MD and JD

[UGAChemDawg]

Are there any programs that wlll allow you to take some years to get a JD while you are a resdent? Anyone else out there with combined med/law degrees? Share your experiences, please.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Law2Doc]

Are there any programs that wlll allow you to take some years to get a JD while you are a resdent? Anyone else out there with combined med/law degrees? Share your experiences, please.

I seriously doubt it -- most of the JD/MD programs I've heard of involve the med school years not the residency years. You usually bang out the law stuff in two years between your second and third year of med school. But bear in mind that there are not too many jobs for which both degrees can be used in tandem -- really just public policy and academics, or perhaps working as an expert witness. When you get a combination like this, where there aren't all that many folks with both degrees, you basically have to pioneer your way into a job, proving to potential employers that they actually need the combo. In most areas, you would generally use only one degree or the other. For example, 99.99% of all medmal (defense or plaintiffs work) lawyers or health lawyers do not have an MD so it is not of major necessity or prerequisite in that field. And keep in mind that folks with both degrees don't generally make better salaries either, so the return on the investment of the degrees is not too good - something to keep in mind if you are borrowing to pay for 6+ years of professional school.

 

[UGAChemDawg]

I seriously doubt it -- most of the JD/MD programs I've heard of involve the med school years not the residency years. You usually bang out the law stuff in two years between your second and third year of med school. But bear in mind that there are not too many jobs for which both degrees can be used in tandem -- really just public policy and academics, or perhaps working as an expert witness. When you get a combination like this, where there aren't all that many folks with both degrees, you basically have to pioneer your way into a job, proving to potential employers that they actually need the combo. In most areas, you would generally use only one degree or the other. For example, 99.99% of all medmal (defense or plaintiffs work) lawyers or health lawyers do not have an MD so it is not of major necessity or prerequisite in that field. And keep in mind that folks with both degrees don't generally make better salaries either, so the return on the investment of the degrees is not too good - something to keep in mind if you are borrowing to pay for 6+ years of professional school.

Thanks. I was just thinking it would be nice to have a joint appointment as a professor in a law and medical school, since I'm interested in both.

 

[Law2Doc]

Thanks. I was just thinking it would be nice to have a joint appointment as a professor in a law and medical school, since I'm interested in both.

Well then either you do the law school in combo with med school, or if you are past that juncture, you need to do the law school after the residency (and do the whole 3 years). Not sure this is the fastest or smartest track to professorship, though.

 

[deuist]

Well then either you do the law school in combo with med school, or if you are past that juncture, you need to do the law school after the residency (and do the whole 3 years). Not sure this is the fastest or smartest track to professorship, though.

I found out that the ABA has recently changed its rules to allow for students to complete a JD in 24 consecutive months. The University of Dayton is promoting its new two-year law program.

 

[deleted87716]

I found out that the ABA has recently changed its rules to allow for students to complete a JD in 24 consecutive months. The University of Dayton is promoting its new two-year law program.

No doubt to help offset the tremendous lawyer shortage in the U.S.

 

[Law2Doc]

I found out that the ABA has recently changed its rules to allow for students to complete a JD in 24 consecutive months. The University of Dayton is promoting its new two-year law program.

It's really not that much shorter as you go to school during the initial summer (basically adds a summer session to the existing schedule). Also it remains to be seen how folks who do this accellerated pace do on the bar exam, as the program just started.

 

[Law2Doc]

No doubt to help offset the tremendous lawyer shortage in the U.S.

It won't make a difference -- in law, the schools don't act as the gatekeeper. The same 70ish% a year are going to pass the bar exam each year regardless.

 

[deuist]

No doubt to help offset the tremendous lawyer shortage in the U.S.

I was starting to fear for the future of the profession.

On a side note, anyone ever notice that lawyers do not follow the laws of economics. Instead of worrying about supply and demand, they get to create their own demand by suing people.

 

[Law2Doc]

I was starting for the future of the profession.

On a side note, anyone ever notice that lawyers do not follow the laws of economics. Instead of worrying about supply and demand, they get to create their own demand by suing people.

