Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Citylaw

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 51
1
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Federal Courts-One and done?
« on: July 14, 2015, 02:47:25 AM »
Sure privileges & immunites, equity, some local bar rule whatever legal theory you want to use. If a licensed attorney in one state simply wants to take the bar exam odds are they will end up being granted the right to take the exam.  This is what occurred in the actual case.  The only point I tried to make from the start was that if a state-bar prevents an attorney licensed in one-state from being allowed to take a bar exam in another state and the licensed attorney challenges it odds are they will   be allowed to take the exam.

Of course states can implement their own requirements etc and it is not unconstitutional to do so. Each state has different bar exams, requirements, etc so of course they can differ. However, to simply ban someone licensed in one state from being allowed to take the exam would likely not fly. The one instance it was challenged it did not fly and he was allowed to take the exam. He was not automatically licensed of course he had to prove competence in the state and satisfy all the regulations of the  Mass State Bar.   

The other state might charge more to take the exam, or a variety of other obstacles to make it more difficult for the non-aba grad, which is fine. However, a blanket "no" to taking the licensing exam is unlikely to fly. This is why I posted the other link from SJCL's law website that explains the additional rules a non-aba grad have to overcome to take the exam. There are more stringent than if you simply had an ABA degree.

So in the end we have been agreeing the whole time. If you want to practice in multiple states and don't want to go through uncertain litigation for only the possible right to take a bar exam, then attend an ABA school.  If you attend a CBA school and are hellbent on getting licensed in another-state after passing the California Bar odds are you will be given the right to take another state bar exam, but of course there are no guarantees.




2
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Federal Courts-One and done?
« on: July 11, 2015, 02:41:07 PM »
They did. That is the second case I have posted multiple times where a Concord Law Grad (non-aba) and licensed California Attorney petitioned the Mass State Bar and was allowed to take the exam.

I posted several links to it already, but who cares anymore.

Anyways, the thread is way of topic the original question was are the Federal Courts one and done. The answer was yes once you are licensed in most instances you can waive into most Federal Courts. However, Loki pointed out a distinction in Florida and apparently there is one in the Central District of California that require you to be admitted in that particular state. Each State and Federal District have their own rules and they vary, but generally speaking most Federal Districts will admit you for a Fee.







3
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Federal Courts-One and done?
« on: July 10, 2015, 06:45:39 PM »
Yep r u?

Just giving examples of when courts granted this. I am assuming you never go to court by your responses.

If someone really wants to take a bar exam to the point of filing a lawsuit and has license to practice law from another state a Judge would likely say take the test.

Real life is not an ivory tower.

4
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Federal Courts-One and done?
« on: July 10, 2015, 12:46:40 PM »
Solid retort.

However, there is an argument to the contrary and the two lawyers I know of that challenged it won. If there are other cases where the right to take the bar exam was denied and a judicial opinion was written I would be interested to know.

I think most Judges w probably would use their equitable power to simply allow someone to take the Bar Exam if this case was presented to them.

It looks like almost every state has a rule that allows a non-aba Grad to eventually practice. http://www.sjcl.edu/index.php/prospective-students/why-sjcl/practicing-outside-ca (If they comply with the state requirements)




5
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Can a Judge actually do this?
« on: July 10, 2015, 12:40:40 PM »
Valid point I actually remember that and a few other examples in law school.

If someone deliberately refuses to comply with a court order there is technically no end to the crime.

If I remember  right distinction between Criminal and Civil contempt from remedies. http://www.gregoryforman.com/faqs/what-is-the-difference-between-civil-contempt-and-criminal-contempt/

If I remember correctly if you are in civil contempt you are continually violating the law until you comply. Criminal contempt has a term attached to it.

Civil contempt is to order compliance it is something you can comply with/Criminal contempt is to punish you can't undo it.

The millionaire example is civil contempt  he probably needed to pay child support and he clearly had the assets, but refused to comply.

As for the story like anything from Yahoo News I question the facts. Judge's do crazy things, but I find it hard to believe jail for not having lunch there is likely something more, but technically a Judge can order contempt for anything.

However, the medias focus is to get attention not necessarily report the news accurately. Children sent to jail for not having lunch with their dad is a good headline, but I suspect there is more to it.

Reading between the lines I am guessing the judge thought the Mother was manipulating the children and lying to them about their father, which routinely happens in Family court. The Judge then wanted the Kids to at least give the Father a chance by ordering them to have lunch and talk to him. Probably a bit activist on his part and not the most appropriate use of his power, but I am guessing it was a scare tactic and the kids were probably let out seconds earlier.

