Opinion ID: 393956
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: different flight same destination

Text: 24 Although we have now concluded that in our original opinion we boarded the wrong flight when we reversed the district court on jurisdictional grounds, see Sawyer v. Overton, 595 F.2d 252 (5th Cir. 1979) (panel concluded that Mr. Sawyer had boarded the wrong flight when he filed a § 1983 suit in federal district court seeking reversal of state court judgment which could have been reviewed in the Supreme Court), we find, upon taking the proper course of reviewing the merits in this case, that we reach the same destination the judgment of the district court must be reversed. 25 The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Ms. Dasher on the basis of the following findings: (1) that at the time Ms. Dasher applied to take the Texas bar exam, there was no requirement that an applicant be a graduate of a law school accredited by the ABA in order to sit for the Texas exam, only a requirement that the applicant be a graduate of a school approved by the Texas Supreme Court; (2) that Mr. Barrow's letter of May 30, 1978 effected a change in the rules governing eligibility for the exam by imposing a requirement of graduation from an ABA accredited school; (3) that this change adversely affected the liberty and property interests of Ms. Dasher; and (4) that Ms. Dasher was deprived of procedural due process because she was not given notice or an opportunity to be heard before this change was made. Our review of the record in this case has left us firmly convinced that the district court's finding that Mr. Barrow's letter changed the bar admission rules is clearly erroneous. We further conclude that even if we were to assume that Mr. Barrow's letter altered the rules, Ms. Dasher was in no way adversely affected by such a change because the San Francisco Law School did not meet the educational standards prescribed in Rule VI(A) and therefore had no entitlement to approval from the Texas Supreme Court. 26 Ms. Dasher claims that the rules governing admission to the Texas bar were changed by Mr. Barrow's May 30, 1978 letter to Ms. Dasher's counsel in which Mr. Barrow stated: 27 The Board construes Rule XII(h), particularly the portion, ... and who meets all other requirements of these rules ... as requiring graduation from a law school which has been accredited by the American Bar Association. 28 Ms. Dasher alleges and the district court found that this statement effected a change in the requirements of Rule V which had provided only that an applicant must be a graduate of a law school approved by the Texas Supreme Court. We cannot agree that this statement changed the rules. 29 Ms. Dasher does not dispute the defendants' assertion that at the time this letter was written the list of schools approved by the Texas Supreme Court was coextensive with the list of ABA accredited schools. In other words, there were no schools on the Texas Supreme Court's approved list which were not also ABA accredited. Therefore, as a practical matter, in order to meet the requirements of Rule XII(h) which incorporated the requirements of Rule V, an immigrant attorney who had practiced for less than seven years must have graduated from a law school accredited by the ABA. Under these circumstances it was neither unreasonable nor inaccurate for Mr. Barrow to state that the Board construed Rule XII(h) to involve a requirement of attendance at a school approved by the ABA. Viewed in context, Mr. Barrow's statement was nothing more than a shorthand reference to the fact that the only law schools approved by the Texas Supreme Court were schools accredited by the ABA. 30 There is simply nothing in the record to support an inference that at the time Mr. Barrow wrote this letter or at the time Ms. Dasher received it, this statement was intended by Mr. Barrow or understood by Ms. Dasher to state a change in the rules governing admission to the Texas bar. Following the letter both Ms. Dasher and Mr. Barrow acted as though the rule prescribing approval by the Texas Supreme Court continued to apply. Ms. Dasher's subsequent motion and petition filed with the Texas Supreme Court were premised upon the argument that under Rule VI the court was authorized (indeed, according to Ms. Dasher, required) to approve the San Francisco Law School, even though the school was not accredited by the ABA. Ms. Dasher never suggested to the Texas Supreme Court that Mr. Barrow's letter contained an erroneous construction of Rule XII(h) or Rule VI or an impermissible alteration of either rule. In the Board of Law Examiners' statement in opposition to Ms. Dasher's motion, which was signed by Mr. Barrow, the Board in no way suggested that because the San Francisco Law School was not ABA-approved the Texas Supreme Court could not approve it. Indeed, the Board's statement acknowledged the continued vitality of the rule which allows the Supreme Court to approve law schools meeting certain criteria, regardless of their ABA status, and argued only that the school itself, not an individual graduate thereof, was the proper party to seek such approval from the court. The record thus gives no indication that the statement quoted above from Mr. Barrow's May 30, 1978 letter to Ms. Dasher reflected an effort on the part of the Board to alter the terms of Rule VI at that time so as to deny law schools not accredited by the ABA the right to seek independent approval by the Texas Supreme Court. Nothing in Ms. Dasher's conduct in the period immediately following receipt of the letter indicates that she thought this statement changed the rules; her after-the-fact contention in federal court that this statement effectively altered the rules governing admission to the Texas bar in the midst of her effort to take the bar exam is nothing more than a frivolous, post-hoc, semantic argument. 