STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

In the Matter of: Sandhya Tulshyan, Applicant 

to the West Virginia Board of Law Examiners 

No. 13-0072 (Original Proceeding) 

Sandhya Tulshyan, Petitioner, pro se. 

FILED 

November 6, 2013
 

released at 3:00 p.m.
 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

John M. Hedges, Esq., for Respondent West Virginia Board of Law Examiners 

MEMORANDUM DECISION
 

This matter is before the Court on the exceptions of the petitioner, Sandhya Tulshyan, to 

the Board of Law Examiners’ (hereinafter “the Board” or “the Board’s”) denial of her application 

to practice law in West Virginia without examination. Petitioner seeks admission to the practice of 

law in West Virginia without examination, commonly referred to as reciprocity, based on her 

license to practice law in New York. The Board concluded that she lacks the required minimum 

educational requirements as a graduate of a foreign law school to be eligible for such admission 

without examination in West Virginia. 

The Court has carefully reviewed and considered the pleadings, together with the appendix 

record before the Court. This case does not involve a substantial question of law and the Court 

does not disagree with the decision of the Board as to the question of law. Therefore a 

memorandum decision is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. We agree 

with the finding of the Board that the petitioner is not eligible for admission to the practice of law 

in West Virginia without examination. 

The petitioner is a graduate of Bishnu Ram Medhi Government Law College in Guwahati, 

India. After moving to the United States, she sought admission to the New York State Bar. New 

York’s rules for eligibility for admission to the practice of law require that an applicant of a foreign 

law school complete twenty credit hours in a program of study at an approved law school in the 

United States. In order to meet this requirement, the petitioner enrolled in the Masters of Law 

Program at Fordham University School of Law and received her LLM degree in May 2004 with 24 

credit hours. Having satisfied the New York educational requirements as an applicant of a foreign 

law school, the petitioner applied for admission to the New York Bar through examination. She 

passed the July 2004 New York bar examination and was admitted to the practice of law in New 

York on May 18, 2005. 

On July 17, 2012, the petitioner filed an application to the West Virginia Board of Law 

Examiners seeking reciprocity admission under Rule 4.0 of the Rules for Admission to the Practice 

1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of Law (hereinafter “Rules for Admission”). The petitioner’s application under Rule 4.0 is based 

upon her prior admission to the State Bar of New York in May 2005 and her active practice of law 

in that state from February 2006 until May 2012. Upon review of the petitioner’s application and 

accompanying records, by letter dated August 8, 2012, the Board of Law Examiners denied the 

petitioner’s application based on the petitioner’s failure to meet the requirements of Rules 2.0 and 

3.0 of the Rules for Admission. Following the denial, the petitioner timely requested an 

administrative hearing pursuant to Rule 6.0 of the Rules for Admission. 

An administrative hearing was held on November 7, 2012. The petitioner testified 

regarding her legal education and her experience practicing law in New York. The hearing 

examiner issued his findings and conclusions in a report dated November 9, 2012. The hearing 

examiner determined that the Board erroneously concluded that the petitioner does not meet the 

requirements in Rules 2.0 and 3.0 of the Rules for Admission. The hearing examiner found that 

since the petitioner passed the bar examination for the State of New York and was admitted to the 

Bar of New York, she established equivalency under Rule 3.0(b)(1). The hearing examiner 

concluded that the fact that the petitioner does not meet the requirements in Rule 3.0(b)(4) is of no 

consequence because she has established equivalency in another manner. 

On December 22, 2012, the Board reviewed the hearing examiner’s report of November 9, 

2012, together with the transcript of the hearing and the documentation that the petitioner 

submitted in support of her application, and the Board voted to deny the petitioner’s application 

based on the petitioner’s failure to meet the educational requirements in Rules 2.0 and 3.0 of the 

Rules for Admission.. In its decision, the Board states: 

Where an applicant is a graduate of a foreign law school, however, at which 

instruction is centered on the legal system of that foreign country, the Board must 

also consider whether the applicant has received substantial instruction on the legal 

system of the United States. In order to accomplish this goal, the West Virginia 

Supreme Court established a threshold requirement that the applicant complete a 

minimum of thirty credit hours at a law school accredited by the ABA. Rule 3.0 

gives no discretion on the part of the Board to waive or modify this requirement, 

regardless of any particular applicant’s other credentials. 

