Opinion ID: 1345636
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: educational qualifications for class i-a applicants

Text: The Commission denied Brown's application because he lacked a first professional degree from an ABA-approved law school. Rule 5A(1)(b) requires a Class I-A applicant to have attained educational qualifications at least equal to those required of Class II applicants (i.e., those required to take the written examination). At the time of examination, Class II applicants must possess a J.D. from an ABA-approved law school. See, In re Appeal of Dundee, 249 Neb. 807, 545 N.W.2d 756 (1996); rule 5C. The issue is whether a Class I-A applicant must also possess a J.D. from an ABA-approved law school. In other words, Does the phrase at least equal to in rule 5A(1)(b) mean at least the same as  for purposes of determining educational qualifications for bar admission? Brown denies that the educational requirement of rule 5C (i.e., an ABA-approved J.D.) must directly govern Commission decisions regarding the educational qualifications of Class I-A applicants under rule 5A. Instead, applying dictionary definitions, Brown argues that the phrase at least equal to should be interpreted as requiring a Class I-A applicant's educational qualifications to be at a minimum `like in quality, nature, or status' to the qualifications required of Class II applicants. See brief for appellant at 12. Under this rendering, Brown contends that the Commission should have conducted a formal review of his LL.B. to determine if it is `at least like in quality/nature/status' to a J.D. from an ABA-approved law school. Id. The Commission asserts that educational qualifications at least equal to the rule 5C educational requirement mean that a Class I-A applicant must at least possess an ABA-approved J.D. The Commission argues that a straightforward reading of rule 5A indicates that any education that does not meet the minimum requirement of rule 5C is not at least equal to an education that does so qualify. The Commission also argues that our precedents imply that Class I applicants must possess a J.D. from an ABA-approved law school. The Commission encourages us to impose a strict ABA-approved J.D. requirement because the Commission lacks sufficient standards by which to judge the equivalence of programs not approved by the ABA on a case-by-case basis. There is little case law and no regulatory basis upon which the Commission might assess whether another academic degree qualifies as at least equal to an ABA-approved J.D. Finally, the Commission points out that a denied applicant may petition this court to waive the educational requirement; thus, the Commission believes no harm would follow if we were to set forth a clear standard by interpreting rule 5A as requiring exactly the same educational qualifications as required by rule 5C. The Commission asks this court either to hold that the educational standards for Class I applicants are identical to those for Class II applicants or to give the Commission sufficient standards to apply when making equivalence determinations regarding educational qualifications. Although none of our previous cases are exactly on point, they do provide helpful guidance. In In re Appeal of Dundee, 249 Neb. 807, 545 N.W.2d 756 (1996), an out-of-state attorney applied for admission to the bar without examination as a Class I-B applicant under rule 5A(2). Class I-B applicants must have been licensed to practice law in another state for 5 of the 7 years immediately preceding application, and they must possess educational qualifications at least equal to those required of applicants required to take the bar examination. See rule 5A(2). The applicant in In re Appeal of Dundee held a J.D. from a law school not approved by the ABA and a master of laws degree from a law school approved by the ABA. In In re Appeal of Dundee, we held that the term professional degree in rule 5C contemplates only a J.D. We reasoned that by requiring applicants to possess a J.D. from an ABA-approved law school, we ensure that all Nebraska lawyers receive their basic, `core' legal education according to the minimum standards promulgated by the ABA. 249 Neb. at 810, 545 N.W.2d at 759. Although we did not precisely address the issue of whether Class I applicants under rule 5A must have the same educational qualifications as Class II applicants under rule 5C, we did apply the rule 5C requirement to a Class I-B applicant and stated that the [e]ducational qualifications are contained in rule 5C.... 249 Neb. at 809, 545 N.W.2d at 758. Moreover, as a result of our holding, we denied admission to a Class I-B applicant because he had not received a J.D. from an ABA-approved law school. Therefore, under the at least equal to language of rule 5A(2)(b), we have required a Class I-B applicant to have the same educational qualifications as a Class II applicant. In In re Application of Collins-Bazant, 254 Neb. 614, 578 N.W.2d 38 (1998), the Commission denied a Canadian attorney's request to sit for the bar examination because she had not received a J.D. from an ABA-approved law school. Based on the clear language of rule 5C, this court concluded that rule 5 cannot be interpreted in a way that would allow [the applicant], a graduate of a law school not approved by the ABA, to be admitted to the bar upon examination. 254 Neb. at 619, 578 N.W.2d at 42. In summary, our precedents show that we have interpreted rule 5C strictly to mean that those applying for admission by examination must possess a J.D. from an ABA-approved law school. See, In re Application of Gluckselig, 269 Neb. 995, 697 N.W.2d 686 (2005); In re Application of Collins-Bazant, supra ; In re Appeal of Dundee, supra . We have also applied the rule 5C educational requirement for Class II applicants to a Class I-B applicant. See In re Appeal of Dundee, supra . We hold that the educational qualifications required of a Class I-A applicant are the same as the requirement found in rule 5C (i.e., a first professional degree from an ABA-approved law school). We conclude that Brown's LL.B. attained at a Canadian law school does not satisfy the requirements of rule 5A. We therefore turn to the issue of whether a waiver is appropriate in this case.