DOCSLIB.ORG

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
District of Columbia Court of Appeals District of Columbia Court of Appeals No. M-263-19 BEFORE: Blackburne-Rigsby, Chief Judge; Glickman, Fisher, Thompson, Beckwith, Easterly, and McLeese, Associate Judges. N O T I C E (FILED – April 17, 2019) In response to a proposal from the D.C. Bar, th e court has been considering whether to amend D.C. App. R. 46(c)(4) relating to admission to the Bar of graduates of non -accredited law schools. Memoranda provided by the D.C. Bar that explained the proposed amendments are attached. On May 31, 2018, the court sent the D.C. Bar’s proposal out for public notice and comment. The court also invited interested parties to respond to a list of questions. The court very much appreciates the responses it received. In light of those responses, the court has decided to send out for additional notice and comment proposed revisions to Rule 46 that largely track the D.C. Bar’s proposal, but with two significant differences. First, the version sent out for public notice and comment this time has a revised list of required courses, with different requirements for graduates of non-ABA-approved law schools depending on whether the law school is located in or outside of the United States. Second, the version sent out for public notice and comment this time permits one -third of the required course of study to be earned through distance learning. Clean and redline versions of the Rule as it is now proposed to be amended are attached. Some additional stylistic changes are also proposed. This notice is published to provide interested parties an opportunity to submit written comments concerning the proposal under consideration. Comments must be submitted by June 17, 2019. 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. PER CURIAM Rule 46. Admission to the Bar. ***** (c) Admission based on examination in this jurisdiction. ***** (4) Law Study inGraduate of a Law School Not Approved by the ABA. (A) In General. An applicant who graduated from a law school not approved by the ABA shall be permitted tomay take the bar examination only after successfully completingthe applicant takes and passes at least 246 credit hours of study incourses that meet the requirements of Rule 46 (c)(4)(B)-(C) and are taken from a law school that at the time of such study wais approved by the ABA at the time the applicant takes the courses. Credits may not be transferred from any other school, except from another law school that is approved by the ABA at the time the applicant takes the courses.All such 26 credit hours shall be earned in courses of study, each of which is substantially concentrated on a single subject tested on the Uniform Bar Examination. B) ( Course Requirements. (i) Graduate of Domestic Law School. Of the 24 credit hours required by Rule 46 (c)(4)(A), an applicant who graduated from a non-ABA-approved law school in the United States must earn 2 credit hours in a legal research and writing course. (ii) Graduate of Law School Located Outside of United States. Of the 24 credit hours required by Rule 46 (c)(4)(A), an applicant who graduated from a non-ABA-approved law school that is located outside of the United States must earn a total of 18 credit hours in courses in the following subjects: • 2 credit hours in professional responsibility; • 2 credit hours in United States legal institutions; • 2 credit hours in common law legal reasoning, research, and writing; • 2 credit hours in civil procedure; • 2 credit hours in constitutional law; • 2 credit hours in an experiential course that complies with the ABA experiential- course standards; and • 6 credit hours in subjects tested on the Uniform Bar Examination. (C) Distance Education. Of the 24 credit hours required by Rule 46 (c)(4)(A), the applicant may earn up to 8 credit hours in distance-education courses if the courses comply with ABA distance-education standards. (D) Law School Certification. The law school issuing the credits must certify in writing that the courses meet the requirements of Rule 46 (c)(4)(B)-(C). Rule 46. Admission to the Bar. ***** (c) Admission based on examination in this jurisdiction. ***** (4) Graduate of a Law School Not Accredited by the ABA. (A) In General. An applicant who graduated from a law school not approved by the ABA may take the bar examination only after the applicant takes and passes at least 24 credit hours of courses that meet the requirements of Rule 46 (c)(4)(B)-(C) and are taken from a law school that is approved by the ABA at the time the applicant takes the courses. Credits may not be transferred from any other school, except from another law school that is approved by the ABA at the time the applicant takes the courses. (B) Course Requirements. (i) Graduate of Domestic Law School. Of the 24 credit hours required by Rule 