1Dt~trtct of qtolumbta ~ [L IE f~ f cc, qtourt of ~ppeal~ MAY :I l 2018 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. M-261-18 BEFORE: Blackbume-Rigsby, Chief Judge; Glickman, Fisher, Thompson, Beckwith, Easterly, and McLeese, Associate Judges. NOTICE (FILED-May 31, 2018) In response to a proposal from the D.C. Bar, the court is considering whether to amend D.C. App. R. 46 relating to admission of graduates of non-accredited law schools. Memoranda provided by the D.C. Bar that explain the proposed amendment are attached. The court specifically invites interested parties to address the following questions, in addition to whatever other else parties wish to address: (1) To what extent, if any, should considerations of reciprocity play a role in the admission of foreign-educated lawyers to the D.C. Bar? Cf D.C. App. R. 46 (f)(2)(D) (addressing reciprocity in context of Special Legal Consultants); (2) Should the rules permitting admission to the bar of graduates of domestic law schools not accredited by the American Bar Association be different from the rules applicable to graduates of foreign non-accredited law schools?; (3) Should the court require that the some or all of the requisite course of study be taken within the United States?; ( 4) Should the court permit any of the additional course of study to be fulfilled by distance learning, and if so to what extent?; ( 5) If specific courses are to be required, what should they be?; (6) If the court were to retain the rule requiring that all courses focus on subjects tested on the Uniform Bar Exam, should it amend the rule to add a distribution requirement for those courses?; (7) Should a separate English-language proficiency requirement be imposed?; (8) To what extent would the proposal address the specific needs of law firms, their clients, and other individuals seeking legal services in the District of Columbia?; and (9) What is the expected practical impact of the proposal on the number of new admittees to the D.C. Bar? No. M-261-18 This notice is published to provide interested parties an opportunity to submit written comments concerning the proposal under consideration. Comments must be submitted by July 31, 2018. Comments may be submitted electronically, to [email protected], or submitted in writing to the Clerk, D.C. Court of Appeals, 430 E St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001. All comments submitted pursuant to this notice will be available to the public. PERCURIAM DISTRICT 0 F COLUMBIA B A R March 14, 2018 The Honorable Anna Blackburne-Rigsby Chief Judge District of Columbia Court of Appeals 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W. Patrick McGlone Pre;ident Washington, D.C. 20001 Esther H. Um President-Elect Dear Chief Judge Blackburne-Rigsby: Alva Waller Dial Serretary AJ. S. Dhaliwal On behalf of the District of Columbia Bar, I am pleased to transmit to you Treasurer for the Court's consideration proposed amendments to certain provisions ofD.C. Board ofGovernors Court of Appeals Rule 46 - Admission to the Bar ("Rule 46") that govern Jessica E. Adler David W. Arrojo admission for graduates from non-ABA-accredited law schools - a category that Susan Low Bloch Rodney J. Bosco includes graduates of foreign law schools. Cindy A. Conover Moses A. Cook Elizabeth R. Dewey Increasing numbers of foreign-educated individuals have demonstrated Karen E. Evans Theodore A Howard interest in becoming admitted to the District of Columbia, and the need for Arian M. June admitting lawyers to serve their clients' needs locally and internationally can be Annette K. Kwok Megan Lacchini expected to rise in the future. As explained in the materials that accompany this Ellen Ostrow letter, the D.C. Bar Board of Governors ("Board") believes that these Leah M. Quodrino Gregory S. Smith recommendations would continue to provide effective educational requirements Keiko K. Takagi Ben[amln F. Wilson for acquiring a foundation in American legal education and maintaining Christopher P. Zubowicz competence standards for admission to the D.C. Bar, while eliminating or modifying existing requirements that pose significant and unnecessary burdens Robert J. Spognoletti ChiefExecutive Officer on admitting otherwise qualified, foreign-educated individuals. The recommendations are also intended to ease the administrative burdens on the Committee on Admissions ("Admissions Committee") of the D.C. Court of Appeals. On February 15, 2018, the Board voted to approve the proposed changes to Rule 46 for submission to the Court. Those proposals are included in the attached report, Final Report to the Board of Governors of the District of Columbia Bar - 2018 ("Final Report"), of the District of Columbia Bar's Global Legal Practice Task Force ("Task Force"). Clean and red-lined versions of Rule 46 begin on page 25 of the Final Report and are attached as Appendices 2 and 3 of the Final Report. A summary of the proposals and the work of the Task Force are set forth below. 