ILNews

Judge nixes non-attorney’s attempt to join class action

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge says that a non-attorney who wants to work for the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana or as a local public defender can’t join an already-pending class-action lawsuit that challenges the state’s Board of Law Examiners and its questions about applicants’ mental health history.

The entry comes in the case of Amanda Perdue, et al. v. The Individual Members of the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners, No. 1:09-CV-0842, which the ACLU of Indiana filed last year in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana. The case boils down to accusations that the Indiana bar examination application violates the Americans with Disabilities Act because of certain mental health questions. The plaintiffs are an Indiana woman who is admitted to practice in Illinois but wants to practice in her home state, as well as the student ACLU chapter at Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis where individuals could be impacted by the controversial questions.

The court ruled in May that applicants’ privacy concerns outweighed the need for the BLE to obtain any additional mental health information in discovery, and U.S. Judge Tanya Walton Pratt has since been assigned the case and is currently considering whether to re-examine that discovery ruling.

During the past month or so, Indianapolis resident Robert M. Shaw – who the court docket says is representing himself pro se – filed motions to join the suit and obtain an injunctive order allowing him to work for the ACLU or Marion County Public Defender’s Office without any interference from the BLE.

Judge Sarah Evans Barker in June dismissed a case that Shaw filed earlier in the year that sought a court order to practice law in the state. Shaw alleged that his reporting of an alleged illegal act by a California state bar member damaged his reputation there and led Indiana officials to “blacklist” him here.

In that suit, Shaw noted that he’d applied for positions with the Indiana Attorney General’s Office and in Marion County as a public defender but was turned down.

Specifically, Shaw contends in both that dismissed suit and in the latest filings in the Perdue case that a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the New Mexico case of Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232 (1957), held that states can’t infringe on someone’s due process rights by excluding them from practicing law.

In his most recent court filing, Shaw wrote that the plaintiffs in this case are “not untrained, and have all been educated in law and are simply seeking to earn a living. The Plaintiff should be able to do that without any interference from the Indiana Board of Law Examiners and the Plaintiff seeks (an) injective order to prohibit the Indiana BLE from any retaliatory act.”

But Judge Pratt noted that Shaw didn’t state or suggest that he falls within the class membership for the Perdue case and denied his request to join. She also denied his injunctive order request.

A phone number for Shaw listed on the federal docket has been disconnected, and he could not be immediately reached for comment.

The issues Shaw raised in his litigation echo claims made in another federal case pending before Judge Barker. In that case, the plaintiff wants to take the bar exam without going to law school and claims Admission Rule 13 – detailing the educational requirements to sit for the bar exam – violates his rights to due process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment. That case is Clarence K. Carter v. Chief Justice and Justices of the Supreme Court for the State of Indiana, et al., No. 1:10-CV-0328, and last week Judge Barker declined the state’s motion to dismiss.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT