of the world best law library and learn about Socratic
method.”); R.#18 (“I was interested in studying civil procedure and judicial system of the U.S.”).
66
R.#285. Similarly: “Thought it would be a great experience.” R.#111; “Fun; chance to live abroad; chance to attend prestigious law school;
American girlfriend (now wife).” R.#33.
67
R.#63.
68
This parallels the story of international commercial arbitration told by Bryant Garth and Yves Dezalay, Dealing in Virtue (1996). While
different groups of arbitrators challenged how best to “do” arbitration, all professed belief in its value.
12
The LL.M. is a mechanism for emigration. Graduates live in fewer jurisdictions than their reported birth or home
countries, as described in Table 6. There is substantial movement to the U.S., as well. Based on contact information for
all LL.M. (foreign law) graduates (potential respondents) provided by the 11 law schools participating in the study, 24%
of LL.M.s were living in the United States 6–10 years after their graduation. 69 For the respondent group, in comparison,
19% stayed in the U.S. 70
TABLE 6
Residence (birth, current and as reported by law schools) for respondents and all graduates
Mexico,
Latin
AsiaAmerica,
Europe
Middle
Pacific
Caribbean
EU
Non-EU
East
Birth Region (% of all
Rs)
Current Residence (% of
all Rs)
Residence of all
graduates, as reported
by law schools (% of
all graduates)
Africa
Canada
U.S.
25
23
32
9
3
3
3
2
20
20
27
9
3
1
1
19
28
15
20
7
2
1
2
24
Studies of student mobility have described the immigration decision for foreign nationals studying at a U.S.
university as involving three kinds of issues: professional, societal, and personal. 71 Interviews with survey respondents
confirm these same factors as relevant for LL.M. graduates.
The personal aspect is the unifying theme for respondents who have immigrated to the United States. The classic
explanation was offered by one respondent: “I met a girl.” 72 Personal connections to someone living in the United States
were offered as a primary reason for staying by nearly all of the 28 U.S.-residing respondents interviewed. For some, the
initial draw to the U.S. for the LL.M. was based on a partner or spouse having moved here for career, 73 political, 74 or
other reasons. Others, having intended to return home, changed their minds when they met partners during the LL.M.
year. 75 The personal aspect also may explain movement outside of the United States. One respondent explained his
current residence, outside of both his home country and the U.S., as follows:
After the LL.M program I worked for [a large U.S.-based international law firm] in the international lawyers
program. My career reached a turning point when instead of going back to my home country [another Latin
American country], for personal reasons (having married a Peruvian attorney), I moved to Peru. Since then I
have also been admitted to practice law in Peru, where I am currently working as an attorney at [a] law firm. 76
69
The ability to assess the U.S. stay rate for the entire group of graduates is one reason for limiting the respondent group to graduates of those 11
schools that shared contact information for all graduates. See n.1 supra for a discussion of the larger research project.
70
Respondents may be unrepresentative of the graduate group as a whole because response rates for certain regions and countries were low. This
is likely the explanation for the difference between the 28% of all graduates reported by the schools living in Asia-Pacific countries and only 20% of
respondents to the survey. It was nearly impossible to use public search methods to find contact information for certain Asia-Pacific country nationals
if the address provided by the school was invalid.
71
Heike C. Alberts and Helen D. Hazen, “‘There are always two voices…,’” supra n.[44] (describing decisions of students at the University of
Minnesota). On mobility generally, see Robyn Iredale, “The Migration of Professionals: Theories and Typologies,” 39 Int’l Migration 7 (2001). Emma
Herman, “Migration as a Family Business: The Role of Personal Networks in the Mobility Phase of Migration,” 44 Int’l Migration 191 (2006); DanOlof Rooth and Jan Ekberg, “Occupational Mobility for Immigrants in Sweden,” 44 Int’l Migration 56 (2006); Ray, Lowell & Spence, “International
Health Worker Mobility: Causes, Consequences, and Best Practices,” 44 Int’l Migration 182 (2006); Bryony Gill, “Homeward Bound? The experience
of return mobility for Italian Scientists,” 18 Innovation 319 (2005); Louise Ackers, “Moving People and Knowledge: Scientific Mobility in the
European Union,” 43 Int’l Migration 99(2005); Chiswick, Lee and Miller, “Patterns of Immigrant Occupational Attainment in a Longitudinal Survey,”
41 Int’l Migration 47 (2003); Lesleyanne Hawthorne, “Qualifications Recognition Reform for Skilled Migrants in Australia: Applying Competencybased Assessment to Overseas-qualified Nurses,” 40 Int’l Migration 55 (2002); Binod Khadria, “Shifting Paradigms of Globalization: The Twenty-first
Century Transition towards Generics in Skilled Migration from India,” 39 Int’l Migration 45 (2001); Adela Pellegrino, “Trends in Latin American
Skilled Migration: ‘Brain Drain’ or ‘Brain Exchange’?, 39 Int’l Migration 111 (2001); Jean-Baptiste Meyer, “Network Approach versus Brain Drain:
Lessons from the Diaspora,” 39 Int’l Migration 92 (2001); Kleinman, Brandt & Weiss, “Postgraduate Training and Work Experience of Non-ECFMG
Certified Physicians in the U.S.,” 13 Medical Care 205 (1975).
