Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department: Fill & Download for Free

In a word, yes. Attorneys in New York are admitted to practice by the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court, “and are subject to oversight by that court during the course of their career,” according to the web page Appellate Division - Second Judicial Department.Also from that page:The Rules of Professional ConductTo guide and regulate the practice of law, New York has adopted the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR part 1200). These rules state the standard of conduct below which no lawyer can fall without being subject to disciplinary action.There’s lots more there, so it’s a good source for further information.

Federal appellate decisions are normally by three-judge panels. The U.S. Supreme Court, which is an appellate court, is a panel of nine justices. Both the NY and West Virginia Courts of appeals sit as a panel of the five judges, as does the NY “Appellate Division,” NY’s intermediate appeals court. Appellate courts in other states likely sit in 3, 5 or 7 (always odd numbers to avoid ties) member panels, so don’t generalize with “3.”)And the only “new evidence” an appeals court can consider is evidence the appeals court takes “judicial notice” of (such as the fact that the sun rises in the east). If the court determines it needs additional evidence, it can “remand” the case to the trial court with “directions” that the trial court hold a hearing for the limited purpose of coming up with the new fact or facts. Appellate rules simply do not provide that an appeal is a “new trial” or a “second bite at the apple.” An appeal is, simply, a review.Think of it this way: a student works his or her butt off to write what the student views as the best essay he or she has ever written. An essay that will get the student an ‘A’ for sure and propel the student on to a top college. The teacher, however, thinks otherwise and gives the paper a C+. The student complains bitterly so the student, the teacher and the student’s parents meet. In the meeting, the teacher agrees to submit the paper to the teacher’s department head for an independent review and regrading.The student doesn’t get to rewrite the essay before it is submitted to the department head and the department head is not permitted, without more, to discuss the essay with the student or the teacher, though the department head will know the original grade, just as the appeals court will know the original verdict.The department head has the options of accepting the C+, lowering the grade, or increasing the grade. If this were an appeals court, the chances of the C+ being the ultimate grade are extremely high.The next time you hear an attorney, after he or she has lost a case, vow to “win this case on appeal,” note to yourself that “winning” a case on appeal that you lost at the trial court level is next-to-impossible (an appeals court can, but very rarely does, throw throw out a conviction or a civil verdict). At best, the appeals court will “remand a case for a new trial.”

