Court Opinion

ID: 9571385
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:31:25.665888+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:23.345550
License: Public Domain

Hunter, J.
This is an application by Robert Leslie Schatz (petitioner) for a writ of mandamus to compel the Board of Governors of the Washington State Bar Association (respondent) to examine the petitioner as to his qualifications for admission to the bar, or, alternatively, for admission to practice on motion.
On June 14, 1971, Robert Leslie Schatz submitted his application to the Board of Governors of the Washington State Bar Association for permission to take the state bar examination conducted in July 1971. The petitioner is a resident of the state of California and graduated from Pep-perdine University School of Law, Santa Ana, California, on July 3, 1970. The law school is not on the list of law schools accredited by the American Bar Association but has been provisionally accredited since July 1, 1970, by the committee of bar examiners of the California State Bar. The petitioner’s application was rejected by the Board of Governors on the basis that he is not a graduate of an approved law school within the scope and meaning of Admission to Practice Rules 2A, which reads:
A. Definitions
A “general applicant” means either (1) a graduate of an approved law school who does not qualify as an attorney applicant under Rule 3, or (2) a registered law clerk who has satisfactorily completed the course of study prescribed by these Rules.
An “approved law school” means a law school approved by the board of governors. The board of governors shall keep a list of approved law schools on file with *606the State Bar Association and the Clerk of the Supreme Court.
The Board of Governors maintains a policy that an approved law school is a law school approved by the Section of Legal Education and Admission to the Bar of the American Bar Association. During the years 1955 through 1965, the Rules for Admission to Practice expressly provided the same (Rule 2B, 47 Wn.2d xxii, xxiii, 1955-65), and the respondent has since continued to adhere to that rule or policy.
The petitioner filed this mandamus proceeding on June 24, 1971. It was ordered, on July 1, 1971, that the petitioner’s application be set for hearing which is now before this court.
The petitioner challenges the constitutionality of the Washington State Bar Act (RCW 2.48 et seq.) on the basis that the authority delegated to the Board of Governors in carrying out its powers constitutes an unlawful delegation of legislative authority contrary to Const, art. 1, § 3, for the reason that no guidelines or standards are enumerated in the statute for the exercise of such power. Our examination of the record, however, shows only one section of the State Bar Act that affects the rights of the petitioner relative to the asserted unlawful delegation of legislative authority. We therefore need to consider only that section, which is RCW 2.48.060:
The said board of governors shall likewise have power, in its discretion, from time to time to adopt rules, subject to the approval of the supreme court, fixing the qualifications, requirements and procedure for admission to the practice of law; and, with such approval, to establish from time to time and enforce rules of professional conduct for all members of the state bar; and, with such approval, to appoint boards or committees to examine applicants for admission; and, to investigate, prosecute and hear all causes involving discipline, disbarment, suspension or reinstatement, and make recommendations thereon to the supreme court; and, with such approval, to prescribe rules establishing the procedure for the investigation and hearing of such matters, and establishing *607county or district agencies to assist therein to the extent provided by such rules: Provided, however, That no person who shall have participated in the investigation or prosecution of any such cause shall sit as a member of any board or committee hearing the same.
(Italics ours.)
The petitioner’s contention that this section of the State Bar Act constitutes an unlawful delegation of legislative authority is wholly without merit. The legislature expressly recognized the primacy of the court in the area of admissions and disbarment when it made the board’s powers' subject to the approval of the Supreme Court under RCW 2.48.060. The language of the statute clearly lodges all ultimate authority in the Supreme Court. The Board of Governors, acting in this area, is an arm of the court, independent of legislative direction. In our recent case, State ex rel. Schwab v. State Bar Ass’n, 80 Wn.2d 266, 493 P.2d 1237 (1971), we cited Clark v. Washington, 366 F.2d 678 (9th Cir. 1966), and Campbell v. Washington State Bar Ass’n, 263 F. Supp. 991 (W.D. Wash. 1967), wherein it was held that the Washington State Bar Association acts as an ’arm of the Supreme Court in conducting proceedings under this section and, in that capacity, is an integral part of the judicial process.