46 (c)(4)(A), an applicant who graduated from a non-ABA-approved law school in the United States must earn 2 credit hours in a legal research and writing course. (ii) Graduate of Law School Located Outside of United States. Of the 24 credit hours required by Rule 46 (c)(4)(A), an applicant who graduated from a non-ABA-approved law school that is located outside of the United States must earn a total of 18 credit hours in courses in the following subjects: • 2 credit hours in professional responsibility; • 2 credit hours in United States legal institutions; • 2 credit hours in common law legal reasoning, research, and writing; • 2 credit hours in civil procedure; • 2 credit hours in constitutional law; • 2 credit hours in an experiential course that complies with the ABA experiential- course standards; and • 6 credit hours in subjects tested on the Uniform Bar Examination. (C) Distance Education. Of the 24 credit hours required by Rule 46 (c)(4)(A), the applicant may earn up to 8 credit hours in distance-education courses if the courses comply with ABA distance-education standards. (D) Law School Certification. The law school issuing the credits must certify in writing that the courses meet the requirements of Rule 46 (c)(4)(B)-(C). 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.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • C:\Documents and Settings\Phohman\Local Settings\Temp\Notese1ef34\New Appendix.Wpd
    Appendix A MJP Commission I Recommendations Recommendation 1: The Commission endorses the ABA recommendation to continue to affirm its support for the principle of state judicial licensing and regulation of lawyers. Recommendation 2: The Commission does not endorse the amendment of Rule 5.5(b) of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (Unauthorized Practice of Law) proposed by the ABA. Recommendation 3: The Commission modifies the ABA recommendation to adopt proposed Model Rule 5.5(c) - (e) to identify “safe harbors” allowing a lawyer to practice in another state. The Commission would make the list of “safe harbors” exclusive and would add a provision preventing lawyers who are no longer eligible to practice in the host state from practicing under a “safe harbor.” 1. The Commission endorses the ABA recommendation to adopt proposed Model Rule 5.5(c)(1) to allow work as co-counsel with a lawyer admitted to practice in the jurisdiction if it is made clear that the local lawyer share actual responsibility for the representation. 2. The Commission endorses the ABA recommendation to adopt proposed Model Rule 5.5(c)(2) to allow lawyers to perform professional services that any non- lawyer is legally permitted to render as long as it is made clear that the lawyer is performing the services as a lawyer and remains subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct. 3. The Commission endorses the ABA recommendation to adopt proposed Model Rule 5.5(c)(3) to allow lawyers to perform work ancillary to pending or prospective litigation if the lawyer is authorized by law to appear in the proceeding or reasonably expects to be so authorized.
    [Show full text]
  • Attorney Admission Practices in the U.S. Federal Courts JOHN OKRAY
    40 • THE FEDERAL LAWYER • September 2016 Attorney Admission Practices in the U.S. Federal Courts JOHN OKRAY oes your state follow the common law rule against perpetuities, does it use the common law rule with the “wait-and-see” modification, has it adopted the Uniform Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities, or does it follow a different standard? Is the punishment for burglary in your state enhanced if the premises was inhabited or if the entry was Dat night? Even if you are a licensed attorney, there is a good chance you do not know these answers off the top of your head. The good news is that you are trained to conduct legal research and can find out relatively quickly. Nevertheless, some state bars and federal courts still require experienced attorneys to run the bar exam gauntlet multiple times to show they can grasp these concepts more than once. Various Courts, Various Requirements attorney is eligible for admission to the bar of a court of appeals While there has been a very slow but steady march toward if that attorney is of good moral and professional character and modernization of the legal profession, several pockets of outmod- is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United ed and protectionist rules continue to plague the practice. This States, the highest court of a state, another United States court article focuses on attorney admission requirements for practicing of appeals, or a United States district court (including the district in the various federal courts, and specifically who are the leaders courts for Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin and laggards in this area.
