Case Title: In re Conner

Citation: 2006 VT 131

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2006-12-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Conner (2005-495)

2006 VT 131

[FILED 27-Dec-2006]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2006 VT 131

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2005-495

                               MAY TERM, 2006


  In re Cheryl Conner                 }          APPEALED FROM:
                                      }
                                      }
                                      }          Board of Bar Examiners
                                      }

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Cheryl L. Conner appeals from a decision of the Vermont Board
  of Bar Examiners denying her application for admission to the bar on
  motion.  Conner contends the Board erred in declining to credit her
  law-school teaching experience toward the "active-practice" requirement,
  arguing that: (1) her experience as director of a clinical internship
  program qualifies her for admission; (2) Vermont's reciprocity rule compels
  her admission under the standards of her home state of Massachusetts; and
  (3) the Vermont Rules of Admission violate her federal constitutional
  rights.  We affirm.
        
       ¶  2.  The record reveals the following facts.  In August 2005, Conner
  filed a petition for admission without examination to the Vermont bar. 
  Under our rules of admission, an applicant may be admitted "upon motion
  without examination" provided that the applicant "has been actively engaged
  in the practice of law for five of the preceding ten years in one or more
  jurisdictions of the United States."  Vermont Rules of Admission to the Bar
  § 7(a). (FN1)  Conner's application indicated that she had been licensed to
  practice law in Massachusetts since 1982.  It indicated further that, for
  six of the immediately preceding ten years (August 1995 through July 2001),
  she had been employed as the assistant director and director of a clinical
  internship program at Suffolk University Law School in Boston,
  Massachusetts.  After leaving the program in 2001, Conner worked in a
  succession of positions in Boston, including one year with a "law and
  dispute resolution firm," ten months with an organization called New
  Prospects for Justice where she described her duties as "lawyer, consulting
  and public speaking," and ten months with a research center associated with
  Northeastern University where she "supervised researchers and conducted
  legal research."  Conner then moved to Vermont, completed her three-month
  clerkship requirement in early 2005, and since then has worked for herself
  under the name "New Prospects LLC," describing her duties as "[t]eaching,
  consulting, [and] advocacy," including handling one case before the Public
  Service Board.         

       ¶  3.  By letter dated September 8, 2005, the Board informed Conner
  that law school teaching does not qualify as the "practice of law" under §
  7(f) of the Rules. That section sets forth several specific "activities"
  included within the meaning of active practice, including "the
  representation of one or more clients in the private practice of law,"
  service as a lawyer with a government agency, service as a judge or
  judicial law clerk, and service as "in-house corporate counsel."  The
  section does not, however, include law-school teaching, and this Court has
  specifically rejected the Board's recommendation to include teaching within
  the definition of the "practice of law."  The Board, accordingly, requested
  further detailed information from Conner on her previous employment,
  particularly with respect to the exact nature of her duties as
  administrative director of the clinical program at Suffolk University Law
  School.  

       ¶  4.  Conner responded by letter, dated September 12, 2005, in
  which she elaborated on her functions as former director of the clinical
  internship program.  She described the position as "overseeing the
  participation of some 13 faculty members as mentors and 500 placements in
  or around Massachusetts."  As she explained, her duties in this position
  included "counseling" students who seek an intern position, "contact[ing]"
  firms in need of legal support, "matching" students with client agencies,
  teaching a variety of courses on legal practice, reviewing student journals
  and discussing the issues they raised, and meeting with client agencies to
  evaluate student performance.  Conner also represented that a course she
  offered on the "integration of spiritual and ethical values within law
  practice" had gained national recognition, and had resulted in her
  counseling many lawyers and law students "trying to make sense of their
  values and religious lives." 

       ¶  5.  After further review, the Board informed Conner, by letter
  dated October 11, 2005, that her duties as director of the clinical program
  at Suffolk did not qualify as the active practice of law, and that her
  petition for admission on motion had, therefore, been denied.  This appeal
  followed. 

                                     I.

       ¶  6.  Conner first asserts that the "practice-based" nature of her
  clinical teaching experience warrants a "waiver" of the law-teaching
  exclusion.  We evaluate the claim against a well-established regulatory
  backdrop.  Courts maintain a strong interest in ensuring the competency of
  legal practitioners within their jurisdictions, and to this end enjoy broad
  power to establish licensing standards for lawyers as officers of the
  court.  See Goldfarb v. Va. State Bar,