ILNews

7th Circuit dismisses law suit over bar exam

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed an Indiana man’s suit in which he claims he should be able to sit for the bar exam even if he didn’t go to law school. The federal appellate court dismissed it for failure to timely pay the required docketing fee.

Clarence K. Carter filed his suit against the Indiana Supreme Court and state Board of Law Examiners in March 2010, after a previous similar suit was dismissed for not paying the filing fee. Judge Tanya Walton Pratt dismissed Carter v. Chief Justice, et al., No. 1:10-CV-328, earlier this year for failure to state a claim that warrants relief.

Carter filed a motion in April for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. On May 17, the 7th Circuit denied the motion and ordered him to pay the fee by the end of the month or else the case would be dismissed pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(b). Carter filed another motion at the end of May asking the judges to reconsider. The 7th Circuit denied the motion to reconsider June 1 and dismissed the case June 10.

Carter’s suit argued that the Indiana Supreme Court and BLE violated his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection to sit for the bar exam. Carter had applied to several law schools but wasn’t accepted. Admission Rule 13 says that in order to sit for the exam, a person must graduate from an American Bar Association approved law school.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT