In re Bledsoe

Decision Date21 November 1939
Docket NumberCase Number: SCBD-444
Citation1939 OK 506,186 Okla. 264,97 P.2d 556
PartiesIn re BLEDSOE
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court
Syllabus

¶0 1. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT - Legislature's authority to prescribe rules and regulations for admission to bar subject to inherent power of courts in premises.

The Legislature may prescribe rules and regulations for admission to the bar, which the courts will follow; but such rules and regulations must not be unreasonable or deprive the courts of their inherent power to prescribe other rules and conditions of admission to practice.

2. SAME - Provision of act for admission of graduates of "Grade A" law schools without examination held unconstitutional as invading inherent powers of Supreme Court of Oklahoma Court.

Section 4, art. 1, c. 22, Session Laws 1939, which provides that "any graduate of any 'Grade A' law school * * * shall be admitted to the practice of law in the state of Oklahoma, without examination upon motion," constitutes an invasion of the inherent powers of this court to fix the maximum requirements for admission to the practice of law in this state and is unconstitutional and ineffective.

Original application of William Alberty Bledsoe for admission to the bar. Application denied.

Yancey, Spillers & Bush, of Tulsa, for applicant.

OSBORN, J.

¶1 William Alberty Bledsoe has filed his application for admission to the bar of this state. It is his contention that he is entitled to a license to engage in the practice of law without the necessity of a written examination to determine his qualifications, which contention is predicated upon the provisions of section 4, art. 1, c. 22, Session Laws 1939, which act became effective on July 28, 1939. Section 4 provides as follows.

"Any graduate of any 'Grade A' law school as recognized by the Association of American Law Schools, Nation Association of Law Schools, or the American Bar Association, or by the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma, shall be admitted to the practice of law in the State of Oklahoma, without examination upon motion, by the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma, upon presenting to such court a diploma of such graduation and evidence of good moral character; 'Grade A' law school as used in this act shall mean and include any school which is a member of the Association of American Law Schools, National Association of Law Schools, or the American Bar Association, or by the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma; any applicant for admission, under the terms of this section, shall pay the same fee required of other applicants for admission."

¶2 Under the provisions of said section, the applicant, a graduate of the Tulsa Law School, would be entitled to admission to the bar upon motion without examination. The question presented here is whether or not the provisions of said act contravene any provision of the Constitution.

¶3 The argument of the applicant is presented under the following proposition:

"The Constitution of Oklahoma does not deprive the Legislature of the right to prescribe qualifications for the admission of lawyers to engage in the practice of law in this state, and there being no prohibition in the Constitution, the Legislature has a right to prescribe the qualifications."

¶4 There is no provision of the Constitution which specifically fixes the authority for determining the qualifications for admission to the bar in either the legislative or the judicial branch of the government. The only applicable provision of the Constitution is section 1, art. 4, which is as follows:

"The powers of the government of the State of Oklahoma shall be divided into three separate departments: The Legislative, Executive and Judicial; and except as provided in this Constitution, the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Departments of government shall be separate and distinct, and neither shall exercise the powers properly belonging to either of the others."

¶5 It appears that a constitutional provision similar to our own relating to the division of powers is found in the Constitutions of most of the states, and said provisions have been before the courts on numerous occasions in connection with the problem here presented. The Legislature is not without authority to prescribe qualifications for admission to the practice of law. Neither is such authority without limitation. The bounds of such authority are well stated in the case of In re Opinion of the Justices (Mass.) 180 N.E. 725, 81 A. L. R. 1050, wherein it was said:

"Numerous statutes have been passed making provision in aid of the judicial department in reaching a proper selection of those qualified for admission as attorneys to practice in the courts. It is not necessary to review them in detail. Like many other statutes, they have been enacted to enable the courts to perform their duties. They have been enacted, also, in the exercise of the police power to protect the public from those lacking in ability, falling short in learning, or deficient in moral qualities, and thus incapable of maintaining the high standard of conduct justly to be expected of members of the bar. No statute can control the judicial department in the performance of its duty to decide who shall enjoy the privilege of practicing law. Statutes hitherto enacted have been followed as the basis of its action. No contentions have arisen in the courts concerning their validity. Statutes respecting admissions to the bar, which afford appropriate instrumentalities for the ascertainment of qualifications of applicants, are no encroachment on the judicial department. They are convenient, if not essential, to enable the judicial department properly to perform this duty. The establishment, in 1897, of a state board of bar examiners, in place of the county boards previously existing, is an example. Statutes of that nature are valid provided they do not infringe on the right of the judicial department to determine who shall exercise the privilege of practicing in the courts and under what circumstances and with what qualifications persons shall be admitted to that end. When and so far as statutes specify qualifications and accomplishments, they will be regarded as
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Heiberger v. Clark
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • March 21, 1961
    ... ... 519; Opinion of the Justices, 279 Mass. 607, 609, 180 N.E. 725, 81 A.L.R. 1059; State ex rel. Ralston v. Turner, 141 Neb. 556, 571, 4 N.W.2d 302, 144 A.L.R. 138; Application of Sedillio, 66 N.M. 267, 271, 347 P.2d 162; Olmsted's Case, 292 Pa. 96, 103, 140 A. 634; [148 Conn. 186] In re Bledsoe, 186 Okl. 264, 266, 97 P.2d 556; Application of Levy, 23 Wash.2d 607, 612, 161 P.2d 651, 162 A.L.R. 805; In re Cannon, 206 Wis. 374, 379, 240 N.W. 441; 5 Am.Jur. 271, § 15. Some of the cases cited take the position that the legislature can, in the exercise of its police power, prescribe minimum ... ...
  • Application of Kaufman
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • May 16, 1949
    ... ... 899, 28 P.2d 765 at page ... 769; Ralston v. Turner, 141 Neb. 556, 4 N.W.2d 302 ... at page 308, 144 A.L.R. 138; State v. Greathouse, 55 ... Nev. 409, 36 P.2d 357; In re Bozarth, Okl., supra; In re ... Integration of State Bar of Oklahoma, 185 Okl. 505, 95 ... P.2d 113; In re Bledsoe, 186 Okl. 264, 97 P.2d 556 ... at page 557; Integration of Bar Case, 244 Wis. 8, 11 N.W.2d ... 604, 12 N.W.2d 699, 151 A.L.R. 586. See Graustein v ... Barry, 315 Mass. 518, 53 N.E.2d 568. The general ... statements in In re Platz, 60 Nev. 296, 108 P.2d ... 858, are not supportive of the ... ...
  • R. J. Edwards, Inc. v. Hert
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • November 28, 1972
    ... ...         It clearly appears from our course that we vindicated the constitutional authority of this Court to integrate the bar of this State and otherwise to regulate and control the practice of law. This position was made clearer when, shortly after, the proceeding entitled In re Bledsoe, 186 Okl. 264, 97 P.2d 556 (1939), came before us. We there held invalid Section 4 of the Act of 1939, repealing the State Bar Act, which section expressly undertook to give effect to an asserted legislative control over the bar and admissions thereto (Sections 1, 2), by enacting that the ... ...
  • Ruckenbrod v. Mullins
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • January 19, 1943
    ... ... disbarment is inherently with the courts. See In re ... Bozarth , 178 Okla. 427, 63 P.2d 726, 728 (Citing cases ... from 25 Jurisdictions adhering to this rule); State ex ... rel. Ralston v. Turner, Neb. , 4 N.W.2d 302; ... In re Lavine , 2 Cal.2d 324, 41 P.2d 161; In re ... Bledsoe , 186 Okla. 264, 97 P.2d 556; In re Day , ... 181 Ill. 73, 54 N.E. 646, 50 L.R.A. 519. This freedom from ... control by all except the courts in which they are officers ... is deemed a privilege ... It has ... been suggested that to require an attorney to render his ... services ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT