Case Title: Parks v. Board of Bar Examiners

Citation: 178 Vt. 599, 2005 VT 66, 878 A.2d 297

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2005-06-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
Parks v. Board of Bar Examiners  (2004-399); 178 Vt. 599; 878 A.2d 297

2005 VT 66

[Filed 22-Jun=2005]         

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2005 VT  66

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2004-399

                              MARCH TERM, 2005

  D. Anthony Parks                   }   Original Jurisdiction
                                     }
      v.                             }   APPEALED FROM:
                                     }   
                                     }   Board of Bar Examiners
  Board of Bar Examiners             }

          In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.   Petitioner appeals from a Board of Bar Examiners's decision
  that he does not qualify for admission to practice law in Vermont without
  examination.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.   The principal question on appeal is whether "at the time of
  application [petitioner was] actively engaged in the practice of law for
  five of the preceding ten years in one or more jurisdictions of the United
  States," as required for admission without examination by the  Rules of
  Admission to the Bar of the Vermont Supreme Court (Rules) § 7(a).(FN1)  The
  record discloses that petitioner graduated from law school and was admitted
  to the bar of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 1986.  He engaged in the
  private practice of law in Massachusetts until 1990, and thereafter was in
  private practice in Rhode Island (where he was also admitted) until 1992. 
  Petitioner's application states that from 1992 to September 1999, he worked
  full time as a licensed merchant marine officer, delivering yachts for a
  series of owners in various locales.  Petitioner then returned to the
  active practice of law, working for a small law firm in Rhode Island from
  November 1999 to September 2002.  He then left the firm to work as a solo
  practitioner in Newport, Rhode Island from September 2002 until November
  2003, when he moved to Vermont.  He applied for admission on motion to the
  Vermont Bar on June 29, 2004.

        
       ¶  3.   Thus, from November 1999, when he returned to the active
  practice of law, to November 2003, when he moved to Vermont, petitioner had
  amassed four years of active practice experience.   Although petitioner
  suggested in his application that he continued to work in his solo
  out-of-state practice after moving to Vermont, he provided no details.  The
  record does reveal, however, that during this period-from January to May
  2004-petitioner served a clerkship with the Vermont Defender General's
  Office.  

       ¶  4.   In response to petitioner's application, the Board sent
  petitioner a letter in July 2004, requesting "more detail" about his prior
  practice experience during the ten year period preceding his application,
  1994 to 2004, particularly with respect to his "current Rhode Island
  practice while . . .  living in Vermont."  Petitioner responded with a
  letter describing two cases, one from Rhode Island and one from
  Massachusetts, that he had retained from his out-of-state practice and
  continued to litigate.  In a later affidavit filed in support of this
  appeal, petitioner states that the two cases settled in August 2004.  In
  his responsive letter to the Board, petitioner also appeared to suggest
  that he had engaged in some active practice between 1992 and 1999, when he
  was working full time at sea. He stated that he had provided legal advice
  to a friend in a tort action in Rhode Island, contributed a legal advice
  column to an on-line publication for maritime workers, and "very likely"
  handled certain unspecified types of legal matters.  Petitioner provided no
  further details describing the nature or extent of any legal work during
  this period.(FN2)

       ¶  5.   By letter dated August 18, 2004, the Board informed petitioner
  that it had reviewed his application and responsive letter, and had
  determined that he failed to qualify for admission on motion.  In
  explanation, the Board stated that petitioner's experience from 1994 to
  1999 did not qualify as the practice of law, and that the Board remained
  unclear on how petitioner had maintained his out-of-state practice while
  living in Vermont.  This appeal followed.      

        
       ¶  6.   Although petitioner's several claims are not precisely
  delineated, they appear to consist of the following.  First, he contends
  the Board acted "unreasonably" in disregarding his first six years of
  practice from 1986 to 1992, or at the least should have waived adherence to
  the rule defining the relevant time frame as the ten years preceding the
  petitioner's application, i.e., the period from 1994 to 2004.  While we
  recognize petitioner's earlier experience, we also believe that the focus
  on the ten-year period immediately preceding the application serves the
  important public interest of ensuring that the applicant remains currently
  competent and in good standing not only through active practice but also
  through compliance with any continuing legal education requirements and
  disciplinary rules of the other jurisdiction.  The ten-year timeframe is a
  generous but reasonable means of assuring that the applicant has achieved
  and maintained the skills and fitness required for the practice of law. 
  See Lowrie v. Goldenhersh,