Thanks - my wife is a solicitor in Scotland (and has been called to the Bar as an Advocate) and she did her LLB as a second degree as she already had a first degree. Although her route was unintentional it certainly used to be "traditional" to do law as second degree (and some universities here do an accelerated 2 year ordinary LLB) after a degree in classics or similar. She trained in the Civil Service as a solicitor (when you get a law degree you are still 3 years away from actually qualifying - you have to do a postgraduate course then do two years training in a a law firm) and their filtering criteria for trainees was that they have 2 first degrees....
Only a very small number of people do law as a second degree these days.
Amusingly, the process for training as an advocate is known as devilling - where you are apprenticed to a senior junior and during that time you are literally an advocate's devil :-)
I should add that we're starting to see some reverse movement in the US legal profession on this stuff, glacially speaking. The 3-year requirement for American Bar Association-accredited law schools has come increasingly into question during the past few years, partly a result of the current perceived crisis of historically high unemployment and lack of practical skills among (typically heavily-in-debt) law school graduates. A reduction from 3 to 2 years is foreseeable. In which case it may become marginally tougher to maintain that the degree should have the word 'Doctor' in it.
Edit: Another thing we're starting to hear in conjunction with calls to reduce the 3-year program is to institutionalize something like the 'devilling' that you speak of, i.e. to replace the third academic year with an apprenticeship year.
Only a very small number of people do law as a second degree these days.
Amusingly, the process for training as an advocate is known as devilling - where you are apprenticed to a senior junior and during that time you are literally an advocate's devil :-)