72
Int.#1.
73
“[W]hat happened is kind of … a … story … because I used to date an American citizen. So my girlfriend, who is actually my wife at … the
end of my story, … so we used to date each other for two years back in [my home country]. Then it was time when she was leaving and so we tried to
work out, okay, what should we do … And what we decided how will we do it, because we were not at that point ready to get married or anything like
that, so we say, okay, why don’t I just come to the United States as a student and get the LL.M. degree which I always kind of wanted to get anyway
and we will see how it goes.” Int.#13.
74
One respondent described her dilemma, referring to her husband and herself: “We had to decide whether we wanted to live separately or be
together. … Political issues made my husband come here [to the U.S.].” Int.#23.
75
“My husband was a 2L.” Int.#19.
76
R.#135.
13
“Societal factors” are defined by Alberts and Hazen as “those connected to how comfortable the student feels in a
particular social, political and cultural environment.” 77 Several respondents described their motivations in these terms
based on their feeling that their lifestyle was more acceptable in the United States or simply outside of their home
countries. 78
Apart from immigration, the survey provides some insight into the LL.M. as an element in career mobility.
Generally, those respondents who were employed prior to the LL.M. worked for the same type of employer organization
after the LL.M. 79 The distribution of respondents among categories of current employer organizations is described in
Table 7; comparisons to the distribution among employer groups to the pre-LL.M. period also is provided (last column
on right).
TABLE 7
Current employer settings (also comparing to pre-LL.M. employers)
Current Employer
for Those Rs
Who Worked
Prior To
Enrolling in the Current Employer
For All Rsb
LL.M.a
Solo practice
3
4
Private law firm
47
52
Government
4
4
Judiciary
3
2
Prosecutor
1
1
NGO/Pub. interest org.
1
1
Educational institution
8
8
Non-law prof. service firm
3
3
Corporation/bus. org.
17
18
Other
7
7
Pre-LL.M.
Employer
Settingsc
2
52
8
5
<1
3
6
2
14
7
a
Percentage of all Rs who worked pre-LL.M.
Percentage of all Rs.
c
Percentage of Rs who worked pre-LL.M., without consideration of current employer type.
b
The survey cannot capture subtleties of professional movement. For some, the LL.M. has shaped careers without
necessarily causing the respondent to shift across categories of employers. For example, one LL.M. established a
different sort of practice organization, very much grounded in the LL.M. experience:
My current employer is a law firm started by me and two other friends who are also U.S. law graduate degree
holders. The three of us are partners in the firm. There are several things which will be peculiar to each graduate
for his/her having undergone a law degree course in the United States. One such factor in my case was the
aspiration to have a global network of lawyers or a global law firm which was at that time not existent in my
home city. 80
Another explained the importance of the LL.M. to her career in her home country judiciary:
My master’s degree in law … has enhanced my professional career. Because of it I was appointed to the
editorial board of [my home country’s] law reports and I have been appointed to various extra-judicial
committees and extracurricular activities because of my LL.M. Further, my general understanding of issues,
whether professional or otherwise, improved since obtaining my LL.M. Apart from this, my writing skills were
enhanced such that I am about to publish my first book, which is rare where I come from, especially for women.
… Because of the LL.M. I am a role model in my community and a source of inspiration to many young girls. I
77
Alberts and Hazen, “There are always two voices,” supra n. 76 at 139.
Int.#21.
Respondents who worked in government prior to the LL.M. are an exception, although the numbers are relatively small (23 respondents total in
this group): 36% now work in private law firms, 23% in government, and 23% in education. Those who had worked in NGOs prior to the LL.M. (an
even smaller group of 7 respondents) are dispersed among private practice (solo and firm), educational organizations, and NGOs). Likewise, the 2 of
the 6 respondents who started out with non-law professional service firms moved into law firms, and one moved to a corporate employer. For all other
categories, the largest group stayed with the same sort of employer organization in their current position.
80
R.#7.
