PR SU2008-Dz Cases - CASES I Exam Education Age Citizenship Residency and In-State Office Requirements Pro hac Vice Admission A in re Griffiths(p

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: CASES I. Exam, Education, Age, Citizenship, Residency, and In-State Office Requirements; Pro hac Vice Admission A. in re Griffiths (p. 605) SCOTUS—Citizenship requirements 1. Holding : Under the EP clause a resident alien (green card holder) with a legitimate right to be in the US cannot be denied entry to the bar. However, legal residents who are not citizens are a suspect class under the EP clause, so we apply strict scrutiny to any rules that limit their rights. 2. Does not apply to: a. People on a student visa b. Illegal aliens c. Citizens of another country who have no resident alien status B. Sup. Ct. of Vermont v. Piper (p. 605) SCOTUS—Residency requirements 1. Holding : Practicing law is a fundamental right under the *P & I clause, so states cannot discriminate against nonresidents unless the discrimination is narrowly tailored to a legitimate purpose . This is huge b/c it allows anyone to take bar of any other state, like if want to practice securities law, best to be member of NY bar. C. Facially discriminatory discrimination . Post- Piper cases (Note #2, CB p. 606): 1. Barnard v. Thornston : a. Facts : The Virgin Islands required residency (facially discriminatory, violated the P and I clause) to deter seasonal lawyers and justified it by saying that it couldn’t afford to keep track of lawyers on the mainland; b. Holding ; SC said that a complete bar to nonresidents was unconstitutional b/c not narrowly tailored —Virgin Islands could charge nonresidents more to be a member of the bar if related to extra administrative cost—right now, this seems like the only constitutional way to discriminate against nonresidents. Cannot be a punishment just for administrative costs. 2. Sup. Ct. of VA v. Friedman a. Facts : VA said that residents who went to a VA law school didn’t have to take the bar exam, but that non-residents did (facially discriminatory b/c still makes a residency distinction) and justified by saying they’re likely to know VA law; SC said this was unconstitutional under P & I b/c UVA didn’t offer any VA law courses. 3. Frazier v. Heebe. (Note #1, CB p. 606): a. Facts: Same case as Piper but in the federal system. Used same justifications as Piper , but required residency or an in-state office. b. Holding: SCOTUS using their supervisory power over lower courts invalidated the residency and in state requirement. D. Other Cases 1. Ranta a. Facts : The physical place where the work is done is important (like in Ranta , the court gave P the fees for work done in his home state but denied recovery for work done in other states). The internet will probably break these rules; the Ranta decision doesn’t really make sense in an internet world b. Holding : Non-litigation practice there is no PHV analog, so practicing in another state is not allowed 2. Leis v. Flynt (OH) (not in book) a. Facts : Ohio criminal prosecution. His out of state lawyers show up and make a mistake--they don't apply pro hac vice right away. The lawyers are denied the right to argue. He has basically no right of apply pro hac vice right away....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course F 385 taught by Professor Dzienkowski during the Summer '08 term at University of Texas at Austin.

Page1 / 24

PR SU2008-Dz Cases - CASES I Exam Education Age Citizenship Residency and In-State Office Requirements Pro hac Vice Admission A in re Griffiths(p

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online