However, County Court's are not very formal and I have seen all kinds of crazy scenarios so the Judge could just be a nut.
 


6
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Federal Courts-One and done?
« on: July 10, 2015, 11:51:55 AM »
The two cases I know of where an attorney challenged the state licensing requirements they were successful.

http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/452/452mass582.html

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/470/274

The Supreme Court declared practicing law is a fundamental right so it is not routine rational basis.

Again, if there are cases were an attorney was denied I would be very interested in  reading the opinion. I did a brief google search and didn't find any cases that denied an attorney from taking the bar exam if they petitioned a court to do it.

 

 

 


7
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Federal Courts-One and done?
« on: July 09, 2015, 09:07:29 PM »
None. "Check-Mate"

I would very interested in seeing the opinions were courts denied a bar applicant based on the institution they attended. I am not saying it doesn't exist, but I am really interested in reading the opinions and the court's reasoning.

If anyone can cite to cases can they post on here? Just honestly curious.


8
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Federal Courts-One and done?
« on: July 09, 2015, 06:41:38 PM »
I would be interested to see the citations to those cases where it was not granted and the reasoning behind it.

If someone committed a Felony or crime fine or some other reason, but if someone really wanted to challenge the court and pass a given state's bar exam etc I would bet money on them being given the opportunity to sit for the exam, but I am a guy on the internet.

As for the nexus to Marriage it was a fundamental right and that right has been extended to same couples. Will it extend to Polygamy in the near future? Maybe-Maybe not.

in the case I cited practicing law was determined to be a fundamental right. How far does this right go and want state interest is served from preventing a San Joaquin College Law Grad from taking the South Dakota Bar, which is a state so desperate for lawyers that it is paying for lawyers to move there. http://www.businessinsider.com/south-dakota-lawyer-subsidy-2013-4

It would be a very interesting case and I hope it happens one day in my lifetime unfortunately or fortunately, I am not a CBA grad so I can't be the Plaintiff.




9
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Federal Courts-One and done?
« on: July 09, 2015, 04:58:48 PM »
I think it could be challenged.  Homosexual marriage was illegal last month now it isn't.

There is a legitimate argument for states imposing their own reglulations and making them burdensome, but is in my opinion no reason to specifically ban someone that is licensed in one state from practicing the same profession in another. If a state was hell-bent on making it difficult I think a less restrictive alternative might be an exam for out-of-state members to take a test on specific procedures or possibly require more pro-bono activity in the state or some less restrictive alternative other than just saying you can't do it.

If it ever comes up it would be a great Con-Law case, but if all this stress and uncertainty was required before taking the bar exam it would not be an ideal situation. So again the overall rule is go to an ABA school with a few minor exceptions.

Even the Federal Rule in the Central District about California bar membership could probably be overcome. In fact that is the exact issue discussed in the case. Preventing out-of-state lawyers from bringing unpopular Federal Claims. ( I imagine if someone challenged it they would prevail, but again who is going to spend the time and money to do it?






10
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Federal Courts-One and done?
« on: July 09, 2015, 04:39:22 PM »
The lawyer's role in the national economy is not the only reason that the opportunity to practice law should be considered a "fundamental right." We believe that the legal profession has a noncommercial role and duty that reinforce the view that the practice of law falls within the ambit of the Privileges and Immunities Clause. [n11] Out-of-state lawyers may -- and often do -- represent persons who raise unpopular federal claims. In some cases, representation by nonresident counsel may be the only means available for the vindication of federal rights. See Leis v. Flynt, 439 U.S. at 450 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). The lawyer who champions unpopular causes surely is as important to the "maintenance or wellbeing of the Union," Baldwin, 436 U.S. at 388, as was [p282] the shrimp fisherman in Toomer or the pipeline worker in Hicklin.

Practicing law is a fundamental right it was decided. I could cite more, but the whole reasoning is that often out-of-state lawyers bring up issues that are not popular and denying them access to the courts goes against everything the law stands for.

Again, you would have to go through a tedious legal process to simply sit for the bar exam as a non-aba grad and as in any lawsuit there is a chance you would lose, but in this day and age if you push a licensing agency to litigation they would probably just ask for a fee and that you pass the test.

I haven't gotten quite a few friends out of paying out-of-state tuition using this same logic. How does a school get away with charging 3x more? Most people don't question it, but if you get to the point of filing a lawsuit they will just find a way to make classify them as residents.

The case I posted above about the Concord Law Grad achieving success against the Mass State Bar is proof as to why they shouldn't block it.



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 51