78
79
14
hold a very senior position in the … judiciary … and managing this court properly is partly due to the special
training I received at [my U.S. law school.] 81
Other respondents report the LL.M. as offering a turning point away from law, nicely captured by the comments of
one LL.M. in his survey: “My U.S. graduate degree permitted me to realise that I did not all wish to pursue a career in
law and that I hated the idea of becoming a lawyer and the career and personal path that they take. I am extremely happy
to be working as … [a] producer. And I definitely still need my legal education in my day to day work.”82
To further consider the role of the LL.M. in career mobility, the same factors that were used to analyze the prestige
of respondents prior to their LL.M.s—international connectedness and client identity—may be helpful in identifying
influence or impact. While any change may be attributable to factors other than the LL.M., such as experience or
seniority, the LL.M. may contribute to the explanation.
In comparing those respondents who were working for law firms prior to the LL.M. with those currently working for
law firms on the issue of international connectedness, stability is as notable as change. As Table 8 illustrates,
substantially more respondents reported working with foreign nationals post-LL.M. than pre-LL.M. In addition, a higher
percentage of respondents who work for law firms in the current period, post-LL.M., work with foreign nationals than
represent foreign clients. For both the pre-LL.M. and post-LL.M. groups, the lower percentage of respondents working
for firms with offices outside the host country indicates that single offices house lawyers and perhaps also staff from
multiple countries, and supports the notion that one value of the LL.M. may be exposure to an international group that
acclimates LL.M.s to working well in a multinational setting.
TABLE 8
Respondents working for law firms (pre-LL.M. and today)
% of Respondents Working
% of Respondents Who
for an Organization With
% of Respondents Who Work Represent Foreign Corporate Offices Outside of the Home
With Foreign Nationals
or Individual Clients
Country/Current Residence
Pre-LL.M.
Current
74
96
78
82
39
46
The difference in connection to foreign nationals through work may relate to respondents’ changes in status within
their legal communities, bringing them more directly into contact with foreign nationals because their jobs are more
internationally focused. Alternatively, this change may simply be a consequence of increasing internationalization in
business and the economy generally since the date of the respondents’ graduation. A bit more information can be gleaned
from delving deeper into employer groups. If only those respondents working outside of the principal commercial
employer group (law firms and corporations) are considered on the first international question (working with foreign
nationals), similar changes are reported: While only 38% of respondents in the pre-LL.M. period reported working with
foreign nationals, 58% of this group currently works with foreign nationals. There is substantial stability on the issue of
the international footprint of employer organizations. This similar rise in the percentage reporting working with foreign
nationals suggests that LL.M.s, on the whole, are more likely to work in an international setting after their degree than
before they studied in the United States.
Equally interesting is the percentage of respondents representing foreign clients. There is substantial similarity
between the pre-LL.M. group and post-LL.M. (current) group today (see Table 8). If the LL.M. was intended to open
opportunities for representing foreign and international clients, its success is not borne out by the survey responses.
Table 9 further compares pre- and post-LL.M. experiences by focusing on the relationship between the international
footprint of respondents’ employer and their clients. As in earlier discussions of client type, the figures in Table 9
indicate only those respondents who reported that the particular type of client accounted for a substantial proportion of
their work.
81
82
R.#346.
R.#129.
15
TABLE 9
Private law firm respondents, comparing clients
% of Rs
Did Employer
% of Rs
Representing
Have Offices
Representing
Non–HighOutside Home
High-Income
Income
Country?
Individuals
Individuals
Pre-LL.M.: Yes
Pre-LL.M.: No
Post-LL.M: Yes
Post-LL.M.: No
17
15
21
18
7
11
9
5
% of Rs
Representing
Public
Companies
% of Rs
Representing
Banks
% of Rs
Representing
Insurance
Companies
% of Rs
Representing
Small/Start-Up
Businesses
59
32
73
45
44
33
59
41
13
11
21
10
17
19
16
23
The similarity between responses for the pre- and post-LL.M. period overall, with regard to the relationship of employer
groups, is striking. This may reveal the bias of looking backward, so that reporting on pre-LL.M. client groups was
filtered through the lens of current client groups. Alternatively, the influence of the employer organization may be so
substantial, and so related to international presence, that it determines the responses; this issue of international
connectedness will be revisited below (see Table 11, infra).
Two changes are notable. First, information on representation of non–high-income individual clients provides some
evidence that the LL.M. is a stepping stone to higher status within the profession and also that the divided hemisphere
hypothesis is descriptive outside of the United States as well. Particularly notable is the relationship of respondents
working for firms with foreign offices to those working for domestic firms without foreign offices. Representation of
non–high-income individual clients went down for the respondents working for domestic firms in the post-LL.M. period,
but rose slightly for those working for firms with international offices. The LL.M. may help lawyers move away from
lower-status clients, either by changing their employer organizations or gaining entrée to more prestigious work for
business organizations within the same employer.
Second, one consequence of globalization appears evident with regard to small and start-up corporate clients. There
is a shift toward domestic firms without an international presence, and it reflects the divisions that are typical of
globalization: Smaller clients stay with domestic firms, in large part because of differences in fees. The survey illustrates
that domestic firms have captured this business, or perhaps it is more accurate to describe international firms as having
conceded it.
