U .S . DISTRICT Cc '

C .sr r•- c . .

UNfl'ED SI'ATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRIC'I OF NEW I IAMPSI IIRE .

; I

Civil Action . File Number

PL'I ER D. PREVETT, )

PLAINTIFF )

V . )

'1I11 ; SUPRI :ME COURT OF'111k S'IATE

OF NEW HAMPSI IIRI?,

DEFENDANT

13ARTIES

VERIFIED COMPLAIN T

1 . I he Plaintiff, Peter D. Prcvett (hereinafter "Plaintiff'), is an individual who resides at

39 Spring I lill Rd ., Mt . Vernon, NI 10057 .

2 . The Defendant. The Supreme Court of the State of New Hampshire (hereinafte r

" Supreme Court"'or "Defendant") . is ajudicial body created pursuant to Article 72-a of the New

I lampshire Constitution and maintains its principal place of business at the Supreme Court

13uilding on Noble Drive in Concord, NH 03301 .

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3 . I his Court hasjurisdiction of this action under 28 U . S.C . §1331 and 28 U .S.C . § 2201

and the Venue is proper under 28 U .S.C . §1391(b) as both parties reside in or conduct business in

the State of Ne s I lampshirc .

STATEMENT OF FACTS

4. Plaintiff graduated from the Massachusetts School of Law in Andover, MA

(hereinafter "MSL") in 1991 . MSL is a not an accredited law school according to the guidelines

set by the American 13ar Association (hercinafter 'ABA "').

Case 1:06-cv-00183-PB Document 1 Filed 05/15/06 Page 1 of 6
S . PIaintiff was admitted to the Massachusetis Bar on June 20, 1991 and has been a

member in good standing ever since. Additionally, Plaintiff is admitted to practicc in the fedcraI

courts, including the United States Supreme Court .

6. PIaintiff liled an application to sit for the New Hampshire bar exam in 1995 . Since the

Plaintiff had not graduated from an ABA-accredited law school . said application was denied

pursuant to the Ncw I lampshire Supreme Court Rule 42 that was in effect at that tim e

7. Subsequent to the denial of Plaintiffs application to sit for the New Hampshire bar

exam. Plaintifl's research uncovered two (2) cases in which graduates of non ABA-accredited

law schools were allowed to sit for the Ncw I lampshire bar exam . In Re Michael J. Tocci.

SMC87-02I (1987) and ]n Re Roland R. Taminaa, SMC90- . (1990).

8 . Plaintilf'filcd a requcst under the Freedom of Information Act (5 [J.S.C.,§ 552) and

subsequently was givcn access to said files .

9. After studying the Focci and Taminga petitions. Plaintiff filcd a petition with the

Supreme Court. requesting that Plaintiff bc allowed to sit for the New Hampshire bar exam based

on 'focci and Taminaa and, as a result of the disparate treatment. alleging a violation of the

Plaintiff's rights under the 1?qual Protection Clauses of both the United States Constitution and

the New- I lampshire State Constitution .

10 . Shortly after Plaintiffs petition . the Massachusetts School of Law (MSI .) also filed a

petition with the New I lampshire Supreme Court (B-95-017) requesting the Supreme Court to

allow graduates of MSI, to sit for the Ney I lampshirc bar exam .

The sole bases of thc claim of MSL's Memorandum of Law in support of its petition was that

its(MSI .'s) law program was substantially equivalent to an ABA-accredited law school program

and that MSI,'s law school program was substantially equivalent to that of a law school in an

[?nglish-speaking common law country with a course of study substantially equivalent to that of a

domestic law school approved by the ABA .

I lowever. since foreign law schools in English-speaking, common law countries arc not

evaluatcd by the ABA, they are afforded an evidcntiary opportunity to prove ABA-equivalency

w-hilc [IS non-AB-accredited law schools are not .

11 . After oral arguments by MSI ., the Supreme Court granted MSL's 1995 petition

without comment thercby allowing all MSL graduates to sit for the New Hampshire bar exam .

Neither the Defendant nor the New Hampshire Bar Association opposed the MSL Petition .