The vast majority of lawyers are not litigators, and sue no one. There is some ability to diversify in law though, as a firm can do corporate work and deals during the good times, and bankruptcy workouts during the bad.

But actually the number of lawyers tends to run in exact reverse to the laws of supply and demand. If times are tough, more people go to law school, to wait out the tight job market. So when a recession cuts deepest, there is always a glut emerging into that profession.

 

[MS05']

It's really not that much shorter as you go to school during the initial summer (basically adds a summer session to the existing schedule). Also it remains to be seen how folks who do this accellerated pace do on the bar exam, as the program just started.

Hi guys, quick question I've always wondered about and am becoming more and more interested in. I did the MD thing, am currently in residency and find myself very interested in the medical legal field. I do not want to go to law school, I'm tired of school. A law school friend of mine told me you don't need to attend an ABA approved law school to sit for the bar in ummm, if memory serves: California, Tenn, Georgia and Mass.

Is this true and can you actually practice there if you pass the bar exam?

 

[Law2Doc]

Hi guys, quick question I've always wondered about and am becoming more and more interested in. I did the MD thing, am currently in residency and find myself very interested in the medical legal field. I do not want to go to law school, I'm tired of school. A law school friend of mine told me you don't need to attend an ABA approved law school to sit for the bar in ummm, if memory serves: California, Tenn, Georgia and Mass.

Is this true and can you actually practice there if you pass the bar exam?

I think it's even fewer states than that -- and I'm pretty sure you are wrong about at least one of those states (See below). And yes, if you pass in such state you can practice in that state, but it's sort of like trying to take the MCAT without having had any of the basic sciences. You can try to learn everything you need to know on your own, but realistically, it's going to be difficult to learn the equivalent of a couple of years of law school on your own, with no instruction. The test is part multiple choice, part essay, and can be either one or two days long -- it's not something you can guess your way through just knowing the basics. And 30-40% of bar examinees fail the bar in each jurisdiction, even having had all the subject matter in school, so your odds are pretty slim. And finally, you will have no ability to gain employment on the law side without having gone to a law school, and won't know enough law to do anything solo, so your options will be pretty limited.

Edit: According to one article I came across on the web, "California, Vermont, Virginia and Wyoming have some form of "law office study'' programs that allow people who have been tutored by an attorney to take the bar exam" without having graduated from an accredited law school.
I continue to doubt your odds of passing the bar via this route, though. Good luck.

 

[CTSballer11]

I think it's even fewer states than that -- and I'm pretty sure you are wrong about at least one of those states (See below). And yes, if you pass in such state you can practice in that state, but it's sort of like trying to take the MCAT without having had any of the basic sciences. You can try to learn everything you need to know on your own, but realistically, it's going to be difficult to learn the equivalent of a couple of years of law school on your own, with no instruction. The test is part multiple choice, part essay, and can be either one or two days long -- it's not something you can guess your way through just knowing the basics. And 30-40% of bar examinees fail the bar in each jurisdiction, even having had all the subject matter in school, so your odds are pretty slim. And finally, you will have no ability to gain employment on the law side without having gone to a law school, and won't know enough law to do anything solo, so your options will be pretty limited.

Edit: According to one article I came across on the web, "California, Vermont, Virginia and Wyoming have some form of "law office study'' programs that allow people who have been tutored by an attorney to take the bar exam" without having graduated from an accredited law school.
I continue to doubt your odds of passing the bar via this route, though. Good luck.

The film "Catch me if you can" comes to mind.

 

[deuist]

The vast majority of lawyers are not litigators, and sue no one.

True, but I maintain that they can create their own supply and demand. An attorney friend of mine married into a rich family where the father of the bride demanded a pre-nup. The soon-to-be father-in-law hired a business attorney friend of his to draw the papers. My friend was so pissed at the idea of signing a pre-nup that he kept finding ways to disagree with the wording of the agreement so that the business lawyer had to continually re-write the document. In the end, the step father paid over a thousand dollars in legal fees for a simple contract that says, "What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours." While neither of the attorneys were litigators, they still managed to create their own supply and demand by manipulating the variables of the pre-nup. No other profession comes close to the attorney's ability to violate the laws of economics. E.g., a physician cannot hurt his patients to ensure future services.