The lore about LL.M.s that focuses on those in positions of power might suggest that most graduates work for
international law firms or other international organizations that have offices in multiple jurisdictions. On the other hand,
LL.M.s often report difficulties landing jobs with the largest and most international of the law firms, which suggests that
perhaps their value is more appreciated elsewhere. In order to gain insight into this issue, the law firm employers of
current LL.M.s working outside of the United States were categorized based on whether they were purely a domestic
firm (meaning, having offices in only one country); an international firm with a home base outside of the United States
(“domestic international”); a U.S.-based international firm with offices outside of the United States (“U.S.
international”); a Magic Circle firm; 83 or a multinational firm (in terms of office locations) based outside of the United
States, the respondent’s current residence, and also not a Magic Circle firm (“other international”). 84 The results of the
analysis, limited to those respondents working outside of the United States for private law firms, are found in Table 10. 85
83
These are Slaugher & May, Allen & Overy, Freshfields, Linklaters and Clifford Chance, all based in England.
For a respondent living outside of the Netherlands, Nauta Dutilh is an example. See http://www.nautadutilh.com/.
85
We were able to categorize firm type for 87% of all respondents working outside of the United States for private law firms.
84
16
TABLE 10
Current type of law firm employer for respondents working outside of the United Statesa
Domestic
U.S.
Region Where Respondent Resides
Domestic
International
International
Asia-Pacific (n = 19)
Mexico, Latin America, Caribbean
(n = 40)
EU (n = 46)
Europe Non-EU (n = 13)
a
Magic Circle
Other
International
58
73
11
10
21
8
5
—
5
5
28
69
20
15
37
8
13
8
2
—
Percentage of Rs in each region working for type of firm. 86
For all regions with the exception of the EU, those comprising the largest group of respondents work for firms that
are entirely domestic. The explanation for this is likely related to globalization of the market for legal services. As U.S.
firms 87 compete more directly with local law firms for local clients, domestic firms must meet their competition. To do
this, they need lawyers trained in common law systems who they can present to clients as competitive with lawyers
working for the U.S. firms, particularly if those firms have offices in the same city. The LL.M.s are the weapon of the
domestic firms, allowing them to meet their competitors with similarly educated lawyers who can speak “legal English”
and understand and work within principles of the common law system. 88
The EU story looks different, but in fact may be more similar than not. There, many domestic firms have merged
with or have been acquired by (in whole or by groups) U.S.-based international firms. The resulting offices may consider
themselves more domestic than not. A lawyer working in the EU (and outside of London) in an office of a Magic Circle
firm, who earlier had worked for the domestic firm prior to its becoming part of the Magic Circle firm family,
commented that he considered his office a “local firm with Magic Circle roots.” 89 If hiring is accomplished in each
office, as was the case for the Magic Circle office just described, then there may well be hold-over in attitude. That is,
respondents working for U.S. international firms may be useful as international agents in much the same way as they are
with domestic firms, because the offices of the U.S. international firms in Europe identify themselves with their earlier
incarnations, when they were domestic, non-U.S. firms.
Table 11 illustrates how respondents who work for law firms with international offices compare to those who work
for firms with offices only in one country, and here the LL.M. appears to serve as a great equalizer among the two
groups of employers. The proportion of respondents who represent foreign clients and work with foreign nationals in
both groups, in the current (post-LL.M.) period, is nearly identical. This is in contrast to the pre-LL.M. period, when
respondents working for firms with international offices were substantially more likely to represent foreign clients and
work with foreign nationals than those working for domestic firms.
TABLE 11
Respondents working for law firms (pre- and post-LL.M.), comparing
domestic (no overseas office) and international (at least one overseas office) firms
% of
Respondents
Working for % of Respondents
International
Working for
Firms
Domestic Firms
Pre-LL.M. work with foreign nationals?
Pre-LL.M. work with foreign clients?
Current work with foreign nationals?
Current work with foreign clients?
87
89
96
83
68
71
96
82
These data reinforce the hypothesis that the LL.M.’s value is significant for national (domestic) firms who must
compete with branch offices of U.S. and U.K. law firms for clients.
The story of career mobility for LL.M.s would not be complete without some discussion of opportunities in the
United States. This is a source of considerable frustration to many LL.M.s. 90 During their year in the United States,
many students decide they would like to stay at least temporarily to gain exposure to U.S. legal practice. Visas for
practical training are readily available. Salaries in the United States are attractive, and many LL.M.s report that their
educational experience will be worth more at home if followed by work experience, preferably in a multinational law
86
Information is not reported for regions with fewer than 10 respondents for whom employer organizations were identified.
