proRo class 20

NH v. piper
piper lives in VT, and applied to take the NH bar exam. she was allowed to take it and passed it, but was informed by the board she would have to establish an NH address prior to being sworn in. piper stated that being a resident was a burdensome inconvenience under the Privileges and Immunities Clause. the NH clerk denied her application. state argued that instate lawyers are better equipped to represent clients. the court found that the practice of law is within the ken of the P&I clause. but even still, the court finds that there is a balancing test of "substantiability" to the state's objectives (provided the state has narrowly tailored its acts to the purpose). the state says that there are legit reasons to bar membership to state residents only. the court says the state's claim is not supported, and its interests can be protected through less restrictive means.

written by j.powell, who comes from a small practice and small town-lawyer mentality. do we buy the argument that

why wouldn't it be important to impede lawyers from practicing in other states?

see friedman, similar issues.

the state argued that the

"bonding cost" - a cost an agent bears to ensure the principle that the party will act in accord with the principle's wishes.
"the question is whether lawyers who are admitted are less likely to respect the bar and further its itnerests solely because they are nonresidents."

in re mustafa
character and fitness inquiry.
1. financial probity
2. criminal conduct

in re XX. applicant declares bankruptcy when law school debts were used to finance wedding and honeymoon etc, and is admitted to the bar. compare to gahan case: the law firm is supposed to pay him $15K but then reneges on his obligation and he has no choice but to resign. he declares bankruptcy because he can't pay his student loans. the MN board denies his admission and the sup ct confirms because his failure to pay the debt demonstrates lack of moral character. is there a difference as far as admission to the bar should be concerned? essentially being punished for declaring bankruptcy.

in re mustafa.
untrustworthy with money, and has a propensity to mismanage funds. an attorney who did this would be subject to disbarrment. and the fact that it's recent, and an attorney would be disbarred, mustafa should not be admitted though he's a great guy.... but later, mustafa does the same once he's admitted to the bar.... should he have been denied based solely at the time to what the DC examiners knew about his law school conduct? we really can't judge character from a single incident, even if one knows the particular ins and outs of the incident, and can't know what type of character will be evinced in the future. sort of like criminal law: should we use someone's past to make judgment harder?

prediction: fitness and character inquiry can/should show likelihood to future behavior. but maybe this ins't the reason for this -- there are better ways to handle character and fitness. what if the reason for this is punishment?

in re converse. petitioner had finished his studies, but the dean said "the bar app should be denied" -- converse sent the dean a rude letter, and complained to the justices of the SD sup ct additionally, listing the ways the law professors at the school claimed they knew more than the court. investigated the salaries of professors. posted a naked woman's picture in his carrel in the law library. the bar denies him because he has abusive and turbulent behavior.

pot problem.
you are applying to the bar, and it asks if you have used illegal drugs in the last 3 years and to provide details. you have smoked and it was 3 weeks ago. you disclose. how do you answer?

see rule 8.1: an applicant for admission shall not (a) make false statment (b) fail to admit fact needed to know for admission, except 1.6 information