    [Show full text]
  • RECOGNIZED RECIPROCAL JURISDICTIONS the Following Jurisdictions Have Been Reviewed by the Arkansas State Board of Law Examiners
    RECOGNIZED RECIPROCAL JURISDICTIONS The following jurisdictions have been reviewed by the Arkansas State Board of Law Examiners and have been determined to be “reciprocal” under the provisions of the Arkansas admission on motion rule. Alaska Nebraska Colorado New Hampshire District of Columbia New York Georgia North Carolina Idaho Ohio Illinois Oklahoma Iowa Pennsylvania Kansas Tennessee Kentucky Texas Massachusetts Utah Minnesota Washington Mississippi Wisconsin Missouri JURISDICTIONS DETERMINED TO NOT BE RECIPROCAL The following jurisdictions have been reviewed by the Arkansas State Board of Law Examiners. It has been determined their admission on motion provisions are sufficiently dissimilar from the Arkansas admission on motion rule to decline recognition of them as “reciprocal” jurisdictions. Alabama New Mexico Arizona Oregon Indiana Rhode Island Michigan Virginia West Virginia JURISDICTIONS FOR WHICH RECIPROCAL STATUS HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED Connecticut South Dakota Maine Vermont New Jersey Wyoming North Dakota JURISDICTIONS WHICH DO NOT ALLOW ADMISSION ON MOTION According to the most recent volume of the Comprehensive Guide to Bar Admission Requirements, a publication of the National Conference of Bar Examiners, the following jurisdictions do not allow admission on motion. Section 1.(d) of the Arkansas Admission on Motion rule requires that the state in which the applicant attorney has or had his or her “principal place of business for the practice of law for the two year period immediately preceding application under this rule, would allow attorneys from this State a similar accommodation”. Hence, if your “principal place of business” is in one of the jurisdictions mentioned below, you will not be allowed admission on motion in this jurisdiction.
    [Show full text]
  • US Guide to Bar Admission Requirements, 2016
    Comprehensive Guide to Bar Admission Requirements 2016 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BAR EXAMINERS AND AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SECTION OF LEGAL EDUCATION AND ADMISSIONS TO THE BAR National Conference of Bar Examiners Comprehensive Guide to Bar Admission Requirements 2016 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BAR EXAMINERS AND AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SECTION OF LEGAL EDUCATION AND ADMISSIONS TO THE BAR National Conference of Bar Examiners EDITORS ERICA MOESER CLAIRE J. GUBACK This publication represents the joint work product of the National Conference of Bar Examiners and the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar. The views expressed herein have not been approved by the House of Delegates or the Board of Governors of the American Bar Association, nor has such approval been sought. Accordingly, these materials should not be construed as representing the policy of the American Bar Association. National Conference of Bar Examiners 302 South Bedford Street, Madison, WI 53703-3622 608-280-8550 • TDD 608-661-1275 • Fax 608-280-8552 www.ncbex.org Chair: Hon. Thomas J. Bice, Fort Dodge, IA President: Erica Moeser, Madison, WI Immediate Past Chair: Bryan R. Williams, New York, NY Chair-Elect: Robert A. Chong, Honolulu, HI Secretary: Hon. Rebecca White Berch, Phoenix, AZ Board of Trustees: Hulett H. Askew, Atlanta, GA Patrick R. Dixon, Newport Beach, CA Michele A. Gavagni, Tallahassee, FL Gordon J. MacDonald, Manchester, NH Hon. Cynthia L. Martin, Kansas City, MO Suzanne K. Richards, Columbus, OH Hon. Phyllis D. Thompson, Washington, DC Timothy Y. Wong, St. Paul, MN ABA House of Delegates Representative: Hulett H. Askew, Atlanta, GA American Bar Association Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar 321 North Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-7598 312-988-6738 • Fax 312-988-5681 www.americanbar.org/legaled Chair: Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • 38-2-205-Deblasis-Pdfa.Pdf (792.0Kb)
    Another Tile in the “Jurisdictional Mosaic” 1 of Lawyer Regulation: Modifying Admission by Motion Rules to Meet the Needs of the 21st Century Lawyer ABIGAIL L. DEBLASIS2 Can practicing law on a less than "full-time" basis hinder a lawyer's future mobility? The answer depends on which jurisdiction you ask. A parent who is considering a reduced hours schedule for family reasons or a recent grad- uate whose only option is part-time work should know that these choices may impact future mobility. This Article provides an in-depth exploration of the current admission by motion rules, which are the rules that allow a lawyer who is already licensed and practicing in one jurisdiction to be admitted in another jurisdiction with- out having to take that jurisdiction's bar exam. These rules are of great ne- cessity in the modern world given the need for mobility. The rules require that an applicant have been practicing law for some stated period of time in the original jurisdiction, assuming that these years in practice will ensure the applicant has minimum competence to practice in the same way that pass- ing a bar exam ensures minimum competence. For example, a rule may re- quire that the applicant have been actively engaging in the practice of law for five of the seven years immediately preceding her application for admis- sion by motion. A troubling aspect of some jurisdictions' rules is the require- ment of "full-time" prior practice. The Article started out with a concern that lawyers, especially female law- yers, who work less than full-time for family or other reasons were signifi- cantly disadvantaged by the requirement of "full-time" prior practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulatory Mismatch in the International Market for Legal Services Carole Silver Indiana University Maurer School of Law, [email protected]