 

[Law2Doc]

The film "Catch me if you can" comes to mind.

This has actually happened in real life. Sometime in the 90s it was discovered that a partner in a fairly prominent NYC law firm never actually finished law school or passed the bar. Most firms these days are pretty insistent that potential employees provide proof of current license.

 

[deuist]

Hi guys, quick question I've always wondered about and am becoming more and more interested in. I did the MD thing, am currently in residency and find myself very interested in the medical legal field. I do not want to go to law school, I'm tired of school. A law school friend of mine told me you don't need to attend an ABA approved law school to sit for the bar in ummm, if memory serves: California, Tenn, Georgia and Mass.

Is this true and can you actually practice there if you pass the bar exam?

Both Mass and Cali have non-ABA approved law schools. In California, the passing rate for first-time test takers is 60% for these unaccredited schools. Using the method that Law2Doc described---studying under the guidance of a licensed attorney---no one has has passed the bar exam in recent memory. In short, go to law school if you want to be a lawyer. You'll be able to practice in any state if you attend an ABA school. Otherwise, your options will become severely limited.

U.S. News & World Report recently ran a story entitled "Rethinking Law School" about the ABA vs non-ABA debate.

 

[deuist]

The film "Catch me if you can" comes to mind.

As I recall, he took the bar exam a long time ago. The test was probably easier back then.

 

[Law2Doc]

While neither of the attorneys were litigators, they still managed to create their own supply and demand by manipulating the variables of the pre-nup. No other profession comes close to the attorney's ability to violate the laws of economics. E.g., a physician cannot hurt his patients to ensure future services.

I still disagree with your analysis. In the case you describe, both sides decided they wanted to bring attorneys into this to strike a deal, and the attorneys zealously tried to represent their clients interests; there was a legitimate disagreement of terms that had to be negotiated. A good negotiation will always involve a number of drafts, and neither side should leave totally happy - that's basic negotiation. If you want an off the shelf prenup, you don't hire a lawyer, you go to Staples (probably a bad idea, but they do have the forms ).
I promise you that the attorneys involved were not the ones making the deal complicated -- the parties kept getting presented with revisions of the terms, and apparently didn't want to concede certain points. Most attorneys aren't ever the sticking points, their clients are. While I've given clients advice about deals, I'm perfectly happy doing a closing they are happy with even if it appears to be mediocre deal. But lawyers are always happy to let their clients use them as the bad guy/ scapegoat to try and get better terms -- you always tell your client he can tell the other side that "my lawyer won't let me do this", or "let me run it by my lawyer". That's just part of the game.
I worked on transactional deals and can assure you that we were always frustrated with the "hurry up and wait" game, where the clients restruck deals or changed the terms of the deal mid-negotiation, or even decided they didn't like what they had initially orally agreed to. You roll with those punches and let everyone outside the boardroom think you, not the client, was the one who mucked up the works, and slowed things down. But no, we didn't make this kind of extra work, we just richly benefitted from it.
The grease that keeps the machine working, that's all. Not the engine...

 

[Law2Doc]

You'll be able to practice in any state if you attend an ABA school.

Just to clarify - you have to be admitted to each bar separately. That means either taking a bar for each state in which you intend to practice or waiving in (usually after 5 years of active practice in another state). So you cannot necessarilly practice "in any state".

 

[deuist]

In the case you describe, both sides decided they wanted to bring attorneys into this to strike a deal

One of the sides, my friend, was the attorney. He specifically challenged the wording of the document---not because he disagreed with it---but because he wanted to punish his future father-in-law and make him pay more for forcing him to sign a pre-nup in the first place.

On a side note, my friend now works for his father-in-law's company as in-house counsel. No hard feelings, I suppose.

 

[ProZackMI]

To the OP,

I'm an MD and a JD and recently took the bar exam (February) and awaiting my results. I attended medical school first, did my residency in IM/Psych, and then went to law school on a part-time basis while working full-time. There were no full-time MD/JD dual degree programs where I attended medical school and at the time, I couldn't even contemplate doing such a stupid thing.

