« Law - "Online Bullies Pull Schools Into the Fray" | Main | Ind. Gov't. - "Probe of ex-toxicology chief likely" »

Monday, July 05, 2010

Ind. Courts - "Lawsuit argues anyone who passes bar exam should be licensed; state says law school graduation is vital"

Jon Murray of the Indianapolis Star reports today in a long story headed "Ex-con fights to become a lawyer." Some quotes:

Like a lot of prisoners, Clarence K. Carter spent his days brushing up on the law so he could draft a torrent of court motions and petitions in a bid to overturn his conviction.

But he was no mere jailhouse lawyer. Since his time was up six years ago, he has tried to become the real thing -- and now he is turning to the courts, once again, in a long-shot attempt to conquer his biggest barrier.
Advertisement

A federal lawsuit filed by Carter against state court officials takes aim at what he sees as an unfair rule. It requires graduation from law school to take Indiana's bar exam, necessary to become a licensed lawyer.

Carter, 47, maintains the law school rule violates the constitutional rights of people like him who have tried to follow the prescribed route but failed to get in to law school.

"All I'm asking for is the opportunity to prove I'm competent to practice law," Carter said during an interview last week at his brother's home on Indianapolis' Far Eastside. * * *

The Indiana attorney general's office has requested a quick dismissal of Carter's suit.

"Our position is that the Rule 13 educational requirement is not only lawful but also is a reasonable precondition for those desiring to enter the legal profession," said Bryan Corbin, the attorney general's spokesman. "We intend to vigorously defend this rule from the plaintiff's challenge."

But Carter calls the rule arbitrary, and his suit presses claims that it violates the U.S. Constitution's due process and equal protection guarantees.

Indiana's law school requirement is hardly unusual, and legal experts say state judicial officials have wide latitude to set admission rules.

The vast majority of states have a similar restriction. Even the seven states that allow some alternative -- including California, New York and Virginia -- require that an applicant study for an extended period with a lawyer or a judge. * * *

His own legal work challenging his conviction and 30-year prison sentence for cocaine dealing proved unsuccessful, though he did notch one short-lived victory.

In granting Carter a new trial in 2000, a federal judge in Northern Indiana noted that his previous legal briefs were "truly remarkable presentations by a pro se prisoner."

A federal appeals court later overturned the ruling.

Carter makes a bold claim: Let him sit for the rigorous two-day bar exam in the next year, and he will pass it.

"Who's more qualified to practice law?" Carter said. "The person who graduated from law school but failed the bar exam, or the person who didn't go to law school but passed?" * * *

Even if Carter's suit prevails, and he is able to take the exam, he will face another hurdle -- that felony record.

It has already been "a scarlet letter" in his efforts to find work as a paralegal, he said. And under another of the state Supreme Court's admission rules, that record would automatically disqualify him from earning the finding of "good moral character" required to practice law, unless he convinces officials otherwise.

The ILB has earlier, but dissimilar, entries on challenges to the bar exam, including this one from Jan. 30, 2010, headed "ACLU Lawsuit claims Indiana law examiners violate the ADA " and this one from Dec. 3, 2009, headed "Concord Online Law School Places Second in National Moot Court Competition". Perhaps closest is this entry from Feb. 8, 2010, headed "A former bank robber, Shon R. Hopwood emerged from more than a decade in federal prison as a skilled Supreme Court practitioner."

Posted by Marcia Oddi on July 5, 2010 09:30 AM
Posted to Indiana Courts