Law School Discussion

Federal Courts-One and done?

Re: Federal Courts-One and done?
« Reply #40 on: July 10, 2015, 10:46:40 AM »
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)




Re: Federal Courts-One and done?
« Reply #41 on: July 10, 2015, 11:59:49 AM »
I promised myself I wouldn't jump back into this, but I have to ask: citylaw, are you a licensed attorney? I am not trying to resort to ad hominem attacks but your line of reasoning is very curious.

Re: Federal Courts-One and done?
« Reply #42 on: July 10, 2015, 04:45:39 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.

Re: Federal Courts-One and done?
« Reply #43 on: July 10, 2015, 05:44:50 PM »
Yes; no, as my area of law does not involve court per se, but hearings.

I agree with your assertion that life is not an ivory tower; however, I think that axiom points the other way. The statutes and other rules are presumptively valid and the burden is on you, both the poster and the hypothetical plaintiff. But as a matter of practicality, the same people who are the quasi-judicial or executive branch lawyers who control the state bar are the same or similar to the lawyers in the judiciary, depending on the state and whether you're making a federal constitutional claim. Those lawyers have a strong interest in upholding their rules and generally have the same beliefs as to what is permissible and not.

loki has already covered the actual law better than I could. I think if someone could make that claim in court and win, they would've done so.

Re: Federal Courts-One and done?
« Reply #44 on: July 11, 2015, 12:41:07 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.







Re: Federal Courts-One and done?
« Reply #45 on: July 11, 2015, 01:41:28 PM »
And as loki has explained and anyone who has read the case can see, that case involved someone petitioning the bar using their own rules, which is far different from making a privileges & immunities claim that a bar requirement is unconstitutional.

Re: Federal Courts-One and done?
« Reply #46 on: July 14, 2015, 12:47:25 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.




loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: Federal Courts-One and done?
« Reply #47 on: July 14, 2015, 07:57:14 AM »
"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."

No. Stop your nonsense, please. I provided a few cases, one of which had cites to numerous cases, directly in contradiction to your proposition. Attorneys are prevented, all the time, from practicing in other states (look up rules on reciprocity). The Massachusetts example is an outlier, and doesn't stand for any grand principle, but, rather, on the well-grounded idea that the Supreme Court of a state can grant waivers on occasion.

Seriously- try getting admission to the Florida Bar as an out-of-state grad of a non-ABA school with no years of practice. See if a random judge lets you do it based on "equity." I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, but I feel the need to correct you because what you're saying is dangerous. Do you know how I know this? Because there are actual cases on this!

See, inter alia, In re Proposed Amendments to the Rules of the Supreme Court Relating to Admissions to the Florida Bar, 873 So. 2d 295 ( Fla. 2004) (unanimously holding that ABA accreditation should be required, and specifically reasoning that it was more desirable because of the proliferation of alternative law schools).
Fla. Bd. of Bar Examiners re Mass. Sch. of Law, 705 So.2d 898 (Fla. 1998) (rejecting any waivers, of any kind, even in equity or for individuals, for non-ABA accredited individuals, and noting that this has been the policy since 1983... and this is still good law).

Your statements, to the extent that they are read, can actually hurt people. Please stop telling people that they can just hope for a "waiver" in equity. If you want to go to a non-accredited school, make sure you know what the rules are in the state that you're hoping to practice in.

Re: Federal Courts-One and done?
« Reply #48 on: July 14, 2015, 07:01:43 PM »
What's truly depressing is talking to people attending (or planning to attend) a non ABA school. They will tell you how they will (somehow) convince the standard to lower itself to them instead of them raising themselves to the standard, with some quasi-inspirational (but ultimately futile) speech about willpower and desire and other stuff that makes great coach speeches in cartoons to kids in movies where animals get to play on the team, but pretty much useless outside of that tiny pigeon hole.