I had my own personal reasons for attending law school. Primarily, I did it because I want to leave medicine. If I pass the bar exam, my intent is to transition into full-time legal practice and leave the world of medicine behind me.

Be very cautious about dual degree programs. While earning both degrees simultaneous looks like a good idea initially, it can be a horrible thing to do for a few reasons:

1) It's way too much work to do. The average person can barely handle the academic rigors of medical or law school alone let alone the added burden of another professional doctoral program. It's way too much work and way too much stress to do both in a combined program! You need some semblance of a life while you're young -- don't overdo it! Many folks are impressed by MD-PhDs, but in reality, the medical-scientist programs produce (a) watered-down scientists or (b) watered-down clinicians. The PhD earned is usually almost always in an area of biological science or biochem or health policy; MD electives filter into the doctorate and doctorate electives filter into the MD. It's actually a very compressed degree with a great deal of overlap. This is not true with the MD-JD as both degrees are unrelated with almost no overlap in content or subject matter.

2) It's way too expensive to do at once.

3) You will lose something by combining the two degrees. You will actually be getting a watered down law degree and a watered down medical degree from what I understand as the electives for each degree combine to allow a condensed program. Not a good idea.

4) It limits your options to some extent. If you wish to practice law later, you'll be pigeon-holed into medmal, disability/worker's comp, or patent/biotech law. If you wish to practice medicine, your law degree will be absolutely useless to you even if you're sued for medmal.

5) It won't provide you with a better income or increased career options by earning both degrees.

Look, if you want to be a doctor, go to medical school, get your MD, finish your residency, and practice medicine. If you want to learn some basic law to increase your knowledge, take a few undegrad paralegal or business law classes. If you want to be a lawyer, go to law school, pass the bar exam, and if you want to learn some basic medicine for your practice, take some basic medical terminology, anatomy, or nursing classes.

Medmal lawyers learn enough medicine to do a good job. I know a few lawyers who have social science, English, or engineering undergrad degrees, but still know more medicine than many optometrists, pharmacists, PTs, etc. They learned what they needed from experts and other resources over the years. I know many physicians who know a great deal about law from experts, prior litigation experiences, and other resources; they learn a great deal about negligence, standards of care, HIPAA, informed consent, etc., and are able to navigate through a lawsuit or potential suit without difficulty.

Here's some advice. If you want both degrees, go to medical school first. Complete your residency. Get board certified in your speciality. Start making money and paying back on your student loans. Start building a life and having a family. Then, once you're settled and able to start enjoying life, find a law school in your area that offers an evening JD program. You'll be taking classes with other doctors, pharmacists, vets, psychologists, MBAs, and other folks who want to earn a JD degree. These students are just as intelligent and as committed as the full-time day students. Take as many classes as you can. Finish your JD. Take the bar exam when you're ready, after preparation.

DO NOT DO THE MD/JD together; it very well may kill you. Keep this in mind too, you will end up using only one of your doctoral degrees: the MD or the JD. Most MDs who have JDs continue to practice medicine and only use their legal knowledge once in a while. A few practice law full-time and never set foot in a hospital or write another script.

Some law schools offer a graduate degree (usually a Master of Jurisprudence or MJ) degree for professionals who are not attorneys to learn enough law. Loyala University in Chicago offers one in Health Care law. http://www.luc.edu/law/academics/graduate/mj/mj_health.shtml.

A few combined programs do exist (MD/JD): A few examples:
http://pritzker.bsd.uchicago.edu/students/dualDegree/mdjdGeneralInfo.html
http://www.law.asu.edu/?id=9320

Give it some thought and do some research before you waste time, money, and energy into earning a very difficult degree that may not be of much value to your future as a physician. A lot of physicians bad mouth lawyers and say they are *****s and unethical, but as an MD and JD, I can honestly say that the JD degree was very difficult for me. Medical school was no breeze, but the first two years were like a rehash of undergrad science classes. The last two years of medical school actually forced me to apply the knowledge I learned, which was even refined further in residency. Law school, while not quantum mechanics, is a great deal of reading and a great deal of thinking and analysis. It's no walk in the park! I've heard from many lawyers, doctors, and doctor-lawyers that the MD and JD are among the hardest graduate degrees to earn. I'm not sure if this statement is true, but I can tell you, both were very difficult and very intense programs. I can't imagine doing both at the same time; it would have killed me.

