AGE;
SECTION 3. SHALL HAVE MET ALL THE CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH WHICH MAY BE APPLICABLE;
SECTION 4. SHALL TAKE THE FOLLOWING OATH AND FILE THE SAME WITH THE CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT. . . .
SECTION 5. SHALL HAVE SIGNED THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS.
SUBSEQUENT RULES SET FORTH TWO DIFFERENT METHODS OF QUALIFYING FOR ADMISSION TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW: (1) ADMISSION UPON MOTION WITHOUT EXAMINATION (AVAILABLE UNDER RULE 2 TO CERTAIN JUDGES AND INDIVIDUALS ADMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW IN OTHER STATES); AND (2) ADMISSION BY EXAMINATION (REQUIRED UNDER RULE 4 FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR ADMISSION UPON MOTION). IN ADDITION TO THESE TWO METHODS, RULE 9 PROVIDES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY PERMITS TO PRACTICE LAW. IT STATES:
TEMPORARY PERMITS TO PRACTICE LAW UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF THE NEXT SUCCEEDING BAR EXAMINATION AND REPORT OF THE RESULTS THEREOF MAY BE GRANTED UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS AFTER A SHOWING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY AND IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR WHERE A CASE OF EXTREME HARDSHIP IS SHOWN, PROVIDED THE APPLICANT HAS TAKEN AND PASSED THE MULTI-STATE PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY EXAMINATION. ALL APPLICANTS FOR TEMPORARY PERMITS TO PRACTICE LAW SHALL FILE WITH THE BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS AN APPLICATION FOR SUCH TEMPORARY PERMIT IN ADDITION TO THE REGULAR APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR EXAMINATION. THE BOARD SHALL, AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE, RECORD ITS RECOMMENDATION ON SUCH APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT TO THE SUPREME COURT TOGETHER WITH A COPY OF SUCH APPLICATION.
RULE 10 LIMITS THE PERIOD FOR WHICH TEMPORARY PERMITS MAY BE ISSUED AS FOLLOWS:
THE TEMPORARY PERMIT OF ANY PERSON WHO TAKES THE BAR EXAMINATION SHALL EXPIRE ON THE DATE THAT THE SUCCESSFUL APPLICANTS AT THAT EXAMINATION ARE SWORN IN PROVIDED THAT THE TEMPORARY PERMIT OF ANY PERSON WHO FAILS THE BAR EXAMINATION SHALL BE REVOKED EFFECTIVELY IMMEDIATELY UPON THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE RESULTS OF SUCH BAR EXAMINATION BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OR DIRECTOR OF THE BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS.
IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE TERM "DULY LICENSED ATTORNEY" INCLUDES HOLDERS OF RULE 9 PERMITS, ONE MUST APPLY SEVERAL WELL ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION. FIRST, "THE CARDINAL RU LE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES IS TO ASCERTAIN THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE BY CONSIDERATION OF THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE." WALKER V. ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY CO., 671 P.2D 672, 673 (OKLA. 1983). IN ADDITION, IN THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC DEFINITION SET FORTH IN THE STATUTE ITSELF, WORDS AND PHRASES ARE TO BE GIVEN THEIR ORDINARY MEANINGS. STATE EX REL. CARTWRIQHT V. GEORGIA PACIFIC CORP., 663 P.2D 718, 722 (OKLA. 1982). IN THIS INSTANCE, BOTH THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT UNDERLYING SECTION 215.2(B) AND THE ORDINARY MEANING OF THE TERM "DULY LICENSED ATTORNEY" INDICATE THAT RULE 9 PRACTICE MAY BE PROPERLY COUNTED UNDER THE EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENT FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
AS TO LEGISLATIVE INTENT, I HAVE UNEARTHED NO LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OR CASE LAW EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR THE ENACTMENT OF SECTION 215.2. HOWEVER, I DO NOTE THAT TIME-BASED EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS SIMILAR TO THOSE SET FORTH IN