Pursuant to Rule 6(e) of the Rules for Admission, the petitioner filed exceptions to the 

Board’s recommendations on January 18, 2013. She argues that based upon her admission to the 

practice of law in New York and her experience as a practicing attorney in that state for over seven 

years, she should be admitted to practice law in West Virginia pursuant to Rule 4.0. 

The Board filed its Summary Response on March 4, 2013 and argues that Rule 4.0 is not to 

be read in isolation or to the exclusion of the general requirements for admission to practice law. 

The Board asserts that that petitioner, as a reciprocity applicant under Rule 4.0, is not exempt from 

satisfying the general requirements for admission under Rule 2.0 and the educational requirements 

set forth in Rule 3.0 of the Rules for Admission. 

2
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In her Reply Brief filed March 20, 2013, the petitioner argues that based upon the fact that 

New York is one of the states with which West Virginia exercises reciprocity, their standard of 

admission should be considered substantially equivalent to the standards for admission in West 

Virginia, and her reciprocity admission should be automatic. The petitioner asserts that that Court 

can apply Rule 4.0 to the exclusion of Rules 2.0 and 3.0. 

The main issue on appeal is whether the Board correctly concluded that Rule 3.0(b)(4), 

Rules for Admission, applies to all foreign law school graduates seeking admission to practice law 

in West Virginia. 

“This Court reviews de novo the adjudicatory record made before the West Virginia Board 

of Law Examiners with regard to questions of law, questions of application of the law to the facts, 

and questions of whether an applicant should or should not be admitted to the practice of law. 

Although this Court gives respectful consideration to the Board of Law Examiners' 

recommendations, it ultimately exercises its own independent judgment. On the other hand, this 

Court gives substantial deference to the Board of Law Examiners' findings of fact, unless such 

findings are not supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.” 

Syllabus Point 2, Matter of Dortch, 199 W.Va. 571, 486 S.E.2d 311 (1997). 

Article eight, section one et seq. of the West Virginia Constitution vests in the Supreme 

Court of Appeals the authority to define, regulate and control the practice of law in West Virginia. 

Syl. Pt. 1, Daniel V. Lane v. West Virginia State Board of Law Examiners, 170 W.Va. 583, 295 

S.E.2d 670 (1982). Pursuant to this inherent authority, this Court has promulgated the Rules for 

Admission. 

Rule 2.0 of the Rules for Admission sets forth the following general requirements for 

admission: 

An applicant is eligible for admission to the practice of law in West Virginia upon 

establishing to the satisfaction of the Board of Law Examiners: (1) age of at least 

eighteen (18) years; (2) good moral character and fitness; (3) graduation from an 

approved college or university with an A.B., B.S., or higher degree, or its 

equivalent; (4) graduation from an approved law school with an L.L.B., J.D., or its 

equivalent under Rule 3.0(b); (5) passing score on the West Virginia General Bar 

Examination or qualification under Rule 4.0, et seq.; and, (6) passing score on the 

Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination within twenty-five months of 

achieving a passing score on the West Virginia Bar Examination or application for 

admission on motion. Any conviction for false swearing, perjury or any felony, and 

the applicant's prior and subsequent conduct, shall be considered in the 

determination of good moral character and fitness. 

Rule 3.0(b) of the Rules for Admission provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 

(b) Policy on equivalency. —The Board of Law Examiners will consider the following 

circumstances to be the equivalent of completion of a full course of study in a law 

3
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

school accredited by the American Bar Association, and an applicant meeting the 

standards set forth herein shall be presumed to be eligible to take the West Virginia 

Bar Examination; providing that all other requirements set forth in Rule 3.0, et seq., 

for admission to the bar examination are met; Provided, That graduates of 

correspondence law courses, including law schools providing more than 50% of 

classes as Internet-based classes, shall not be eligible to take the West Virginia Bar 

Examination; 

(1) The	 applicant is a graduate of a non-ABA accredited law school who has 

successfully passed the bar examination of another state, the District of Columbia, 

or commonwealth or territory of the United States, and has been admitted to 

practice in such state, district, commonwealth, or territory, or 

.... 