Also: a few final comments...

-- NEVER, EVER, EVER even consider attending a non-ABA law school. That degree and a nickel will buy you a piping hot cup of JACK SQUAT! It will be a waste of your time and money. If you really are interested in practicing law, get a JD from a regular law school that offers a part-time program AFTER med school and residency.

-- If you only want to practice law, get a JD from a full-time ABA program.

-- if you really want a combined law-med type degree and are interested in law as your primary field, get your undergrad degree in PA or a BSN (nursing) degree; get licensed and then attend law school. Some PA and NP programs can be attended withtout a science undergrad degree, on a part-time grad program. Do that as a post JD master's rather than an MD or DO. You'll learn plenty of medicine without the expense or time and stress. If medicine is your primary interest, get the MD + residency done, then later, get an undergrad degree as a legal assistant or paralegal certification.

-- NEVER trust a 2-year rushed JD program. I was in residency with a guy who did a 3-year accelerated MD program and he did nothing but bash the program. Don't do it. I've heard of a similar 2-year dental school curriculum where everything was compressed and the students were grossly overwhelmed. In professional education, time should never be of the essence...take your time, learn, and balance things out appropriately.

Good luck to you. Do some serious soul-searching first, however.
Zack

 

[Law2Doc]

One of the sides, my friend, was the attorney. He specifically challenged the wording of the document---not because he disagreed with it---but because he wanted to punish his future father-in-law and make him pay more for forcing him to sign a pre-nup in the first place.

Then that isn't really a good example of lawyers making more work for themselves, as that is really an example of a party to the dispute being difficult. (Not to mention that there are ethical issues with what you describe for which such attorney could be professionally disciplined). In generally, lawyers are not personally parties to a transaction, and someone behaving unprofessionally is not a good example to extrapolate over an entire profession.

 

[Law2Doc]

A lot of physicians bad mouth lawyers and say they are *****s and unethical, but as an MD and JD, I can honestly say that the JD degree was very difficult for me. Medical school was no breeze, but the first two years were like a rehash of undergrad science classes. The last two years of medical school actually forced me to apply the knowledge I learned, which was even refined further in residency. Law school, while not quantum mechanics, is a great deal of reading and a great deal of thinking and analysis. It's no walk in the park! I've heard from many lawyers, doctors, and doctor-lawyers that the MD and JD are among the hardest graduate degrees to earn. I'm not sure if this statement is true, but I can tell you, both were very difficult and very intense programs. I can't imagine doing both at the same time; it would have killed me.

I agree with most of ProZackMI's post, although I wonder if he will like law better than medicine -- both have plusses and minuses.
At any rate, a couple of comments -- first, while most lawyer employers will be quick to pigeon hole folks with an MD into areas perhaps including "medmal, disability/worker's comp, or patent/biotech law" as he suggests, there is actually also a more broad emerging field of "Health Law" in which lawyers assist healthcare providers, hospitals and physicians navigate the complex legal issues of healthcare delivery, deal with insurance reimbursement issues, HIPAA, and represent clients seeking a more sensible, cost- effective, and humane system for delivering healthcare. While most of the lawyers who work in this area do not have an MD, it certainly could be useful.
And of course if you hang up a shingle and practice for yourself, you never hit an issue of being pigeon holed.
Second, As for which type of school is harder, it totally depends on aptitude. In my opinion medical school is harder, because the level of competition is higher, the tests less forgiving (you tend to have some wiggle room in an essay test, but not the typical med school test), and the pace of the material comes at you a bit faster. Law school is totally different. You have one cumulative exam per course at the end of the course (sometimes the end of the year), so the core dump approach of learning and forgetting is not permitted. You have to attend class and be prepared daily, as you will be put on the spot regularly (the socratic method). In general, law school requires you to read a ton, assimilate, issue spot, "think like a lawyer" and then be able to write a solid lengthy essay test or paper on a topic. I personally thought law school wasn't so difficult, as it played to some of my aptitudes, but unlike med school, there will be people who drop out and fail out of law school pretty regularly along the way.