31 Even if we were to concur in the district court's finding that the rules governing approval of law schools were altered by Mr. Barrow's statement, we would be forced to disagree with the district court's determination that this change adversely affected Ms. Dasher. As we noted above it is undisputed in this case that the San Francisco Law School has never been approved either by the Texas Supreme Court or by the ABA. Under the rules in effect at the time she submitted her application for the bar examination, Ms. Dasher was, therefore, clearly ineligible to sit for the exam. Thus, even if the rules were later changed to impose a requirement of ABA approval, Ms. Dasher was not prejudiced in any way by such a change. Ms. Dasher suggests that if such a rule change occurred, she was prejudiced because the change deprived her of the right to seek to have her law school approved by the Texas Supreme Court so that she could be admitted to the bar exam. Ms. Dasher argues that under the terms of Rule VI(B), the Supreme Court was required to approve the San Francisco Law School upon her request because the school complied with the standards set forth in Rule VI(A). We disagree. 32 As a preliminary matter, we note that although Rule VI(B)(4) specifically provides a mechanism whereby an unapproved school may seek approval on its own behalf, there is simply nothing in the Rules which suggests that an individual student or graduate of an unapproved school may personally initiate proceedings seeking to have the school approved. We note further that even if the rules were somehow construed to permit a procedure whereby an individual student or graduate could seek to have his or her school approved by the court, Ms. Dasher's argument that the Texas Supreme Court would be required under its own rules to approve the San Francisco Law School is erroneous. Ms. Dasher contends that the language of Rule VI(B) stating that The Supreme Court shall approve law schools which meet the standards specified in (Rule VI(A)), means that the court has no discretion to refuse to approve schools meeting the standards set forth in part A of Rule VI; she also contends that the San Francisco Law School meets those standards and therefore reasons that if Rule VI has not been altered by Mr. Barrow's statement to require graduation from an ABA accredited school, she must be deemed a graduate of a law school entitled to be approved by the Texas Supreme Court. The most fundamental problem with this argument is that even if we were to agree with the proposition that the Supreme Court's rules require it to approve schools meeting the standards set forth in Rule VI(A), the court would be under no obligation to approve the San Francisco Law School because the record reflects that it falls short of meeting the educational standards prescribed in this rule in at least two respects. First, Rule VI(A)(6) requires that a law school in order to be approved must admit only students who have completed at least 90 semester hours of college education with an average of C or better. The San Francisco Law School requires, as a condition for regular admission, only the completion of 60 semester hours and provides for the admission, as special students, of persons who have graduated from high school and completed an indefinite amount of college study a limited number of students ... who show graduation from an accredited high school with superior grades, some college-level subjects successfully completed, and outstanding business experience in a field related to law, may be admitted as candidates for a law degree. Sixty-Eighth Annual Announcement of the San Francisco Law School, 1977-78, p. 11. Second, the standards set forth in Rule VI(A) provide that in order to be approved a law school must require the successful completion of 84 semester hours of law school courses. The San Francisco Law School requires students to complete successfully only 80 hours in order to receive the J.D. degree. Thus, even a cursory review of the San Francisco Law School's catalog reveals that it fails to meet two of the more significant educational standards for approval by the Texas Supreme Court. It is clear, therefore, that under the rules in effect at the time Ms. Dasher applied to take the Texas bar examination, the San Francisco Law School was not formally approved by the Texas Supreme Court, nor did the school meet the standards required for approval. Thus, under either the old rules in effect at the time Ms. Dasher applied to take the exam, which required that an applicant for the bar exam be a graduate of a law school approved by the Texas Supreme Court and provided that law schools approved by the ABA were prima facie deemed to have met the standards for approval, or the new rules, which Ms. Dasher contends imposed a strict requirement of ABA approval, Ms. Dasher's position remains precisely the same she is not entitled to sit for the Texas bar examination or to receive a license to practice law in the State of Texas because she did not graduate from a law school whose graduates are eligible for these privileges under either version of these rules. Since the rules in effect at the time Ms. Dasher applied to take the exam in no way granted graduates of law schools not meeting the standards set forth in Rule VI(A) any right or entitlement to take the Texas bar exam or to be admitted to the Texas bar, any later change in these rules no matter how arbitrary or capricious cannot have unconstitutionally deprived Ms. Dasher of any liberty or property interest. Leis v. Flynt, 439 U.S. 438, 445, 99 S.Ct. 698, 702, 58 L.Ed.2d 717 (1979); Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972); Perry v. Sinderman, 408 U.S. 593, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972). 33 Before the district court, Ms. Dasher also claimed that the requirement of graduation from an approved law school created an unconstitutional irrebutable presumption, denied her equal protection and impermissibly infringed upon her constitutionally protected right to travel. On appeal, Ms. Dasher has not briefed these claims nor does she suggest that if we should find, as we have, that the district court's conclusion that her due process rights were violated was erroneous, the summary judgment in her favor should nevertheless be upheld on the basis of one of these other claims. We need not, therefore, discuss any of these other issues. 34 Since we reverse the judgment of the district court, Ms. Dasher is not a prevailing party entitled to attorneys fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and we need not consider her cross-appeal requesting an increase in the amount of attorneys fees awarded her by the district court. 35 The judgment of the district court is REVERSED.