HELP US END DISCRIMINATION IN CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS AND OBTAIN FAIR RECIPROCAL ADMISSION FOR LICENSED ATTORNEYS IN THE STATE AND U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
Lawyers For Fair Reciprocal Admission has filed a complaint in the United States District Court asking the Court to abrogate federal discriminatory licensing local Rules that deny equal and general admission licensing privileges to otherwise qualified sister-state attorneys in good standing as in United States v. Windsor (invalidating a federal statute prohibiting the federal government from providing full faith and credit to gay marriage licenses).
Lawyers For Fair Reciprocal Admission would like to hear from you if you are denied equal reciprocal general admission on motion in any State or U.S. District Court. Tell us your story. Become a member. Individual Membership $20 – Sign Up. Be a sponsor.
Everything you share with us will remain completely confidential.
1. IF all men and women are created equal are lawyers in good standing equal? The question presented is whether Local Rules that on their face create classes of citizens and lawyers exceed the rule-making authority of the United States District Courts? See Petition for Cert.
2. The second question presented is whether Local Rules that on their face create classes of citizens and lawyers and compel the petitioners, and all similarly situated licensed attorneys, to subsidize, join and associate with a second, third, and fourth mandatory state bar association as a condition precedent to obtain general admission licensing privileges in the United States District Courthouse are constitutional?
See Petition for Cert.
Below is a map of the states that provide reciprocal admission on motion on a tit-for-tat basis (you get admission here we get a mission there). Twenty-six states have tit-for-tat admission on motion rules for experienced attorneys. We are looking for qualified attorneys from California who want to move elsewhere and can’t because of tit-for-tat rules, or attorneys in other states that do not provide reciprocal admission, or other attorneys who can’t get admission on motion in California because it does not provide admission on motion. We would prefer to target Arizona, Pennsylvania, or New Jersey tit-for-tat rules. However, we would consider seriously filing tit-for-tat challenges in other jurisdictions.
Based on recent Supreme Court precedent, we believe these tit-for-tat admission rules are clearly on unequivocally unconstitutional. Protectionism is also apparent in the jurisdictions that limit admission on motion to lawyers “from jurisdictions also offering admission on motion.”85 This reciprocal approach to admissions is not contingent on another jurisdiction’s admissions requirements, but rather focuses exclusively on whether the other state offers an admission on motion procedure. As a result, a novice lawyer from a “reciprocal” state could receive admission, whereas a much more experienced lawyer from a non-reciprocal state would have to re-take the entire bar examination. There is little, if any, justification for this discrimination that relates to attorney quality.
The primary explanation for imposing the full bar examination on the second lawyer while admitting the first on motion is to promote the economic interests of the in-state bar. Under the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent, economic protection is not a legitimate state interest. The Supreme Court has also expressly held that it will not presume that out-of-state attorneys will violate the rules of professional conduct or not keep abreast of local law if admitted in a second state.
Reciprocity for admission on motion to the state bar, by sort in the United States
Lawyers For Fair Reciprocal Admission has submitted evidence proving the 100% subjective California Bar Exam for already licensed attorneys is not a valid or reliable test; that it has a standard error of measurement shoddier than .48, and the results of this putative licensing test is no admissible in evidence.
We need your help in bringing the practice of law into the 21st Century. IF you want to get fully admitted as a member of the California bar or you are already a member and want to gain reciprocal licensing in another state – we are talking to YOU. Whether YOU are a non-ABA graduate, or YOU don’t want to take another bar exam, or YOU are already partially licensed as inhouse counsel, a military spouse, or an indigent services attorney — Your rights and freedoms are at stake. The California Blue Ribbon Commission is studying the attorney licensing process. Lawyers For Fair Reciprocal Admission has been providing written public comments to the BRC requesting California to provide reciprocal licensing to YOU and all attorneys licensed in other states with three years of experience regardless of office or residence location or prior experience on the Cal bar exam.
Below is a map of the UB jurisdictions. These UBE jurisdictions do not test state law.
South Carolina and Rhode Island will admit novice lawyers from 38 states who passed the UBE but they will not provide reciprocal admission on motion for experienced lawyers from 49 state. This means that novice lawyers from 38 states have a constitutional right to travel and practice their profession and to petition the government on behalf of themselves and their clients as a member of the bar, but experienced lawyers from 49 states are deprived of these civil rights. What is governmental interest served by this discrimination?
If the legitimate justification of for bar exam is to determine “Competence” and “Public protection, how can either of these goals be advanced by favoring brand-new lawyers from 38 states over all experienced lawyers from 49 states. It is self-evident neither “Competence” or “Public Protection” are advanced by this bias and discrimination when state law is not even tested on a bar exam.
Lawyers For Fair Reciprocal Admission believes that inexperienced attorneys should not have more constitutional or civil rights than experienced attorneys. If all men and women are created equal it follows that all lawyers are created equal. There is thus no reason for a state to deny reciprocal general admission privileges to all lawyers other than economic protection for local lawyers. Economic protection is not a legitimate state interest.
Please join us and help us enforce your civil rights, your client’s civil rights, and We The People’s civil rights.