STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

FILED In the Matter of: Odegua J. Irivbogbe, Applicant to the 

West Virginia Board of Law Examiners May 30, 2014 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

No. 13-0709 OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Michael J. Farrell, Esq.
 

Farrell, White & Legg PLLC, for Petitioner, Odegua J. Irivbogbe
 

John M. Hedges, Esq.
 

Hedges, Lyons & Shepherd, PLLC, for Respondent
 

West Virginia Board of Law Examiners
 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

This matter is before the Court on the exceptions by the petitioner, Odegua J. Irivbogbe, 

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

application for admission to practice law by bar examination in West Virginia. By decision dated 

November 29, 2012, the Board concluded that the petitioner lacks the required minimum 

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

practice of law by bar examination in the State of 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 Board’s decision. Therefore, a memorandum decision is 

appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. As set forth below, we agree 

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

law in West Virginia by bar examination. 

Facts and Procedural Background 

The petitioner is a graduate of the University of Lagos in Nigeria and applied for 

admission to the New York State Bar through examination. In 2007, she passed the New York 

bar examination and was admitted to practice law in New York in 2008. However, she never 

practiced law in New York. She has since moved to West Virginia, and on July 17, 2012, the 

petitioner filed an application to the West Virginia Board of Law Examiners seeking admission 

by examination under Rule 3.0 of the Rules for Admission to the Practice of Law (hereinafter 

“Rules for Admission”). Upon review of the petitioner’s application and accompanying records, 

1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

by letter dated November 29, 2012, the Board of Law Examiners denied the petitioner’s 

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

and 3.0 of the Rules for Admission. Specifically, the Board found that as a graduate of a law 

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

jurisprudence, Rule 3.0(b)(4) requires, inter alia, that petitioner must successfully complete 

thirty basic credits hours at an ABA-accredited law school. Petitioner has not completed these 

required credits. 

“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, Lane v. W. Va. State Bd. 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 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 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

Following the denial, petitioner timely requested an administrative hearing pursuant to 

Rule 6.0 of the Rules for Admission. An administrative hearing was held on February 25, 2013. 

The petitioner testified regarding her education and experience. The hearing examiner issued his 

findings and conclusions in a report dated May 10, 2013. The hearing examiner concluded that 

the Board’s decision that the petitioner does not meet the educational requirements of the Rules 

for Admission must be affirmed. 

On June 7, 2013, the Board reviewed the hearing examiner’s report, together with the 

transcript of the hearing and the documentation that the petitioner submitted in support of her 

application. 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 stated that when an applicant is a graduate of a foreign law school, the Board 

must consider whether the applicant received substantial instruction on the legal system of the 

United States. In order to accomplish that goal, the Court established in Rule 3.0(b) a threshold 

requirement that the applicant complete a minimum of thirty credit hours at a law school 

accredited by the ABA. Rule 3.0 of the Rules for Admission gives the Board no discretion to 

waive or modify this requirement, regardless of any particular applicant’s other credentials. 

3
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Standard of Review 

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

Court to the Board’s decision. We consider this matter under the following standard: 

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. 

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

Discussion 

In the petitioner’s exceptions, she argues that her legal education at the University of 

Lagos, supplemented by study materials utilized in preparing for the New York bar examination, 

is equivalent to an education received at an ABA-accredited law school, and that she qualifies to 

sit for the West Virginia bar examination. 

She argues further that the Board misapplied the plain language of Rule 3.0(b) of the 

Rules of Admission by only considering Rule 3.0(b)(4) when considering her application. 

Petitioner asserts that she should be permitted to sit for the West Virginia bar examination 

pursuant to Rule 3.0(b)(1), which applies to graduates of non-ABA accredited law schools who 

have passed the bar examination of another state and have been admitted to practice in such 

state. The Board rejected this argument by concluding that the phrase “non-ABA accredited law 

school” in Rule 3.0(b)(1) applies only to law schools in the United States. Petitioner argues that 

the Board is incorrect because the Rule does not include a specific geographic limitation. She 

asserts that her graduation from the University of Lagos, passage of the New York bar 

examination, and subsequent admittance to practice law in the State of New York are sufficient 

to satisfy the requirements of Rule 3.0(b)(1). 