U.K. firms also might be included in this analysis, as similar to U.S. firms.
See Silver, De Bruin Phelan and Rabinowitz, supra n. 41.
89
Int. GLS#34.
90
Silver, “The Case of the Foreign Lawyer,” supra n. 30.
87
88
17
firm. The only problem is that most U.S. law firms are not particularly interested in taking on LL.M.s in positions as
associates or even in a temporary position. Certain firms offer special programs for foreign lawyers, similar to the
summer associate programs in their limited duration but without the promise of a permanent job offer at the end. Many
spots in foreign lawyer training programs are reserved, however, for individuals associated with foreign clients of the
U.S. firm; the positions are extremely competitive apart from this sort of political arrangement.
Despite the competition, however, the U.S. stay rate of survey respondents and the more reliable and higher stay rate
of all graduates of the participating law schools indicate that certain LL.M.s are able to find permanent positions in the
United States. If success is measured by obtaining a position in the United States, then it is not related to the status of the
U.S. law school where the LL.M. was earned. That is, the stay rate for respondents does not have a clear relationship to
law school ranking. 91 But respondents occupy a wide variety of professional positions in the United States, 92 and there
likely are lessons in this variety about paths to success. Two factors have been highlighted by respondents in comments
to the survey, as well as in interviews: (1) home country networks with U.S. connections and (2) English language
ability. A third factor, raised only in interviews, will not surprise any student of international mobility: the ability to
work through U.S. immigration laws and obtain a visa. Finally, an LL.M. who has succeeded in shifting his career to the
U.S. commented on a fourth challenge for LL.M.s, the perception that they will not remain in the United States, that
training them will be a lost cost: “You know, I think some of the challenges for LL.M. students is the visa situation,
English, how well do they know U.S. law, and the perception that they are not going to stick around. In that respect,
what about the people from Ohio? Most of them, by the end of a year, they are gone already.” 93
Concluding Thoughts: The LL.M. as an Agent of Globalization
In the eyes of LL.M. graduates, the value of the LL.M. is more holistic than related simply to law or even to U.S.
law, although these are certainly important aspects of the experience. Rather, the LL.M. is a signal of particular personal
and professional qualities and a mechanism for mobility, and of course these are related. As a signal, the message of the
LL.M. is aimed at the home countries of the graduates; that is, the LL.M.s understand the value of the U.S. experience
based on their home country context. It is this local assessment, in large part, that determines the value of the LL.M. 94
They intend to use the LL.M. to indicate their independence, even boldness, in living outside of their home countries, 95
as well as to show their ability to work with foreign (and especially U.S.-based) clients, to work in English, and to
indicate an internationally sophisticated mindset that will distinguish them from their home country colleagues. 96
The symbolic meaning of the LL.M. relates to both professional and personal qualities and includes the difficult-todescribe effects of simply living outside of one’s home country: The change of orientation that this encompasses,
including speaking another language on a daily basis, exposure to different cultures, and personal independence. 97 LL.M.
graduates describe these lessons as more significant because of being learned in the United States. The value of spending
time learning “American English” and being exposed to U.S. culture is meaningful to them because many of their
professional encounters in their home countries are with U.S.-based entities and persons. At the same time, the
international-ness of their experience is of primary importance: Their interaction with other LL.M. students from diverse
nationalities enriches their learning and extends their professional networks far beyond the United States. 98 One
respondent explained, “There is no doubt that my U.S. law qualification has opened many doors in both a professional
and private sense. However, the contacts and networks created by classmates are a much more effective tool than the
91
However, location of the law school may matter in terms of proximity to New York City, which supports a more internationally friendly market
for lawyers. See Id. This is a likely topic for further research through interviews.
92
For example, one respondent commented: “After I received my LL.M., it was easier to get a job in an American financial institution. [On the]
other hand the knowledge and experience I got at the LL.M. was very important for my job at the Bank; it made [me] feel that I can manage the
challenge.” R.#65.
93
Int.GLS#17.
94
Dinovitzer and Hagan, supra n. [45] (“What often goes unstated, however, is that these forms of capital, and the value that is attached to them,
are themselves usually rooted in the local [citing Dezalay & Garth, Dealing in Virtue (1996)]. This is not only to say that social capital is often derived
from family networks and local social origins—it is also to be aware that the worth of a particular form of symbolic capital is based on its recognition
as valuable in local settings.”)
95
Int.#GLS8.
96
Int.#7 (explaining his motivation for applying for an LL.M. in the United States: “it helps you in your career if you are interested in working in
a law firm with international connections and an international practice, because so often English is the means to communicate globally, as you know.