(4)(a) The applicant is a graduate of a law school of a foreign country where the 

common law of England exists as the basis of its jurisprudence, and 

(b) The educational requirements for admission to the bar in said country are 

substantially the same as those of this State, and that the applicant has satisfied those 

requirements, and 

(c) The applicant has successfully completed study at an ABA-accredited law school, 

with a minimum of 30 credit hours of basic courses selected from the following areas 

of law: Professional Responsibility/Legal Ethics, Contracts, Property (Real and 

Personal), Uniform Commercial Code, Criminal Law, Evidence, Business 

Organizations/Corporations, Domestic Relations, Wills, Trusts and Estates, 

Constitutional Law, Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Torts, Federal Taxation and 

Conflict of Laws, and which such study shall be completed within a period of 36 

calendar months from the date of the inception of such study. 

The burden of establishing eligibility to take the bar examination to the satisfaction of 

the Board of Law Examiners shall be on the applicant and upon the institution seeking 

admission to the bar examination for its graduates. 

Id., R. 3.0 

Rule 4.0 of the Rules for Admission sets forth the specific requirements for admission 

based upon reciprocity. Rule 4.0(b) provides: 

(b) Reciprocity requirements. — To be eligible for admission to practice in the State 

of West Virginia upon the basis of admission in any other state, an applicant must 

have been lawfully engaged in the active practice of law for five (5) of the seven (7) 

years next preceding his or her application and must have held a valid license to 

practice law from some state throughout such five year period; and, must demonstrate 

to the Board that the standards of admission in at least one of the states where he or she 

4
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

was previously admitted were, at the time of the applicant’s admission in that state, 

and are now, substantially equivalent to the standards for admission in West Virginia. 

Applying the current West Virginia Rules for Admission, the petitioner’s argument has no 

merit. Rule 4.0 cannot be read in isolation. The petitioner does not satisfy the general requirements 

for admission because she did not complete the requisite 30 hours of education required to satisfy 

the West Virginia Rules for Admission. The general requirements of Rule 2.0 include “graduation 

from an approved law school with an L.L.B., J.D., or its equivalent under Rule 3.0(b).” The 

petitioner is a graduate of Bishnu Ram Medhi Government Law College in Guwahati, India, a law 

school of a foreign country where the common law of England exists as the basis for its 

jurisprudence. It is not an approved law school for purposes of admission to the practice of law in 

West Virginia. Therefore, the petitioner is required to satisfy the equivalency provisions of Rule 

3.0(b). Specifically, Rule 3.0(b)(4)(c) requires that as a graduate of such foreign law school, she 

has to successfully complete study at an ABA-accredited law school, with a minimum of 30 credit 

hours of basic courses selected from certain listed areas of law. The petitioner has successfully 

completed only 24 credit hours at Fordham University School of Law, an ABA-accredited law 

school, which she did to satisfy the educational requirements for eligibility to practice law in New 

York. She does not meet the 30 credit hour requirement of this rule as referenced in the general 

requirements for admission eligibility set forth in Rule 2.0. The standards for admission to practice 

law in New York at the time of petitioner’s admission to practice law in New York were not 

substantially equivalent to the requirements for admission to practice law in West Virginia. 

Petitioner has not met the educational requirements for eligibility to practice law in West Virginia 

as a graduate of a foreign law school. Therefore, she is not currently eligible for admission to 

practice law in West Virginia without examination. 

Upon consideration of the applicable standard of review and the record presented, this Court 

affirms the Board’s finding that the petitioner, Sandhya Tulshyan, is not eligible for admission to 

the practice of law without examination in West Virginia. 

Affirmed. 

ISSUED: November 6, 2013 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

Justice Robin Jean Davis 

Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

DISSENTING: 

Justice Menis Ketchum 

5