What does an online law degree do, exactly?

A JD without a bar admission absolutely can work on legal matters so long as supervised by an admitted lawyer, and not referring to himself as a lawyer or otherwise implying admission. It's routine for law graduates to do so for months, and sometimes years, after leaving school. The world is full of (sad) paralegals who have JDs but no prospect of passing the Bar. Heck, supervision or pro hac vice co-counsel is (technically) the way that even senior attorneys have to practice in jurisdictions where they are not admitted, although you can call yourself a lawyer with appropriate disclaimers about where admitted. I would guess that an UPL (unauthorized practice of law) inquiry board would get exercised about a JD being unaccredited only in a circumstance where the graduate was being used in a way that clients and adversaries reasonably would infer that the graduate was admission-pending, when, in fact, his degree disqualified him from admission in the jurisdiction in question. I agree with you that the resume value of an unaccredited online JD is minimal, although in California if it were get you all the way to taking and passing the Bar (which is indeed possible there), the value would retroactively increase to the clearing price of anyone with a Bar card (which is not zero, although not high).

Further FYI -- ANYONE willing to pay for it can take the bar exam ... there are actually people, usually non-lawyers, who make a hobby out of trying to pass it in all 50 states. (Why? NO IDEA. I met a guy who'd passed it in 45 states and was studying for Nevada or somewhere. Just because. It was his thing. And apparently there's a group of people who all enjoy doing this.) Passing the bar exam =/= being a lawyer. So, yes, just to be clear: Passing the bar exam does not, in and of itself, make one "a lawyer." (I also left out, I had to be sworn in by the state court and take an oath and so on, in addition to the other requirements I listed above.)

@John, I can't imagine what good a law degree from an unaccredited law school would do for teaching at an accredited one; the ABA is rather jealous of its accrediting authority and since it examines the credentials of the professors as part of its accrediting process, I can't imagine it would look kindly on that. Every law professor I've known without a law degree has had a Ph.D. from an accredited school, or (in a couple of cases) was a older judge who became a judge before State X required judges to have JDs. (I have no idea if all states now require this or not.) In states with "minor courts" whose judges don't need JDs, those positions are typically either elected or appointed and, in either case, political connections are what matters. Not sure, again, how an unaccredited JD would be useful ... except possibly in campaign literature? But even so, who you know and/or how you campaign would seem to matter considerably more than what you know. @divinemissk, my state (Illinois) does not allow lawyers with degrees from unaccredited law schools to transfer their admission to Illinois; to petition for admission by motion, to wit: each applicant by examination (rule 703) or motion (rule 705) shall have "fulfilled the requirements for and received a first degree in law from a law school approved by the American Bar Association." (http://www.state.il.us/court/SupremeCourt/Rules/Art_VII/artVII.htm#Rule703) So, yeah, I think you're right; I wouldn't think many states would accept "transfer" lawyers without approved degrees.

Thanks all! I can't imagine that all the online law degrees go to patent attorneys and people working in really niche industries, I'm guessing that most people just realize they're useless and go about their regular careers. Also a special thanks for picking up that I meant to say "licensed attorney" and was using "passing the bar" as shorthand for that. When us non-lawyers hear lawyers make a big deal about passing the bar, we forget there's other qualifications involved. I'm not marking a best answer because in threads where there's so many good replies, it looks weird marking a bunch as best and leaving a few.

Ack, there were some horribly worded parts in there. If I had an edit window ...

There was an http://www.howardrice.com/7169, in litigation between Gucci and Guess?, to the effect that since Gucci's in-house counsel did not have an active law license with any state bar, communications between Gucci and its unlicensed counsel were not privileged. The district judge later overturned the ruling, but it led many corporations to scrutinize their in-house counsel's credentials more closely.

I can't pull up the NY rules on my phone but the dude I knew HAD taken the NY bar and passed; he was particularly proud of that one as it's considered a difficult bar exam. I also know Bar-Bri type places have some employees, who are not all JDs, take bar exams over and over to report what's on the tests so they can make their prep materials. So I assume there's some kind of mechanism for people without JDs (or people who've already passed the exam) to waiver for the exam. But regardless, passing the bar exam is a necessary but not sufficient condition to render one an attorney.

Further FYI -- ANYONE willing to pay for it can take the bar exam I don't think this is right. In NY, for instance, you need to qualify to take the bar exam - see #4 https://www.nybarapply.org/intro.aspx.

Not all states require corporate counsel to be licensed. The theory goes that the Bar is a way for the state to spend the resources necessary to determine the legal and ethical qualities of a candidate, but corporations are capable of that same degree of outlay, and can take those risks upon themselves if they so desire. Those types of attorneys still cannot file suit, represent the corporation in court, or anything like that, but they are are permitted to give legal advice to the corporation which has hired them.