1101 K Street Nw. Suite 200, Washington DC 20005-4210 ' 202-737-4700, www.dcbar.org The Honorable Blackburne-Rigsby March 14,2018 Page 2 I. Summary of Recommendations A. Existing Rule 46 Under existing Rule 46, graduates from non-ABA-approved law schools, including graduates of foreign law schools, may qualify for admission to the D.C. Bar by first completing 26 credit hours of additional education in a law school that at the time of such study was approved by the ABA. All of the additional credit hours must be in subjects tested on the Uniform Bar Examination ("UBE"), but no specific courses are required to be taken. B. Proposed Amendments to Rule 46 The proposed amendments to Rule 46 would: (!) reduce the number of credit hours to satisfy the additional education requirement from 26 hours to 24 hours; (2) change the subject matter requirement from all credit hours in subjects tested on the UBE to six credit hours from a list of specific courses described in Rule 46, six credit hours of subjects tested on the UBE, and 12 hours in elective courses (a total of24 hours); and (3) allow any amount of the additional education to be completed by distance learning that the ABA­ accredited law school would certify as complying with ABA distance education standards. These proposals would require that the law school issuing the credit hours certify that the courses taken by the applicant comply with the requirements in Rule 46. All of the proposed amendments would apply to graduates from non­ ABA-accredited law schools who seek admission to the D.C. Bar by: (1) Admission based on examination in this jurisdiction (Rule 46(c)(4)); (2) Admission by transfer of a Uniform Bar Examination Score (UBE) attained in another jurisdiction (Rule 46(d)(3)(D)); or (3) Admission without Examination of Members of the bar of other Jurisdictions (Rule 46(e)(3)(B)(i). The Board is The Honorable Blackbume-Rigsby March 14, 2018 Page 3 proposing no change to the rule for admission for members of the bar of other jurisdictions who are in good standing of the bar of any state or territory of the United States for at least five years. The Board recommends that the Court not adopt proposed language that the Court had initially considered, which would have required that the additional education required under Rule 46 occur "in classroom courses in a law school .. .". (Proposed new language underlined). The Court had specifically asked for the D.C. Bar's view of the Court's proposed language. Instead, the Board recommends changing the existing language that the additional educational requirement be satisfied "in a law school" to "from a law school" and recommends that there be no requirement for credits to be earned in "classroom courses in" a law school. This recommendation dovetails with the Board's further recommendation to allow any amount of the additional education to be completed by distance learning. As a house-keeping matter, the Board also recommends that the term "ABA-approved" be changed to "ABA-accredited"; and use of the term "Rules of Professional Conduct" in Rule 46. C. Additional Recommendations Lastly, the Board recommends that the Admissions Committee consider creating a "Frequently Asked Questions" webpage and periodically issue advisory guidelines for the benefit of applicants and the law schools on an as-needed basis explaining how the Admissions Committee interprets Rule 46. It is anticipated that such written guidance may minimize routine inquiries to the Committee, and provide consistency of responses. II. Background and Procedural History A. Creation and Scope of the Task Force Charge In September 2014, the Board of Governors created the Task Force to study a broad range of issues arising from the globalization oflegal practice and to make recommendations about what the Bar may consider doing to address them. The Board's charge directed the Task Force, in making its recommendations, if any, "to consider and balance the needs of the members and the Bar in light of available resources; minimize any administrative burdens to the D.C. Court of Appeals; ensure the protection of the public; and maintain the highest professional standards." The Task Force divided its work and members The Honorable Blackburne-Rigsby March 14, 2018 Page 4 into two subgroups and one study group. 1 The recommendations contained herein are the work resulting from one of those subgroups -- the "Inbound Foreign Lawyers Practicing in the District of Columbia Subgroup." B. Work of the Inbound Foreign Lawyers Practicing in the District of Columbia Subgroup Ultimately, the "Inbound" subgroup and full Task Force focused on how foreign-educated individuals become fully admitted to the District of Columbia under Rule 46.