In that capacity, I have written countless pre-trial motions, appellate briefs and writs filed by these busy lawyers in both federal and state courts. I have also written and personally argued motions and appeals in the federal courts . In spite of my experience, I am denied the opportunity to practice directly, in my own name, in the California state courts because I am not admitted here. Although I have just related my personal story, I would also like to take a few more minutes to simply mention some reasons why I believe multi-jurisdictional practice and universal reciprocity should be recommended by this Commission. It is my opinion that the entire hypothesis that one can test experienced attorneys on a subjective entry level bar examination to determine whether they are qualified to practice is fundamentally flawed.
Many cases turn as much on facts as on the law.
For a professional licensing test to be valid, it has to measure the skills necessary to practice that profession. Therefore, to use my case as an example, the fact that I was employed as a federal prosecutor for many years is ample demonstration that I am qualified to practice law. It is simply illogical to assume that an attorney who has successfully practiced law in one jurisdiction somehow becomes incompetent or develops amnesia on crossing a state line. These are the reasons why I believe the vast majority of jurisdictions have adopted reciprocity provisions for experienced attorneys, and this Commission should endorse reciprocal State licensing for experienced attorneys. As we enter the 21st Century, it is time to reevaluate the situation, taking into consideration the tremendous advances in technology, communications and mobility that have occurred over the past half-century.