 

[ProZackMI]

I agree with most of ProZackMI's post, although I wonder if he will like law better than medicine -- both have plusses and minuses.
At any rate, a couple of comments -- first, while most lawyer employers will be quick to pigeon hole folks with an MD into areas perhaps including "medmal, disability/worker's comp, or patent/biotech law" as he suggests, there is actually also a more broad emerging field of "Health Law" in which lawyers assist healthcare providers, hospitals and physicians navigate the complex legal issues of healthcare delivery, deal with insurance reimbursement issues, HIPAA, and represent clients seeking a more sensible, cost- effective, and humane system for delivering healthcare. While most of the lawyers who work in this area do not have an MD, it certainly could be useful.
And of course if you hang up a shingle and practice for yourself, you never hit an issue of being pigeon holed.
Second, As for which type of school is harder, it totally depends on aptitude. In my opinion medical school is harder, because the level of competition is higher, the tests less forgiving (you tend to have some wiggle room in an essay test, but not the typical med school test), and the pace of the material comes at you a bit faster. Law school is totally different. You have one cumulative exam per course at the end of the course (sometimes the end of the year), so the core dump approach of learning and forgetting is not permitted. You have to attend class and be prepared daily, as you will be put on the spot regularly (the socratic method). In general, law school requires you to read a ton, assimilate, issue spot, "think like a lawyer" and then be able to write a solid lengthy essay test or paper on a topic. I personally thought law school wasn't so difficult, as it played to some of my aptitudes, but unlike med school, there will be people who drop out and fail out of law school pretty regularly along the way.

I agree about the health care law area. My bad. However, much of this work involved contract negotiations, physician licensing agreements, insurance issues/disputes, and health care economics. In reality, a business or econ background would be of more use to a lawyer who wishes to pratice in this area than an MD. An MD would allow a health care attorney to have more marketability (oh, look, he's a doctor and a lawyer; how impressive!!!!) initially, but it also may cause some firms to fear the (we could never afford to pay him what he wants) cost-burden analysis of hiring such an associate.

The truth is, the MD would be of little value to most attorneys. In health law, most of the stuff involves business practice issues, contract issues, and conflict resolution issues. One area, however, that an MD would help in would be in the defense of physicians and other health care practitioners who involved in licensing problems with state boards and attending privilege issues at hospitals. As a physician-attorney, you'd be uniquely qualified to understand the complex physician licensing rules and regulations that govern the practice of medical licensure. The MD, of course, isn't necessary, since this area of law can be learned easily by a sharp lawyer, but a licensed physician would have a very unique perspective and would most likely be appealing to a doctor who is having problems with licensing or having privilege issues.

The JD would also be of some value to the physician who wanted to represent himself in administrative hearings in front of medical boards or hosptial credentials committees in such licensing/privileges situations. In most cases, you need not be licensed to practice law to represent yourself in court or in an admin hearing. If such a physician had the time and access to Westlaw/Lexis, he/she could represent himself in such matters easily without paying an attorney. To assist other physicians, however, you would most likely need to be licensed, which means JD + bar passage and being sworn in. It's still overkill unless you actually want to practice law on a full-time basis.

Where are areas where an MD and JD could really be useful and give you the most payback?