And it is generally well regarded to have some additional qualifications to get into one of the most prestigious law firms besides your grades and your
[home country] background. So that was one motivation. The second motivation I would think was more a personal … developed personally by being
abroad [and] living in a different culture, by taking inspiration from your different environment …”
97
On the symbolic role of legal expertise generally, see Yves Dezalay, “From a Symbolic Boom to a Marketing Bust: Genesis and Reconstruction
of a Field of Legal and Political Expertise at the Crossroads of a Europe Opening to the Atlantic,” 32 Law & Soc. Inq. 161 (2007) (“legal competences
are symbolic goods whose value is linked to the social legitimacy capital of those that produce it. The takeover bid of the city’s major business
offices—or of their competitors in other European financial centers—on the still very young environmental law market did not take long to wear out
the scant social credibility of this new legal discipline by reducing it to being no more than a sort of bargaining chip in the major negotiations when
large transnational merger and acquisition operations take place.”)
98
R.#3.
18
qualification alone.” 99 The LL.M. also carries significance beyond U.S. interests. As explained by another respondent, “I
feel that my U.S. experience provides me a very competitive tool in attracting foreign companies investing in Argentina,
and also a better way to interact with foreigners living in Argentina. Also, being admitted in New York allows me to
offer comfort to clients in providing legal advice.” 100 Of course, the message also is linked to law and the legal
profession, which may be valued by different audiences in the home country as related to learning about the
methodology of U.S. legal education, exposure to the common law, legal English, and even to particular substantive
areas of law. The LL.M. also serves as a form of common language for lawyers from different jurisdictions, a meeting
place, of sorts, 101 as explained by Bryant Garth and Yves Dezalay: A “Mexican lawyer [reports] that he cannot do
business effectively with a Japanese lawyer unless the Japanese lawyer also has an advanced U.S. law degree.” 102
The LL.M. is an entrée to movement, both hierarchical and physical. In part, this is a natural consequence of the
interruption that the LL.M. causes in the careers of graduates. By taking time out and physically removing themselves
from their home countries, LL.M.s change the dynamics of their careers. Some may have their pre-LL.M. jobs waiting
for them when they graduate, but many take time to reconsider opportunities in their home countries.103 Mobility also
may involve changes within the same employer to another practice specialty or division that may be related to a
particular substantive focus in their U.S. legal studies. As one respondent explained, “[The LL.M.] permitted me to move
away from tax law and focus on more general corporate law which was my goal moving forward.” 104 The shift may be
less substantive and more focused on clients, toward representation of international or U.S.-based clients; this was
captured by one respondent who explained simply, I “[t]hought it [the LL.M.] was important for U.S. clients.” 105 In this
way, the LL.M. reinforces divisions within the home country legal market, privileging those with overseas experience
and perhaps, particularly, that gained in the United States. 106
In addition to mobility within their home countries, however, the LL.M. also offers an opportunity for physical
change. Approximately one quarter of the respondents reported that their current residence is outside of their home
countries. 107 For some, the move is motivated by professional opportunities, but personal factors are a significant
motivator for many.
It is the LL.M.’s enabling of mobility—both career mobility and simple geographic change—that is crucial.
Globalization requires the potential for geographic mobility, and the LL.M. is the ticket for this. Without this, law is
inherently bound by jurisdictional edges; the LL.M. transforms national lawyers into agents of globalization in a
worldwide (real and/or imagined) community of lawyers. As an internationally recognized credential, the LL.M. offers
domestic lawyers an opportunity to leap beyond their national borders. Of course, there are alternative mechanisms for
such a leap: An international law firm may be an equally good platform, as well as perhaps certain international
organizations and NGOs, such as the World Bank or the International Criminal Tribunal. 108 But these alternative
organizations may have fewer spots available and may be likely to apportion them on grounds that exclude a substantial
slice of the legal profession. In this way, the LL.M. actually may play a role as equalizer in terms of creating
opportunities.
99
R.#132.
R.#345.
101
Lawrence M. Friedman, “Borders: On the Emerging Sociology of Transnational Law,” 32 Stan. J. Int’l L. 65, 69 (1996).
102
Silver, “The Case of the Foreign Lawyer,” supra n. 30 at n. 5.
103
LL.M.s use U.S.-based job-search programs such as those sponsored by NYU and Columbia that bring together potential employers and
LL.M.s, and also report reaching out directly to home-country potential employers while they are still in the United States. Int.#31.
104
R.#17.
105
R.#30.
106
Rogelio Perez-Perdomo discussed stratification and the legal profession in Venezuela, linking it to globalization and even to the LL.M. In
describing lawyers working for the national oil company, he described two groups: one “who only need to know national law and the Spanish
language, and [the other] … who deal with the corporate part of the company and have to participate in negotiations with foreign companies. The latter
know other legal cultures and other languages, especially English. It is no surprise that they tend to have higher salaries and more recognition in the
company.” Perez-Perdomo, “Lawyers in Late Twentieth-Century Latin America,’ in Felstiner, ed., Reorganisation and Resistance: Legal Professions
Confront a Changing World (2005), at 193, 216–17. On divisions within the United States profession and legal education, see Mary Daly, supra n. 27.