The Board filed its Response Brief and argues that petitioner does not qualify to sit for 

the bar examination because she does not meet the general educational requirements for 

admission to the practice law in West Virginia. The Board asserts that the petitioner, as a 

graduate of a law school of a foreign country, is not exempt from satisfying the general 

requirements for admission under Rule 2.0 and the equivalency educational requirements set 

4
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

forth in Rule 3.0(b)(4) of the Rules for Admission. 

The Board states that Rule 3.0(b) of the Rules for Admission, read in its entirety, supports 

the argument that the phrase “non-ABA accredited law school” does not encompass foreign law 

schools but applies strictly to those located within the United States. The Board examines 

language within paragraphs (b)(1), (2), (3), and (4) of Rule 3.0 of the Rules of Admission to 

demonstrate an express determination of such geographic limitation. The Board asserts that 

graduates of foreign law schools are subject solely to the fourth provision at Rule 3.0(b)(4) of the 

Rules for Admission. The Board takes issue with petitioner’s argument that she has obtained 

educational equivalency as required under Rule 3.0(b)(4) of the Rules for Admission. 

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

applies to all foreign law school graduates seeking admission to practice law in West Virginia. 

We agree with the Board. The Court addressed this issue recently in the reciprocity application to 

practice law of a graduate of a foreign law school. In the Matter of: Sandhya Tulshyan, Applicant 

to the West Virginia Board of Law Examiners, No. 13-0072 (W.Va. Supreme Court, November 

6, 2013)(memorandum decision). The Court held that a graduate of a foreign law school must 

satisfy the general requirements for admission eligibility set forth in Rule 2.0 and is required to 

meet the requirements set forth in Rule 3.0(b) Policy on equivalency. Rule 3.0(b)(1) simply does 

not apply. 

Applying the West Virginia Rules for Admission to the Practice of Law, we conclude 

that the petitioner does not satisfy the general requirements for admission because as a graduate 

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

jurisprudence, she is required to satisfy the equivalency provisions of Rule 3.0(b)(4). This 

includes successful completion of study at an ABA-accredited law school with a minimum of 

thirty credit hours of basic courses selected from certain listed areas of law. This is referenced in 

the general requirements for admission eligibility set forth in Rule 2.0. Petitioner has not met the 

educational requirements for eligibility to practice law in West Virginia. Therefore, she is not 

currently eligible for admission to practice law in West Virginia by examination. 

Finally, the petitioner argues that in denying her application to sit for the bar 

examination, the Board violated her right to equal protection under the law as set forth by both 

the Constitutions of the United States and West Virginia. U.S. Const. amend. IV; W.Va. Const. 

art. III, § 10. “Equal protection of the law is implicated when a classification treats similarly 

situated persons in a disadvantageous manner.” Syl. Pt. 2, in part, Israel v. W.Va. Secondary Sch. 

Activities Comm’n., 182 W.Va. 454, 388 S.E.2d 480 (1989). The petitioner’s claim to an equal 

protection violation was found to be without merit by the Board, and we agree. The Board 

recognized that the petitioner, who was educated in a foreign jurisdiction, is not similarly 

situated to applicants who were educated at ABA-accredited law schools in the United States. 

Likewise, petitioner’s argument that the Board applied a new standard in its evaluation of her 

application, amounting to a violation of the right to due process, is without merit. 

5
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Court affirms the Board’s finding that the petitioner, Odegua J. Irivbogbe, is not eligible for 

admission to the practice of law by examination in West Virginia. 

Affirmed. 

ISSUED: May 30, 2014 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Robin Jean Davis 

Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

DISSENTING: 

Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

6