Title: Edward G. Partin II v. State Board of Law Examiners

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Edward G. PARTIN II v. STATE BOARD OF LAW
EXAMINERS

97-683                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
              Opinion delivered September 11, 1997


1.   Attorney & client -- bar admission -- supreme court's jurisdiction solely
     for appellate review. -- Pursuant to Rule XIII of the Rules
     Governing Admission to the Bar, a petitioner must first submit
     any application for initial admission to the Board of Law
     Examiners for determination of eligibility; the supreme court
     does not have original jurisdiction of petitions for admission
     to the bar of Arkansas; rather, the court's jurisdiction in
     connection with applications for admission to the bar is 
     solely for appellate review of the Board's decisions.

2.   Attorney & client -- bar admission -- petition dismissed for lack of
     original jurisdiction -- motion and request moot. -- The supreme court
     dismissed the petition for admission to the bar of Arkansas
     for lack of original jurisdiction and declared the motion for
     consideration of previous record and briefs and request for
     oral argument moot.


     Petition for Admission to the Bar of Arkansas; dismissed.
     Motion for Consideration of Previous Record and Briefs and
Request for Oral Argument; moot.
     Petitioner, pro se.
     Kaplan, Brewer & Maxey, by: Philip E. Kaplan, for respondent.
     Per Curiam. 
     Petitioner Edward G. Partin II has filed  a petition for
admission to the bar of Arkansas and  a motion for consideration of
previous record and briefs and request for oral argument.
     Petitioner sought admission to the Bar of Arkansas in 1993. He
had completed the necessary educational requirements and had passed
the Arkansas bar examination. The Board of Law Examiners refused to
recommend his admission on the ground that he was not morally
qualified.  The Board concluded that Petitioner's efforts at
rehabilitation were not complete in view of what members perceived
as his lack of candor. On appeal, this court affirmed the Board's
decision.  Partin v. Bar of Arkansas, 320 Ark. 37,