107
The survey asked about both birth country and home country. There is a difference for 20% of respondents between these, but the difference
between either home country and current location or birth country and current location was the same and accounted for 45% of respondents. If
respondents living in the United States are excluded, mobility rates are lower but still substantial: 26% of respondents reported living in a country
different from their home country, and 29% from their birth country.
108
Perez-Perdomo recognizes these as equivalents in his discussion of Venezuela’s profession (“Foreign training, whether in universities, law
firms, or international or multilateral organizations, is generally valued highly. Lawyers with that training not only find better job opportunities in firms
and businesses, but also in the state agencies. … globalization has not eliminated the political role of lawyers; it has transformed it. It has also given
pre-eminence to a postgraduate education in the United States, instead of Europe.”) Perez-Perdomo, supra n. 112 at 217.
100
19
Appendix 1: Birth Countries of Respondents
Albania
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Botswana
Brazil
Canada
Chile
China
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
England
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji
France
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Guatemala
% of All Rs
From This
Country
.6
6.1
1.1
1.1
1.9
.3
6.7
3.1
1.9
2.2
.3
.6
1.1
.3
.3
1.4
.3
.6
.3
4.2
1.1
10.0
1.4
.6
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Iran
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Korea
Lebanon
Malawi
Malaysia
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Pakistan
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
% of All Rs
From This
Country
.8
1.9
1.7
.6
.3
1.7
3.1
6.4
.3
.3
3.3
.6
.3
.6
2.8
1.7
.3
.3
1.1
.3
.8
.3
.3
1.1
Portugal
Puerto Rico
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Scotland
Singapore
Slovakia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Peru
Philippines
Taiwan
Tanzania
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela
Total
% of All Rs
From This
Country
.3
.6
.3
.6
1.9
.6
.8
.3
.3
1.9
.8
3.3
.3
1.1
2.5
.3
1.9
.6
.8
2.2
.3
1.7
100.00
20
Appendix 2: Initial Survey
INITIALSURVEY
I.
Pre-US Legal Education Experience
1.
(a) In what year did you complete your legal studies in your home country? __________________
I have not yet completed my legal studies in my home country
(b) What is the name of the university and/or law school where you studied law in your
home country (please include location (city/country), too)?
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
No:
(c) Are you qualified to practice law in your home country? Yes:
If yes, year when this qualification was obtained: ______________
Name of home country: __________________________________
2.
(a) Were you working before you enrolled in a US law school graduate program?
Yes:
No:
If no, skip to Part I, Question 4.
(b) If you answered “Yes” to question 2(a), what type of organization was your employer?
Check one box only.
Solo practice
Private law firm
Government (excluding judiciary and prosecutor) (Specify department:_____________)
Judiciary
Prosecutor
NGO/Public interest organization (is it an international organization? Yes:
Educational institution (were you faculty? Yes:
No:
No:
)
)
Non-law professional service firm (e.g. accounting, investment banking, consulting)
Corporation/business organization (was this a company with public shareholders? Yes:
No:
Other (specify: ______________________________________________________________)
)
21
3.
If you were working as a lawyer:
(a) Did you work with foreign nationals (individuals or organizations) during the 12 months prior to
enrolling in your US law school program?
Yes:
No:
(b) Please indicate the types of clients you served in your practice and whether these types of clients
comprise most of your client base. (Check all that apply, but one column per line; and, where
requested, please indicate whether clients included US persons.)
A substantial
number of
my
clients are:
A few of my
clients are:
N:
a. High-income individuals (US clients? Y:
)
b. Other (not high-income) individuals (US clients? Y:
N:
c. Public companies (US companies? Y:
d. Banks (US banks? Y:
N:
N:
)
N:
)
)
)
e. Insurance companies
(US insurance companies? Y:
N:
)
f. Small or start-up businesses (US entities? Y:
N:
)
g. Government or government agencies (not US)
h. Non-profit organizations or NGOs (international? Y:
i. Other (specify: _____________________________)
(c) In this position, did you: (Check all that apply)
represent foreign corporate or individual clients in their activities in your home country?
represent domestic clients in their activities outside of your home country?
practice public international law?
work for a company/organization/law firm that also had offices outside of your home country?
none of the above
(d) Where was this job located (city/country)? ____________________________________________
22
4. Which of the following factors influenced your decision to pursue a graduate law degree (LLM, MCL, MLI, SJD,
other) in the US? Check all that apply (under column heading “Important”), and indicate which two factors were the
most important in your decision.
