I am one of those rare beasts in the woods with both the J.D. and
the Ph.D.  The discussion on this list has highlighted some
important differences and similarities.  I liked the mention of
empirical research vs. legal research.  I would also add that
the Ph.D. type of research usually involves the testing of formal
hypotheses, which in turn involve the identification of relationships
among variables.  I.e., change in one variable causes a predicted
change in another.  Legal research can include such features, but
it generally does not.
 
Allow me to also add that the experiences of law school and the
experiences of a Ph.D. program are radically different from one
another.  Most traditional law programs can be completed by
passing a series of courses.  Law review and moot court might
add some variation or new challenges, but they too are
structured programs that start and finish within the context
of a semester or academic year.  A Ph.D. program, by contrast
it utterly fluid and unpredicatable.  The graduate student must
satisfy a team of experts, whose demands may change, twist, or
detour without notice.  The research project itself may generate
unexpected overhauls of the entire agenda.  The finished
dissertation far outstripped the rigors of anything I experienced
while writing for law review.
 
I say none of this to diminish the significance of the J.D. or its
appropriateness for a business law or law school faculty position.
But I cannot emphasize enough that the two degrees and the
accompanying experiences are so thoroughly different that we and
our colleagues often begin our teaching careers with considerably
divergent backgrounds and frames of reference.  We all do
consulting, but when we hang out the "shingle" we are unwittingly
highlighting all of those underlying differences.
 
I look forward to hearing from the readers!
 
Kenneth D. Crews
San Jose State University