Golden v. State Bd. of Law Examiners
Decision Date | 30 March 1978 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. K-77-677. |
Citation | 452 F. Supp. 1082 |
Parties | Vicki Greene GOLDEN v. STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Harold Buchman, Baltimore, Md., and Alan B. Morrison, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., and Diana G. Motz, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Md., for defendants.
Plaintiff asks this Court to declare unconstitutional and to enjoin enforcement of Rule 10 of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar of Maryland.1 Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3), the jurisdictional counterpart of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.2
On January 18, 1977, Golden, who resides in Washington, D. C.,3 filed an application for registration as a candidate for admission to the Maryland Bar and a petition to take the Maryland Bar examination scheduled in July 1977. She received in response a letter from the Secretary of the Maryland State Board of Law Examiners which letter stated, in pertinent part:
Rule 10 provides:
Neither Rule 10 nor any other rule requires that residence exist at any times other than at registration for, and at the time of taking of, the bar exam, and at admission. Nor must an applicant maintain Maryland residency for any extended period of time. Rule 5(a)6 does, however, require that the applicant be a domiciliary of Maryland twenty days prior to the examination. Golden contends that Rule 10 violates the equal protection clause,7 the privileges and immunities clauses,8 and the commerce clause.9 Defendants seek summary judgment10 with regard to each of those challenges — challenges which are of a type which have been asserted in our increasingly mobile society within the present decade in a number of cases involving residency requirements of states other than Maryland, for bar examinations and admission to practice law. Most states do have such requirements though they differ substantially in content. The developing case law is most instructive with relation to the three-pronged attack plaintiff mounts herein.
In Suffling v. Bondurant, 339 F.Supp. 257 (D.N.M.), aff'd mem. sub nom., Rose v. Bondurant, 409 U.S. 1020, 93 S.Ct. 460, 34 L.Ed.2d 312 (1972), the majority of the three-judge court sustained the constitutionality of a New Mexico rule which prevented persons who had passed the New Mexico Bar exam from being admitted to practice law in New Mexico until they had accumulated a six-month period of New Mexico residency either before, or before and after, the bar exam. The majority of the Court concluded that that rule did not deny equal protection because it allowed the community a reasonable period of time to observe and evaluate the applicant's moral character. Judge Bratton, dissenting, found no valid state purpose. The majority opinion (at 259-60) reviewed a number of cases previously decided with regard to the bar-residency requirements of other states and based its conclusion on its understanding of their teachings:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jadd, Matter of
...requirement for bar admission on examination met privileges and immunities standards has also been vacated. See Golden v. State Bd. of Law Examiners, 452 F.Supp. 1082 (D.Md.1978), vacated as moot, 614 F.2d 943 (4th Cir.1980). 11 Various arguments in support of a residency requirement for ad......
-
Piper v. Supreme Court of New Hampshire, C82-135-L.
...the outer limits of this higher standard and additional qualifications is the Constitution. We quote from Golden v. State Board of Bar Examiners, 452 F.Supp. 1082, 1087 (D.Md.1978), a case decided three months prior to Hicklin v. Orbeck1 that upheld a residency requirement: The "local custo......
-
Stalland v. South Dakota Bd. of Bar Examiners, Civ. No. 81-3046.
...See, Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437 U.S. 518, 534, n. 19, 98 S.Ct. 2482, 2492, n. 19, 57 L.Ed.2d 397 (1978). In Golden v. State Board of Law Examiners, 452 F.Supp. 1082 (D.Md.1978), vacated, 614 F.2d 943 (4th Cir. 1980), the district court cited many of the cases which determined the validity of Ba......