A) ACADEMIA -- If you want a dual appointment (med school and law school), and you wish to teach medical-legal issues to both law and med students, having both degrees would give you an advantage over those with just the one degree and experience in that area; it would also give you freedom to teach at both schools or the professional school of your choice. At my law school (Michigan State University College of Law), the professor in charge of the health law concentration is an MD-JD-MPH who first trained as a pediatrician and then became a med school prof. Later, he obtained his JD, passed the bar, and practiced health care law. Now, he teaches at a law school ONLY and loves the change in environment (only teaching law students rather than med students). Many opportunities to folks having both degrees, but the thing is, you need not obtain both simultaneously -- do the MD first and then the JD as there are no part-time MD programs. Also, you don't necessarily have to be licensed in both to complete this option, but you would want both degrees to be from an AMA and ABA approved school. It's possible to get the JD first, pass the bar, practice law, save money, and then attend medical school and only earn the MD w/o doing a residency. You'd have very limited abilities as a physician in most states, if any, but if law is main area, you could take off working for four years and just get the MD and skip the residency and licensing if the degree is all you wanted. Or...you could get a PharmD (pharmacy), DDS (dental), DPM (podiatric), PA (physician assistant),or NP (Nurse Practitioner) degree after your law degree.

2) PRIVATE CONSULTING -- If you can market yourself to the right group, you can make a lot of money consulting. The MD-JD combo often looks more impressive than the MD-PhD or JD-PhD combo. Overkill IMO, but it does impress others.


Personally, if you're an MD or interesed in medicine as your primary field, don't do a JD, but get some sort of paralegal or legal assistant degree after your medical training. Or, you can get a master's degree in business admin, health care admin (where you'll learn a lot of health care law stuff), public policy, economics, etc.

If you're a JD and interested in law as your primary field, you can get a master's in health admin, bioethics, MPH in health policy, etc. after your legal training.

Less time, work, and money...more life to enjoy.

 

[ProZackMI]

I agree with most of ProZackMI's post, although I wonder if he will like law better than medicine -- both have plusses and minuses.
At any rate, a couple of comments -- first, while most lawyer employers will be quick to pigeon hole folks with an MD into areas perhaps including "medmal, disability/worker's comp, or patent/biotech law" as he suggests, there is actually also a more broad emerging field of "Health Law" in which lawyers assist healthcare providers, hospitals and physicians navigate the complex legal issues of healthcare delivery, deal with insurance reimbursement issues, HIPAA, and represent clients seeking a more sensible, cost- effective, and humane system for delivering healthcare. While most of the lawyers who work in this area do not have an MD, it certainly could be useful.
And of course if you hang up a shingle and practice for yourself, you never hit an issue of being pigeon holed.
Second, As for which type of school is harder, it totally depends on aptitude. In my opinion medical school is harder, because the level of competition is higher, the tests less forgiving (you tend to have some wiggle room in an essay test, but not the typical med school test), and the pace of the material comes at you a bit faster. Law school is totally different. You have one cumulative exam per course at the end of the course (sometimes the end of the year), so the core dump approach of learning and forgetting is not permitted. You have to attend class and be prepared daily, as you will be put on the spot regularly (the socratic method). In general, law school requires you to read a ton, assimilate, issue spot, "think like a lawyer" and then be able to write a solid lengthy essay test or paper on a topic. I personally thought law school wasn't so difficult, as it played to some of my aptitudes, but unlike med school, there will be people who drop out and fail out of law school pretty regularly along the way.

As to what program (MD or JD) is more difficult, I would say that largely depends on the student. Medical school, overall, is more work and time, but is the work actually more intellectually demanding? That answer is a subjective one. IMO, I liken my medical education to undergraduate training. You do not learn to think like a doctor until residency. I suppose in the third year of med school, you begin to explore differential dx, tx options, etc., but in actuality, medical school is mostly memorization and regurgitation.

I don't mean to belittle the experience as it is a tremendous amount of material to learn in basically three years of academic work, the last being mostly clinicals, but still, the stuff you're memorizing and learning in some ways, is not as complex as many doctoral students are learning in PhD level anatomy, biochem, physiology, pharmacology, genetics, and other biomed type classes. I'm not saying an MD is an undergraduate degree (although the AMA seems to think so), but the level of thinking in medical school seems to follow the cram-memorize-puke it back up model of learning that is often found in undergrad natural sciences programs.

