ILNews

Law school reject sues to take bar exam

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indianapolis man is suing the state Supreme Court justices and Board of Law Examiners because he believes he should be able to take the bar exam even if he didn't go to law school.

Clarence K. Carter claims Admission Rule 13, which provides the educational requirements to sit for the exam, violates his rights to due process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

Rule 13 establishes the minimum educational prerequisites someone needs in order to take the bar exam: graduating from an American Bar Association-approved law school, completion of the law course required for graduation, and completion of two cumulative semester hours of legal ethics or professional responsibility at an approved law school.

Carter applied to 13 ABA-approved law schools between September 2007 and May 2009 and was denied admission to all of them.

The case, Carter v. Chief Justice and Justices of the Supreme Court for the State of Indiana and Executive Director and Members of the State Board of Law Examiners for the State of Indiana, No. 1:10-CV-41, was filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

Carter believes Rule 13 violates his due process rights because the rule unconstitutionally prejudges him as "being unfit and incompetent to practice law" here, doesn't allow him the chance to prove his fitness, and believes the educational requirements have no connection to his fitness and ability to practice law in Indiana.

Carter also argued the rule arbitrarily excludes him from the chance to qualify to practice here because of the law schools' admission denials. The suit alleges the rule unconstitutionally denies equal opportunity to qualify to practice law here to those who can't get into law school or can't afford to attend law school.

Carter wants Rule 13 declared unconstitutional, prevent Rule 13 from being enforced, and allow Carter and others who haven't attended law school to prove fitness and capacity to practice law in Indiana.

This is the third suit filed in the past year dealing in some way with fitness and character to join the bar. In December 2009, a lawyer in good standing in Kansas who lives in Fort Wayne filed suit against the BLE in Bryan J. Brown v. Dr. Elizabeth Bowman, Terry Harrel, et al., No. 1:09-CV-346, because he believes the board was biased and discriminatory based on his religious beliefs when it referred him to the Indiana Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program. In July 2009, a Porter County woman filed a federal suit against the BLE in Jane Doe, et al. v. The Individual Members of the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners, No. 1:09-CV-842, charging that certain questions regarding fitness violate her ADA rights relating to mental health.

On Jan. 8, 2010, Magistrate Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson in Doe denied in part the BLE's motion for a protective order to prevent the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana from getting confidential information about bar applicants' answers to questions.

Magistrate Judge Magnus-Stinson found the plaintiffs made the requisite showing that "the need for truth" outweighs the importance of the confidentiality policy set forth in Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 19(3) because the plaintiffs only want anonymous aggregate statistical data from the two most recent bar exams. She ordered the BLE to provide the specified information no later than Jan. 29, and that the plaintiffs must not disclose this information without giving the BLE advance notice in case it wants to prevent the disclosure.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

  4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

  5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

ADVERTISEMENT