    Maurer School of Law: Indiana University Digital Repository @ Maurer Law Articles by Maurer Faculty Faculty Scholarship 2003 Regulatory Mismatch in the International Market for Legal Services Carole Silver Indiana University Maurer School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub Part of the International Law Commons, and the Legal Profession Commons Recommended Citation Silver, Carole, "Regulatory Mismatch in the International Market for Legal Services" (2003). Articles by Maurer Faculty. Paper 350. http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/350 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by Maurer Faculty by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES Regulatory Mismatch in the International Market for Legal Services Carole Silver* I. INTRODUCTION The increasingly international reach of law owes part of its momentum to individual lawyers and law firms that function as carriers of ideas, proc- esses and policies. U.S. lawyers are important participants in this expand- ing influence of law, both in the public sphere in areas such as human rights and in private areas, such as regulation of business.' They work as repre- sentatives of both U.S. clients and foreign organizations and governments, . Senior Lecturer, Northwestern University School of Law. B.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Invalidation of Residency Requirements for Admission to the Bar: Opportunities for General Reform Paul G
    University of Richmond Law Review Volume 23 | Issue 2 Article 4 1989 Invalidation of Residency Requirements for Admission to the Bar: Opportunities for General Reform Paul G. Gill University of Richmond Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview Part of the Legal Profession Commons Recommended Citation Paul G. Gill, Invalidation of Residency Requirements for Admission to the Bar: Opportunities for General Reform, 23 U. Rich. L. Rev. 231 (1989). Available at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview/vol23/iss2/4 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Richmond Law Review by an authorized editor of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES INVALIDATION OF RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR: OPPORTUNITIES FOR GENERAL REFORM I. INTRODUCTION Individuals must jump several major hurdles to earn the right to prac- tice law. One hurdle state bars have traditionally imposed is the require- ment that applicants demonstrate their residency in that state. This must 1 2 be done either upon application, prior to admission, or upon admission. A residency requirement has been imposed on both applicants applying for admission by examination,3 and attorney applicants admitted on mo- tion without exam.4 Residency requirements have been common and long-standing,5 and have prompted challenges on constitutional6 and pragmatic7 grounds for 1. See, e.g., S.D. CODIFIED LAWS ANN. § 16-16-2 (1987). The residency requirement com- ponent was declared unconstitutional in Stalland v.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wisconsin Diploma Privilege: Try It, You'll Like It, 2000 Wisconsin Law Review
    Vanderbilt University Law School Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 2000 The iW sconsin Diploma Privilege: Try It, You'll Like It Beverly I. Moran Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications Part of the Legal Education Commons Recommended Citation Beverly I. Moran, The Wisconsin Diploma Privilege: Try It, You'll Like It, 2000 Wisconsin Law Review. 645 (2000) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications/722 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE WISCONSIN DIPLOMA PRIVILEGE: TRY IT, YOU'LL LIKE IT BEVERLY MORAN* I. INTRODUCTION When I was asked to speak at the Society of American Law Teachers' (S.A.L.T.) conference Re-Examining the Bar Exam,1 I realized that I accepted the bar examination without question. After all, I had passed two bar examinations, graded a third and written questions for a fourth. To me, bar examinations seemed both fair and needed to protect our profession and the public. In fact, when I came to Wisconsin, the last state in America with a diploma privilege, I was deeply disturbed. My safety net had been taken away and I felt more pressure to test frequently and grade harshly. Thus, I did not begin this project as a great fan of the diploma privilege.
