As a practical matter, we think that unless a lawyer has, or anticipates, a considerable practice in the New Hampshire courts, he would be unlikely to take the bar examination and pay the annual dues of $125." The U.S. Supreme Court decided similarly in the Supreme Court of Virginia v. Friedman, when it struck down a requirement in Virginia barring non-residents from even taking the exam. The defendant, a Maryland resident, already had a full-time job in Virginia. The court found: "If a state denies non-residents such a privilege, it must have a substantial justification for the difference in treatment that substantially relates to the state's objective in correcting the problem. The practice of law, like other occupations, is sufficiently basic to the national economy to be deemed a privilege protected by the Clause. Although Virginia did not totally exclude nonresidents from practicing in the State that does not mean its rule is beyond the reach of the Privileges and Immunities Clause."
The rights of the state, the rights of the client to competent representation, and the rights of the prospective lawyer must all be weighed when deciding whether certain restrictions to practice law are valid or invalid. Rules limiting admission to the bar only to graduates of accredited law schools have been upheld (Gillers 2009: 553). Similarly, the need for attorneys to possess a good moral character is a stated provision of many states' bar exams. Journalists who fabricated stories and law applicants who mishandled funds have not been accepted to the bar, even after passing the qualifying exams in New York and Washington D.C., respectively (Gillers 2009: 553).
A final note regarding this issue is manifested in the question of the right to gain admission to an accredited law...
A blind prospective law school student in Michigan is currently suing the American Bar Association because of the ABA's requirement that all law schools use the LSAT, deemed the only "valid and reliable" admissions test to screen candidates (Klienfelter 2011). The "Law School Admission Test, commonly known as the LSAT, typically features more than a dozen questions where test takers are strongly encouraged to draw out a written diagram to solve the problem" which the student alleges is impossible for him to do at the same level of competency as a sighted person and thus discriminates against him based upon his disability, barring him from practicing law (Klienfelter 2011). The ABA penalizes schools that do not use the LSAT as a requirement of admission or grant too many waivers to students. Law schools also do not view tests with accommodations given for disabilities are not viewed as favorably as tests taken under normal conditions.
Works Cited
Gillers, Stephen. Regulation of Lawyers: Problems of Law and Ethics. Aspen, 2009.
Klienfelter, Quinn. "Blind would-be law student claims discrimination in testing." NPR.
June 15, 2011. [June 20, 2011]
http://www.npr.org/2011/06/15/137179261/blind-law-student-claims-discrimination-in-testing
The Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper (1984). Cornell School of Law.
[June 20, 2011]
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0470_0274_ZO.html
The Supreme Court of Virginia v. Friedman (1988). Case Briefs.
[June 20, 2011]
http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-cohen/the-scope-of-state-power/supreme-court-of-virginia-v-friedman/2/
