Ex parte Ross

• Decision Date: 09 September 1943
• Docket Number: 14595.
• Citation: 26 S.E.2d 880,196 Ga. 499
• Parties: Ex parte ROSS.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

26 S.E.2d 880

196 Ga. 499

Ex parte ROSS.

No. 14595.

Supreme Court of Georgia

September 9, 1943

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A judge of the superior court is neither required nor by law authorized to order issuance of a license to practice law in this State, except to persons licensed to practice law in another State or the District of Columbia, until the applicant has first stood the State bar examination and made at least seventy per cent. on such examination, and the State board of bar examiners has certified to the judge that such applicant is entitled to practice law.

2. Where the petitioner sought admission to the bar of this State, alleging that he had correctly answered all questions in a State bar examination, but that the State Board of bar examiners had discriminated against him because of his African descent and had fraudulently certified to the superior court that he was not entitled to practice law in this State but the evidence failed to show that he had in fact made the requisite grade of seventy per cent. on the examination, or that the board was guilty of any fraud or misconduct towards him, he was not entitled to the relief sought by the petition, whether or not in any event he would be entitled to admission to the bar of this State without a certificate from the State board of bar examiners.

3. The State board of bar examiners is not a quasi-judicial board whose action may be reviewed by the writ of certiorari. Whether or not any complaint which the plaintiff has against that board may be determined by the writ of mandamus, the present proceeding is not a mandamus proceeding and is not an available remedy.

Statement of facts by DUCKWORTH, Justice:

An ex parte written motion of George Elmer Ross, filed in the superior court of Richmond County, Georgia, states that the petitioner desires to become a member of the Georgia bar, and to that end seeks an order admitting him to practice in this State, except in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. The motion asserts that the movant is of African descent, a citizen of the United States and of this State, and has resided since February 4, 1936, in Richmond County. The motion states that movant made application for permission to and did take the State bar examinations held in December, 1939, December, 1940, June, 1941, December, 1941 May, 1942, and December 1942, and that after each of said examinations the State board of bar examiners transmitted their official certificates that movant was not entitled to a license to practice law in this State. The motion refers to the actions of the State board of bar examiners as quasi judicial judgments adverse to the movant.

It is alleged that on December 28, 1942, the judge of the superior court requested the State Board of bar examiners to keep the examination papers bearing date of December 16 and identified by the number 10, and that movant gave timely notice to the State board of his intention to apply for the writ of certiorari, that movant also requested the State Board to advise him what grade he made on the examinations taken in May and December, 1942; that the board replied that under its rules the percentage or grade of those taking the bar examination was never made known, and also stated that the examination papers had been destroyed. The motion asserts that movant has been licensed to practice before the Veterans Administration and to prosecute claims against the United States Government, and that he is also entitled to practice in the district court of the United States and in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, and that he is a graduate of the Chicago Law School. The motion asserts that the court should grant movant a license to practice law as prayed, for various reasons set out therein, among which are that under our law courts have inherent power to do so, and that this rule of common law is still of force in this State, and that the statutory provisions are merely guides to assist the court, but that the court is not bound thereby, and has authority to make its own rules in that connection; that in pursuance of this power the court may disregard the recommendation of the State board of bar examiners, and that the board erred in refusing to notify movant of the grade he made on the various examinations upon his request therefor, and erred in destroying movant's examination papers before he could apply for a writ of certiorari to review their quasi judgment to the effect that he was not entitled to a license to practice law; that although he correctly answered the questions on each of the examinations referred to, the State board of bar examiners because of prejudice and discrimination on account of movant's race and color, certified in each case that he was not entitled to a license to practice law. The prayer was (a) 'that the quasi-judicial judgments of the Georgia State board of bar...