    [Show full text]
  • Notice No. M-261-18, Proposed Amendment to D.C. App. R. 46 Relating to Admission Of
    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.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Guide to Bar Admission Requirements 2012
    Comprehensive Guide to Bar Admission Requirements 2012 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BAR EXAMINERS AND AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SECTION OF LEGAL EDUCATION AND ADMISSIONS TO THE BAR National Conference of Bar Examiners Comprehensive Guide to Bar Admission Requirements 2012 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BAR EXAMINERS AND AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SECTION OF LEGAL EDUCATION AND ADMISSIONS TO THE BAR National Conference of Bar Examiners EDITORS ERICA MOESER CLAIRE HUISMANN This publication represents the joint work product of the National Conference of Bar Examiners and the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar. The views expressed herein have not been approved by the House of Delegates or the Board of Governors of the American Bar Association, nor has such approval been sought. Accordingly, these materials should not be construed as representing the policy of the American Bar Association. National Conference of Bar Examiners 302 South Bedford Street, Madison, WI 53703-3622 608-280-8550 • TDD 608-661-1275 • Fax 608-280-8552 www.ncbex.org Chair: Rebecca S. Thiem, Bismarck, ND President: Erica Moeser, Madison, WI Immediate Past Chair: Philip M. Madden, Seal Beach, CA Chair-Elect: Franklin R. Harrison, Panama City, FL Secretary: Margaret Fuller Corneille, St. Paul, MN Board of Trustees: Hon. Rebecca White Berch, Phoenix, AZ Hon. Thomas J. Bice, Fort Dodge, IA Mark S. Carlin, Washington, DC Robert A. Chong, Honolulu, HI Michele A. Gavagni, Tallahassee, FL Hon. Cynthia L. Martin, Kansas City, MO Darryl W. Simpkins, Hillsborough, NJ Bryan R. Williams, New York, NY ABA House of Delegates Representative: Hon. Jequita Harmon Napoli, Norman, OK American Bar Association Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar 321 North Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-7598 312-988-6738 • Fax 312-988-5681 www.americanbar.org/legaled Chairperson: John F.
    [Show full text]
  • Attorneys: Admission Upon Diploma to the Wisconsin Bar Richard A
    Marquette Law Review Volume 58 Article 9 Issue 1 1975 (Number 1) Attorneys: Admission Upon Diploma to the Wisconsin Bar Richard A. Stack Jr. Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Richard A. Stack Jr., Attorneys: Admission Upon Diploma to the Wisconsin Bar, 58 Marq. L. Rev. 109 (1975). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol58/iss1/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMENTARY ADMISSION UPON DIPLOMA TO THE WISCONSIN BAR Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions.' Since the bar was first organized the nature and extent of the "conditions" referred to by Justice Cardozo have been the subject of ongoing debate and controversy. The "conditions" currently imposed by the various jurisdictions for admission to the bar are either a written examination or upon motion to the jurisdiction's highest appellate court. Admission upon motion entails satisfying the jurisdiction's requirements for reciprocity or diploma privilege should either method be recognized. In Wisconsin, all of the above "conditions" for admission to the practice of law are recognized and the authority to evaluate whether an applicant has met the requisites for admission is solely vested in the appellate
    [Show full text]
  • Regulatory Mismatch in the International Market for Legal Services Carole Silver
    Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business Volume 23 Issue 3 Spring Spring 2003 Regulatory Mismatch in the International Market for Legal Services Carole Silver Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njilb Part of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, Foreign Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Carole Silver, Regulatory Mismatch in the International Market for Legal Services, 23 Nw. J. Int'l L. & Bus. 487 (2002-2003) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business by an authorized administrator of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. ARTICLES Regulatory Mismatch in the International Market for Legal Services Carole Silver* I. INTRODUCTION The increasingly international reach of law owes part of its momentum to individual lawyers and law firms that function as carriers of ideas, proc- esses and policies. U.S. lawyers are important participants in this expand- ing influence of law, both in the public sphere in areas such as human rights and in private areas, such as regulation of business.' They work as repre- sentatives of both U.S. clients and foreign organizations and governments, . Senior Lecturer, Northwestern University School of Law. B.A. 1977, University of Michigan; J.D. 1980 Indiana University School of Law, Bloomington. Many thanks to Terry Cone, Bryant Garth, John O'Hare, Terry Halliday, Chuan Sun, Laurel Terry and Philip Von Mehren for comments on earlier drafts and helpful discussions; to Jean Louie and Cindy So- bel for research assistance; and to the members of the Transnational Practice Committee of the ABA's Section of International Law & Practice for thoughtful discussions about the role of regulation in the development of an international market for legal services.
    [Show full text]