Unfortunately, it appears if the petitioner would have just listened to the courts and/or read the criteria to become admitted she would have had a very fair chance of being allowed to sit for the bar. Further, this would have been interesting as nowhere does it say she is actually admitted to practice in CA. In the case of Ross Mandell V MBE(?), he had passed both the FYLSE and the CBX on his first attempt and I remember one of the Justices' actually acknowledging the known difficulty of the CBX. It just seems ridiculous to make it this far in a fight and be denied based on the fact that you didn't answer a basic question the court was asking.
RE: And this, "it just seems ridiculous to make it this far in a fight and be denied based on the fact that you didn't answer a basic question the court was asking", how could you have a problem with that?No, problem here. I was just stating that I thought this lady was ridiculous... Not the ruling or the law.I agree w/ much of what you have said and would have liked to see this lady furnish the court with what it required, then I could see how they rule on her merits (ie:her schooling). Although one could argue she has indicated her merits in her poor compliance w/ the court.As a correspondence student myself, I don't believe many online/distance students should be able to take the bar anywhere let alone GA or MA, (2) states I could care less about.
Maybe Mrs Batterson should have hired an attorney?