Law School Discussion

Federal Courts-One and done?

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: Federal Courts-One and done?
« Reply #10 on: July 08, 2015, 02:22:08 PM »
It is true. Admission to the C.D. Cal. requires you to be a member in good standing with the California Bar. Federal courts often have a local practice requirement; see, e.g., M.D. Fla. One reason for this is that they handle a high volume of cases that require knowledge of the state law, so they assume out-of-state practitioners will pro hac, and if you will be practicing regularly in front of the Court, you should pass the local state bar.

Different federal courts have different rules, but it is odd.

Re: Federal Courts-One and done?
« Reply #11 on: July 08, 2015, 02:28:09 PM »
Yep, just looked up the Attorney Admission local rules for the Central District and CA bar membership is indeed required.

That surprises me. I assume this is a very rare requirement?

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: Federal Courts-One and done?
« Reply #12 on: July 08, 2015, 02:45:04 PM »
I haven't done a systemic survey, but it's not very rare.

Florida and California federal courts require local membership. New York federal courts, for example, will allow Connecticut or Vermont. Appellate courts are, of course, different (I'm talking D.C. only).

Re: Federal Courts-One and done?
« Reply #13 on: July 08, 2015, 02:50:53 PM »
It seems like someone could challenge that.  I wonder if that has occurred.

Re: Federal Courts-One and done?
« Reply #14 on: July 08, 2015, 02:58:04 PM »
I am kind of surprised that fed courts don't required ABA grads only and tell non ABA to stay out IMHO

Re: Federal Courts-One and done?
« Reply #15 on: July 08, 2015, 03:28:12 PM »
I am kind of surprised that fed courts don't required ABA grads only and tell non ABA to stay out IMHO

What would be the point?

Re: Federal Courts-One and done?
« Reply #16 on: July 08, 2015, 03:38:02 PM »
Fortunately, the Federal government only hires ABA grads. So, best of luck to the non accredited educated lawyer practicing in Fed court!

Re: Federal Courts-One and done?
« Reply #17 on: July 08, 2015, 08:19:14 PM »
I am kind of surprised that fed courts don't required ABA grads only and tell non ABA to stay out IMHO

What would be the point?

The ABA owns many souls..............and yet has none for itself
need we say more?

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: Federal Courts-One and done?
« Reply #18 on: July 09, 2015, 09:28:10 AM »
While I cannot mindread the original question (what would be the point?), I think I can expand on it.

The ABA accreditation acts as a de facto, if not de jure, barrier to entry to most federal court practice. For example, let's take Florida (really, please, take Florida).

If you wanted to practice in M.D. Florida, you would need Florida bar membership. Florida has *no* reciprocity with any other state. Florida requires ABA accreditation (*or* you could have practiced for at least 10 years without having graduated with an ABA degree, and you must provide samples of ten years of work, and you must get approval). This is similar to many other states.

So, the basic rule is that you either need to have graduated from an ABA accredited law school (since the states farm out this requirement), or you need to start your practice in a state that allows for non-ABA accreditation, and work your way to another state. The takeaway is that it is much easier to do the ABA-accredited route, because it's hard enough to move around even with an ABA-accredited degree due to bar regulations.

Re: Federal Courts-One and done?
« Reply #19 on: July 09, 2015, 11:27:18 AM »
Yes, I agree that ABA is certainly the surest (and sometimes only) path.

My question was playing off of Pie's comment, and pondering whether or not it would make sense to exclude non-ABA grads from federal practice. I don't think it would.

There are some courts which will require state bar membership, and a non-ABA is going to face an uphill battle. But for courts that don't require state bar admission, as long as a non-ABA grad has passed the CA bar (or one of the other few states that allow non-ABA degrees) and met the C&F requirements, I don't see the problem.