ILNews

Lawsuit to take bar exam goes to 7th Circuit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


The man who believes he should be able to sit for the bar exam even though he didn’t go to law school has asked the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider the dismissal of his lawsuit.

Clarence K. Carter sued the Indiana Supreme Court and state Board of Law Examiners because he wants to take the bar exam despite not having attended law school. Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana 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 argues the Indiana Supreme Court justices and the BLE violated his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection to sit for the bar exam. Carter applied to law schools, but was not accepted. Admission Rule 13 provides the educational requirements to sit for the exam, which he believes unconstitutionally prejudges him as being unfit to practice law in Indiana and doesn’t allow him to prove his fitness. He also argues the educational requirements have no bearing on his fitness and ability to practice law.

Carter had his first suit dismissed in March 2010 by Chief Judge Richard Young for not paying the filing fee. He then filed a nearly identical suit shortly after the first dismissal. Carter filed his appeal to the 7th Circuit at the end of March 2011. The docket for the case notes the original record on appeal was filed electronically April 20.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Fair and balanced?
    I am wondering why this appeal to the Seventh Circuit is covered by this paper while mine is not? The subject matter is similar, both alleging unconstitutional bad admission actions on the part of the Indiana judiciary. www.archangelinstitute.org

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

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. I just wanted to point out that Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, Senator Feinstein, former Senate majority leader Bill Frist, and former attorney general John Ashcroft are responsible for this rubbish. We need to keep a eye on these corrupt, arrogant, and incompetent fools.

  2. Well I guess our politicians have decided to give these idiot federal prosecutors unlimited power. Now if I guy bounces a fifty-dollar check, the U.S. attorney can intentionally wait for twenty-five years or so and have the check swabbed for DNA and file charges. These power hungry federal prosecutors now have unlimited power to mess with people. we can thank Wisconsin's Jim Sensenbrenner and Diane Feinstein, John Achcroft and Bill Frist for this one. Way to go, idiots.

  3. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  4. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  5. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

ADVERTISEMENT