Most
Important
2nd Most
Important
Important
I thought I would advance my career with my then-current employer
My colleagues/friends earned a graduate law degree in the US
I was interested in studying a particular substantive area of law
(specify the area: __________________________________)
US legal education was a path to a job in the US
I thought it would expand my professional opportunities in my home country
I wanted to live in the US
I wanted to improve my English language skills
It was necessary in order to sit for the bar examination in the US
Family considerations influenced my decision to come to the US
Other (specify: ______________________________________)
5. How did you finance your US graduate legal education? Check all that apply.
Personal or family savings/resources
Scholarship from the US law school/ university
External scholarship (employer or other funding organization)
Other (specify: _______________________________________________________)
II. Present Occupation
1. (a) Please indicate your current employment status:
Full time
Part time
Not employed; if you are not employed, please skip to Part III.
23
(b) What type of organization is your current employer? Check one box only.
Solo practice
Private law firm
Government (excluding judiciary and prosecutor) (Specify department:____________)
Judiciary
Prosecutor
NGO/Public interest organization (is it an international organization? Yes:
No: )
Educational institution (are you faculty? Yes:
No: )
Non-law professional service firm (e.g. accounting, investment banking, consulting)
Corporation/business organization (is this a company with public shareholders? Yes:
No:
Other (specify: ________________________________________________)
2.
)
If you are working as a lawyer:
(a) Have you worked with foreign nationals (individuals or organizations) during the past 12 months?
Yes:
No:
(b) Please indicate the types of clients you serve in your practice and whether these types of clients
comprise most of your client base. (Check all that apply, but one column per line; and, where
requested, please indicate also whether they are US persons.)
A substantial number of
my
clients are:
A few of
my
clients are
a. High-income individuals (US clients? Y:
N: )
b. Other (not high-income) individuals (US clients? Y:
N: )
N: )
c. Public companies (US companies? Y:
N: )
d. Banks (US banks? Y:
e. Insurance companies
N: )
(US insurance companies? Y:
N: )
f. Small or start-up businesses (US entities? Y:
g. Government or government agencies (not US)
h. Non-profit organizations or NGOs (international? Y:
N: )
i. Other (specify: ________________________________)
(c) In this position, do you: (Check all that apply)
represent foreign corporate or individual clients in their activities in your home country?
represent domestic clients in their activities outside of your home country?
practice public international law?
work for a company/organization/law firm that also has offices outside of your home country?
none of the above
24
III. Demographic and Contact Information
1.
Name: _____________________________________________
2.
Gender: Male:
3.
When were you born? 19__
4.
What is the name of the U.S. law school(s) where you completed your graduate law degree(s)?
Female:
In what country? _______________________________
______________________________________________________________________
In what year did you graduate from this U.S. law school?
5. Are you admitted to practice law in a U.S. jurisdiction? Yes:
No:
If yes, which U.S. jurisdiction(s)? _______________________________________________
6. Please provide your current contact information:
(a) address: _________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
This is my office
home
(b) telephone number: (country code: ____) _____________________________
This is my office
home
(c) fax number: (country code:_____) __________________________________
(d) preferred e-mail address: __________________________________________________
(e) What is the best way to contact you (permanent address, parents’ address, personal email account, etc;
please use your most reliable contact information here)?
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
7.
What is the name of your current employer?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING IN THIS STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL LAWYERS!
Please use this space (and other empty spaces on this form or additional pages) to complete any questions or provide
additional information. Please send the completed survey and comments in the enclosed envelope or to me at [email protected].
25
Appendix 3: Response Rates
It is impossible to determine response rates for most groups of respondents based on gender or birth country because
the original information from the law schools did not provide this information. Consequently, there is no original data to
which the respondents can be compared. The following offers some insight into response rates.
Law School Information
Overall response rate, all 11 schools = 28%
Response rate by groups of law schools:
Response rate for the 6 public schools = 19%
Response rate for the 5 private schools = 31%
Response rate for schools by ranking in the 2005 U.S. News & World Report (see note 28, supra):
Ranking of Schools
1–15 (3)
16–30 (3)
31–50 (3)
51 and below (2)
Response Rate
34%
23%
26%
18%
Geographic Information
Below is a comparison of the address reported by the law school for its graduates to the current residence of respondents,
by region:
Region
Africa
Asia-Pacific
Europe, non-EU
EU
Middle East
Mexico, Latin America, Caribbean
Canada
United States
Response Rate
11%
19%
34%
37%
39%
34%
22%
20%
The lower rate for Asia-Pacific respondents likely relates to (a) the difficulty in using Internet and other publicly
available search mechanisms to investigate names originally written in Asian languages and alphabets and (b) the names
of graduates themselves, which in certain countries are extraordinarily common, making it difficult to find an effective
way to search for particular individuals.