12 . the decisions of the New Hampshire Supreme Court. as evidenced by the MSI. 1995

petition above and Tocci and faminea , illustrates that the Cou rt invokes its "rational basis"

argument . re the constitutionality of its rules. when it suits its purpose but . in doing so, in an

inconsistent manner .

Case 1:06-cv-00183-PB Document 1 Filed 05/15/06 Page 2 of 6
1 3 . On October 1 I , 2002, the Supreme Court. pursuant to its authority under Rules 1. I I _

and 42. amended Rule 42 to allow "admission on motion" to the New Hampshire Bar if the bar

applicant satisfies certain additional requirements of Rule 42 (10)(a) . The wordina of Rule 42,

10(a)(ii) rcgarding ABA-accreditation is identical for all categories of New Hampshire bar

admissions including "admission on motion" . Therefore, the interpretation of Rule 42, 10( a)(ii)

should be consistent .

14. On March 11 . 2003, PIaintiff filcd an application with the Supreme Court for

admission on motion" to the New Hampshire Bar . Although Plaintiffsatisfied all other

rcquirements for admission by motion under Rule 42(10)(a) . he was informed that, since he had

not graduated from an ABA-accredited law school, or from a law school in an English-speaking

common law country with a course of study substantially equivalent to that of a law school

approvcd by tile ABA, he would have to file a motion to waive Rule 42(10)(a)(ii) . Plaintiff filed

the above-rclerenced motion on March 25, 2003 and said motion was denied without comment .

15. On or about October 2003 , Plaintiff filed a petition requesting the Supreme Court to

exercise its original jurisdiction and allow the Plaintiff to be admitted "on motion" to the Ne w

I lampshirc Bar, citing as justification the Court's granting of MSL's 1995 previously - refcrcnced

petition which was solcly based on the premise that MSL 's law program was substantially

equivalent to an ABA-accredited law school program or a law school in an English-speaking

common law country with a course of study substantially equivalent to that of a law school

approved by the ABA _

16 . On November 19. 2003. the Supreme Court declined to exercise originaljurisdiction

and denied Plaintiff's petition without either comment or allowing Plaintiff to present evidence

supporting his claim of the ABA-equivalency of MSL's law school program . which opportunity

is aflbrded to foreign law students in English-speaking, common law countries .

17. Plaintiff liled a complaint in the IJnited States District Court(District of Ne w

I lainpshirc) in early 2004 alleging, bnler aliu, the unconstitutionality of Rule 42; however. the

District Court, without oral argument . allowed the State of New Hampshire's Rule 12(b)(6)

motion to dismiss, citing the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine . The United States First C'ircuit Court of

Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision also without oral argument .

Based on a recent US Supreme Court decision . Exxon-hlobil C'orn v. Saudi Basic Induvlries

C( , 125 S . Ct. 1517 (2005). Plaintiff again comes before this Court requesting relief.

C'OUNT I

(Declaratory Judgment)

I S . Plaintiff restates and realleges each of the averments contained in paragraphs I

through 17 as ifset Ibrth herein .

Case 1:06-cv-00183-PB Document 1 Filed 05/15/06 Page 3 of 6
1 9 . The actions of the Defendant. when it promulgates rules regulating the admission of

applicants to the New I lampshirc Bar. constitute non-judicial activity pursuant to current case

law .

W I I I :RFAS . the Plaintiff rcspeetfully requests that this Court declare that New Hampshire

Supreme Court Rule 42 is a non-judicial activity .

COUN I' II

(Violation of Equal Protection )

20 . Plaintiff restates and reallcges each of the averments contained in paragraphs I

through 19 as if set lorth hcrein .

21 . The New I lampshire Supreme Court's Rule 42, in denying domestic, non-ABA

accredited law school graduates the opportunity to apply for admission to the New Hampshire

Bar, whilc allow-ing graduates from a law school in an English-speaking common law country to

apply by producing evidcnce that their lam study program is substantially equivalent to that of a

law school approved by the ABA, constitutcs a violation of Plaintiffs rights under the Equal

Protection Clause of the United States Constitution and Article 14 of the New Hampshire Constitution which requires all persons similarly circumstanced to he treated equally .