Again, I don't mean to demean medical education, but that was my experience in medical school. I felt my residency was the place where it all came together and formed a true synthesis of learning. That is where I honestly learned how to think like a doctor and hone my medical analytical skills. In residency, I learned how to apply the anatomy, pharm, biochem, and other knowledge I learned in med school into physical assessment, pharm tx, dx, etc.

IMO, an MD without a residency is not worth very much. You learn a great deal of information that gives you a comprehensive working knowledge of the human body, especially how it works and how it often doesn't work, but this knowledge is scattered and broken up and is NOT like a PhD in one of the biomed sciences. The residency is what brings it all together and allows one to practice medicine.

Law school was different. Law school was not more demanding time wise, but it was intellectually. It challenged me to question things, examine things with strict scrutiny, and how to apply the black letter law to a specific set of facts. Law school taught me how to think like a lawyer and how to spot relevant issues from a scattered fact pattern.

Medical school did not change who I am or how I think. Residency did. Law school did. In my personal experience, I think law school is more like graduate school in that it really teaches the student to be a critical thinker and problem-solver, whereas medical school is a tremendous amount of information thrown at you, which often remains undigested until residency.

Of course, this is my personal and subjective opinion. Such a question as to which program is harder is a value judgment. They are different programs and the training is vastly different. It's easier to compare med school to dental school or even better chiro or optometry school, but to compare it to law school is like comparing apples to oranges. IMO, the JD is more like a PhD without the thesis/dissertation as it forces the student to think and read a great deal, not just absorb info and puke it up over and over again.

 

[deuist]

someone behaving unprofessionally is not a good example to extrapolate over an entire profession.

You're right. 98% of attorneys give the rest a bad name.

 

[Law2Doc]

You're right. 98% of attorneys give the rest a bad name.

Oh please. I hope you are trying to be funny.
The vast majority of lawyers take ethics and professionalism quite seriously. Probably moreso than a lot of other professions. There are always going to be a few bad apples in every profession (both in law, and in medicine). That shouldn't taint the rest of the orchard.

 

[Camden772]

I agree about the health care law area.... However, much of this work involved contract negotiations, physician licensing agreements, insurance issues/disputes, and health care economics. In reality, a business or econ background would be of more use to a lawyer who wishes to pratice in this area than an MD.

I agree that business or econ background would be of more use. I worked at a large law firm in Chicago the summer after my second year in law school and did some work with the health law group. My experience was that it is really more akin to corporate law with a specific focus on health providers. I think that an MD would be worthless.

Just a little background on me: I graduated law school in 1999, practiced for a few years, went back to medical school and I am now finishing up my 3rd year. I don't plan on using my law degree in the future and agree that having both an MD and JD is a waste of time and money for almost anything that you would want to do in either field. I would advise against it for almost anyone and I'm personally a little embarrassed by the fact I will have an MD and a JD.

Even if you are interested in becoming a professor, I would not go the combined JD/MD route. I would do one or the other first. Many people change there minds about what they want to do with their degree or what specialty they want to go into. If you did not go into academics, I would view both degrees as a waste of time, effort and money. Even if you do go into academics, there is a high likelihood that your area of interest will not benefit from both degrees.

 

[jjmack]

I agree that business or econ background would be of more use. I worked at a large law firm in Chicago the summer after my second year in law school and did some work with the health law group. My experience was that it is really more akin to corporate law with a specific focus on health providers. I think that an MD would be worthless.

Just a little background on me: I graduated law school in 1999, practiced for a few years, went back to medical school and I am now finishing up my 3rd year. I don't plan on using my law degree in the future and agree that having both an MD and JD is a waste of time and money for almost anything that you would want to do in either field. I would advise against it for almost anyone and I'm personally a little embarrassed by the fact I will have an MD and a JD.

Even if you are interested in becoming a professor, I would not go the combined JD/MD route. I would do one or the other first. Many people change there minds about what they want to do with their degree or what specialty they want to go into. If you did not go into academics, I would view both degrees as a waste of time, effort and money. Even if you do go into academics, there is a high likelihood that your area of interest will not benefit from both degrees.

I agree. I think if a person really changes careers then it's fine to have both, but going into it wanting both isn't very useful. At least IMHO.