Hi there,

This is a post for any lawyers looking to requalify in Canada. I have just received the NCA's assessment of my credentials and have to take four exams (constitutional, administrative, criminal and evidence).

I took the post-grad PGDL route and practiced for 2.5 years at a firm in the city before coming to Canada. I was pleasantly surprised to find I need to take only four exams as I was expecting anything up to eight.

Just thought this might be useful info for anyone else in the same situation...

Best of luck - wait until you see what administrative involves.

Once you meet others in your position you will realise there is very little consistency with how many exams NCA request people to write.

WhenI came over with my LLB they wanted me to pass the LSAT and take take 2 years of Law at university, before taking the bar exams!

I passed the LSAT, and then found out that One of the courses they course they wanted me to retake used Anson's Law of Contract, by Anthony Guest as it's major text. I was taught contract law by Guest!!!! Stupidity.

I couldn't handle another two years at university studying law, so quit!!!

A few years later I was told the regs had changed and all I had to do was challenge the bar!

I find it ludicrous what they put professionals through.

Although I understand that laws are different in Canada than in the UK I do think that they expect professionals such as lawyers to jump through some stupid hoops to gain the Canadian equivalent of their already hard earned UK qualification.

My husband is in a similar position - a Chartered Accountant - 17 years PQE, an FCA and has obtained a practicing certificate to practice on his own in the UK. He is more than qualified to do the CA work in Canada and yet he is expected to sit a reciprocity exam to be able to use the Canadian CA designation.

Even more stupid is that the institute he is a "student" member of refer to him as a CA (as in after his name) without him sitting the damn exam :curse:

Sorry guys rant over

Gaynor

BTW stayed out of Law.

that is heartening to know that you only had to do four exams...i can't even get past the application to the NCA - there seems to be a lot to get together in terms of supporting paperwork...did you find it relatively easy by just sending in original certificates etc or did you have to write to your law school/university etc to get confirmation of grades etc.

p.s. for those that may remember me from another thread i am returning to canada from the uk to give it another go in March!

There is a lot in the application process, including a $500 or so application fee. As I recall, transcripts had to be sent directly. I have an LLB with a First and a Canadian LLM, yet they want me to take ten exams. I accept the four minimum, but loading me with the likes of taxation, which is not a compulsory component of the Canadian LLB, smells like protectionism. I'm still struggling with the prospect of studying again, never mind the $550 fee for each exam. Basically, I was hit hard for not having qualified in the UK and having a two year LLB. It may be better for you, but four exams seem to be the minimum.

Bumperty bump!

Hi guys, doing my English LLB as a mature student but have decided after that I'd like to go out to Canada. Not sure if it is worth going on to do post-grad LPC/BVC then going out or just head straight out after graduating. Thoughts? I'm thinking I could save time and money by not qualifying here.

My sort of plan at the moment is to finish the LLB then do the NCA modules at UBC. Haven't entirely planned how that would work but I have a couple of years.

Could you get out to study for NCA exams on a student visa?

Best of luck

The route you take will very much depend upon how you feel about things. The LPC and then your training contract will take you at least 3 years (during which time you will be able to polish off the NCA's exams, now matter how many they give you).

The Law Society of England and Wales have recently changed the requirements for re-qualification of foreign trained lawyers. If you were to qualify in Canada without having qualified in England and Wales first, you will need to spend a year in practice in England before you would be able to become qualified in England (this was not always the case).

Canadian qualification standards are not that high. Personally, I feel you will be a much better qualified lawyer if you went through the English system but, having done that, you would still need to learn the Canadian way as it is very different. The Provincial Bar Exams are a joke and nothing like as intensive as the LPC. Horses for courses I guess.

I very much doubt that you will obtain a study visa for NCA exams as, in essence, you are not a member of the University but are simply attending the lectures to aid your preparation.

Now, if you decide to go to UBC and take their exams rather than the NCA ones (you can do this and still obtain your NCA certificate) things may be different.

I had a friend that found the NCA thing too onerous. She took and passed some NCA exams, took and failed others and then decided to go down the UBC route. It is possible.

You will need to contact UBC to see what they have to say about things.

I know of two that only had to take 2 - taxation and constitutional. Total crapshoot if you ask me but every English person I have spoken to that has an English LL.B. but did not qualify in England has been asked to take 10. Don't forget, taking the LPC and then undergoing two years of a Training Contract is a significant step and, in light of Canada's obsession with pieces of paper, the added weight given to those that have qualified does not surprise me.

Thanks AC.

When you say the UBC route, do you mean re-doing the entire LLB? So confusing considering they are common law! Even my Canadian friends here are confused by the whole situation.

No, I mean attending UBC simply for the courses the NCA requires you to take.