WI IERFAS, the Plaintiff respcctfully requests that this Court issue an order declaring the provisions of New I lampshire Supreme Court Rule 42 that unfairly and unconstitutionally distinguish

between a domestic non ABA-accredited school and a law school in an English-speaking

conmion law country w, ith a course of study substantial ly equivalcnt to that of a law school

approved by the AI3A to be a violation of I :qual Protection and . as such, unconstitutional as

written . issue an order prohibiting the enforcement of said provision(s) of New Hampshire

Supreme Court Rule 42 . grant costs and attorneys fees, and grant any other relief the Court

deems just and proper.

COt1NI IlI

(Unconstitutionality of Rule 42 )

22 Plaintiff restatcs and realleges cach of the averments contained in paragraphs I

through 21 as if set Ihrth hcrcin .

21 . New I lampshire Supreme Court's Rule 42 in denying domestic . non-ABA accredited

law school graduates the opportunity to apply for admission to the New I lampshire Bar, while

allowing graduates from a law school in an English-speaking conmion law country to apply by

producing evidence that their law study program is substantially equivalent to that of a law

school approved by the ABA . is unconstitutional because Rule 42, 10(a)(ii) creates an irrebuttable presumption that only graduates of ABA-accredited law schools are fit to practice law.

discriminates against those who have obtained equivalent legal training by other means, and

Case 1:06-cv-00183-PB Document 1 Filed 05/15/06 Page 4 of 6
impermissibly dclcgates to the ABA power to rcgulate the bar in a violation of the United States

Constitution and the New I lampshire Constitution .

WI If:RI .AS . the Plaintiff rcspectfully requests that this Court issue an order declaring the provisions of New I lampshire Supreme Court Rule 42 that unfairly and unconstitutionally distinguish

hetween a domcstic non ABA-accredited school and a law school in an English-speaking

common law countrv with a course of study substantially equivalent to that of a law school

approved by the AI3A to be unconstitutional and issue an order prohibiting the enforcement of

said provision(s) of Ncw I lampshire Supreme Court Rule 42 . grant costs and attornevs fees. and

grant an other relicf the Court deemsjust and proper.

('OUNf IV

(Violation of Procedural Due Process )

24. Plaintiff restates and rcallcges each of the averments contained in paragraphs I

throu<h 2 " as i f set forth herein .

25 . New f lampshire Supreme Court's Rule 42, in dcnving domestic . non-ABA accredited law schools a Ibrum and an opportunity to produce evidence that their law study program is

substantially equivalcnt to that ofa law school program from a law school in an English-speaking

common law countrv constitutes a violation of Procedural Due Process under both the United

States ('onstitution and the New Hampshire Constitution .

W I II[RPAS . the Plaintiff respcctfi lly requests that this Cou rt issue an order declaring the provisions of New I Iampshirc Supreme Court Rule 42 that unfairly and unconstitutionally distinguish

between a domcstic non ABA-accredited school and a law school in an Iinglish- speaking

conunon law country with a course of study substantially equivalent to that of a law school

approved by the ABA to be an unconstitutional violation of Plaintiff's procedural Due Process

rights and issue an order prohibiting the enforcement of said provision (s) Rule 42, gant costs and

attorncy s f ccs, and ~, rant any other relief the Court dccms just and proper .

VI;RIPICA l lON

I. Peter D . Prevett, state under the pain and penalty of perjury that I have read the forcgoing

Verilied Complaint and that (he facts sta[ed therein are , from iny own personal knovledgc .

accurate, and true . except for those facts stated upon information and belief, which I believe to be

true .

Case 1:06-cv-00183-PB Document 1 Filed 05/15/06 Page 5 of 6
Datc : May 8 . 2006 Respectfully Submitted ..

PETER D. PREVE i 1, Pro s e

Prevett & Prcvctt. ITP

2 Elm Sq . . Ste. 22A

Andover. MA 01810

978-474-0840

Case 1:06-cv-00183-PB Document 1 Filed 05/15/06 Page 6 of 6