I am an American who studied law at Oxford. I have a BA in Jurisprudence from Jesus College Oxford and an LL:M degree in International Economic law from the University of London (King’s College and the London School of Economics). While I took courses in both schools my degree is actually from KCL.Anyhow at Oxford you only study one subject such as law for an undergraduate degree. The method of study at Oxford is called the tutorial system. Formal classes at Oxford in such subjects as law are extra curricular. Most tutorials at Oxford are with only one or two students. At Oxford you only take your exams when you finish your course of study. There is one building called the examination building which is used just once a year for exams. Your final grade is based on your final exams which are usually given over a two week period when you finish your course of study. You are usually given several weeks before you finish your course of study to review all your previous course work and prepare for your final examinations.Oxford also allows some students with advanced degrees to study law as mature students. In other words you can complete the law program in two academic years instead of the normal three years. This was the situation in my case because before I studied law at Oxford I had an MBA and Ph.D from New York University and I had published a book.The system at Cambridge is different. Cambridge uses a trypos system. In this system you can study a different subject every year or one subject for two years and another for a third year. At Cambridge you take your exams at the end of every year and your final average is the composite grade average of all three years of study. I do not think they have a mature law student program at Cambridge. Also at Cambridge from what I heard most tutorials have at least three to five students per tutorial. Unlike Oxford where you can have a one on one tutorial as was the situation in my case or just two students per tutorial.Oxford is known more for its humanities and social science programs including Law while if you want to study science and engineering Cambridge is better known. Most British politicians who were lawyers and became a Prime Minister such as Margaret Thatcher,Tony Blair and David Cameron were Oxford graduates and not Cambridge graduates.Because of the Rhodes Scholarships which are at Oxford University and not Cambridge , many more americans especially famous americans have gone to Oxford than Cambridge.Finally New York State recognizes for Bar examination purposes those that have law degrees from common law countries such as Britain ,Canada,Australia and New Zealand or who are admitted to the Bar of a common law jurisdiction such as those countries mentioned, the right to take the New York State Bar exam without further legal education in the USA.This is not the case in every State. While I am a member of the New York Bar I once looked into taking the New Jersey Bar exam. I was told by the New Jersey Board of Law Examiners that they did not recognize my British law credentials including my law degrees from Oxford and London and that I was a member of the New York Bar. New Jersey had no reciprocity with New York and for me to take the New Jersey Bar exam I would have to go back to an accredited American Bar Association Law School and get a JD degree from that school.I never bothered with looking to get a New Jersey law license again. In fact there was a woman jurist who was the Chief Judge of the Appellate Division Second Department which covers Brooklyn, Queens, all of Long Island and Westchester and Rockland Counties. She is now retired.This woman who was American and went to College in the USA but did her law degree at a Scottish University. When I told her that the State of New Jersey would not recognize her legal credentials and would not allow her to practice law in New Jersey unless she went back to an ABA accredited US law school for an American JD law degree she was astounded.Oxford is the oldest law school in the English speaking world. Law has been taught there for over 800 years. While the common law which started in Britain differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction ,the basic principles of the common law are the same throughout common law countries.One major difference I noticed between the practice of law in England and that in theUSA is that in England they have a bifurcated system of Solicitors and Barristers. I did join the Middle Temple as a student member when I was in London. It would have taken me another two years to have become a barrister with one year at Bar School and another doing pupillage in a Barristers chambers before taking the Barrister exams. I had been in the UK for three years and if I was younger I would have tried to become a Barrister. But after three years with two English law degrees it was time to go back home and take the New York Bar exam.Before 1990 only Barristers could become High Court Judges in England. This changed but still most High Court judges in Britain are Barristers. Also most politicians in Britain are Barristers. At one time you needed money to be a Barrister since Barristers unlike solicitors could only be Solo Practitioners and had to belong to one of Four Inns of Court.Still today less than 20 percent of all lawyers in Britain are Barristers. Over 80 percent are Solicitors. The easy difference between the two is Solicitors do most of the legal drafting and writing while the Barristers are the litigators. A person cannot hire directly a Barrister. Only a solicitor can hire a Barrister and a Barrister at least when I studied law in the UK, could not be a partner in a major UK law firm .Also with exceptions most of the top civil , business and corporate Barristers in the UK were Oxbridge graduates. When I was sudying law in the UK the highest court in the Country was the Privy Council in the House of Lords. Today it is the British Supreme Court. At that time practically all the Judges in that court were Oxbridge graduates.In the USA we have something similar. All the judges today on the US Supreme Court whether they be Liberal or Conservative come from three law schools,Harvard,Yale and Stanford. Thus if you go to a law school that lacks prestige especially a local law school your chances of ever being on the US Supreme Court are greatly diminished.However there is a major difference in my estimation between the Judiciary in Britain and the USA. That is the Judiciary in the USA especially on the State level but it is also to a lesser extent on the Federal level is based on politics. In Britain it was based more on class. If it will change under Boris Johnson the new British Prime Minister who I vaguely new when I was studying law at Oxford but he probably would not remember me, I do not know.I read he wants to change the judicial system in Britain. To be frank I rather have a judicial system based on class than on politics. But since that is the legal system in the USA we must live with it.Finally the Times of London Newspaper has said that after Harvard the best place in the English speaking world to study law is Oxford. I cannot answer for Harvard but I am very glad I had an opportunity to study law at Oxford . I will say my legal training at Oxford was just as good if not better than the legal training most lawyers who are eligible to take the New Jersey Bar exam get from their ABA approved american law schools. I still feel as an American I am being discriminated against legally by the State of New Jersey.There was a US Supreme court decision in the 1970’s that said each state had a right to set its own educational standards for those taking their Bar Examination if lawyers who wish to take the Bar Exam in that State do not have an American Bar Association approved JD degree from an american law school.I am very glad New York State does not discriminate against foreign law school graduates from common law countries and especially Oxford University.