It is well settled by repeated decisions that the power to admit and enroll attorneys in the state of Washington, together with the power to disbar, is exclusively in the Supreme Court. See In re Chi-Dooh Li, 79 Wn.2d 561, 488 P.2d 259 (1971); In re Ballou, 48 Wn.2d 539, 295 P.2d 316 (1956); State ex rel. Laughlin v. State Bar Ass’n, 26 Wn.2d 914, 176 P.2d 301 (1947); In re Levy, 23 Wn.2d 607, 161 P.2d 651, 162 A.L.R. 805 (1945); In re Bruen, 102 Wash. 472, 172 P. 1152 (1918); In re Lambuth, 18 Wash. 478, 51 P. 1071 (1898). This rule is in conformity with the established rule throughout the country that admission to practice is the exercise of a judicial function and one of the inherent powers of the court. See In re Nebraska State Bar Ass’n, 133 Neb. 283, 275 N.W. 265 (1937); Rosenthal v. State Bar *608Examining Comm., 116 Conn. 409, 165 A. 211, 87 A.L.R. 991 (1933); Brydonjack v. State Bar, 208 Cal. 439, 281 P. 1018, 66 A.L.R. 1507 (1929); In re Day, 181 Ill. 73, 54 N.E. 646 (1899). We held in the case of In re Moody, 69 Wn.2d 808, 420 P.2d 374 (1966), at 811, that:
The legislature, in the enactment of the integrated bar act, reposed in the Supreme Court the duty of promulgating rules governing admission to practice law and the discipline of attorneys.
In pursuance thereof, this court has adopted a comprehensive set of rules governing the qualifications, requirements and procedures for admission to practice. See Admission to Practice Rules. The Board of Governors must act within these specific and well defined guidelines, and is properly vested, therefore, with the authority to establish certain rules or policies incident to the proceedings for determination of an applicant’s qualifications for admission, including the power to determine what law schools shall be approved.
The question of whether the Board of Governors may adhere to a policy that an approved law school necessarily be one which meets the minimum criteria and standards approved by the American Bar Association has been passed upon in other jurisdictions under circumstances similar to this case. One of the leading cases was Rosenthal v. State Bar Examining Comm., supra, wherein the petitioner was a graduate of a law school not on the list of schools approved by the American Bar Association. The examining committee had adopted a rule that the schools approved in accordance with the rules of court in Connecticut be the same as those approved by the Council of the American Bar Association on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar. The petitioner had challenged the authority of the examining committee and the reasonableness of its act. The following observation was made by that court in response to the petitioner’s claim that the bar committee had exceeded its powers and acted unreasonably, at page 417:
Nor can it be maintained that the bar examining com*609mittee exceeded its powers or acted unreasonably in approving the same schools as the Council of the American Bar Association on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar. It is a matter of common knowledge that the American Bar Association is a representative body composed of members of the bar from every part of the Union; an organization national in scope, whose purpose is to uphold and maintain the highest traditions of the legal profession. There is nothing in this record to indicate either arbitrary or unreasonable action on the part of the examining committee in approving the same schools as the Council of the American Bar Association on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar.
Other similar cases are: Hackin v. Lockwood, 361 F.2d 499 (9th Cir. 1966); Henington v. State Bd. of Bar Examiners, 60 N.M. 393, 291 P.2d 1108 (1956); State ex rel. Ralston v. Turner, 141 Neb. 556, 4 N.W.2d 302, 144 A.L.R. 138 (1942). In the instant case the policy followed by the Board of Governors is the same policy expressly approved by this court for over 10 years in its rule (Rule 2B, 47 Wn.2d xxii, xxiii, 1955-65) providing that an approved law school shall be a law school accredited by the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar of the American Bar Association. If this court was heretofore satisfied to rely upon the expertise of this section of the American Bar in making this determination, it cannot now be said that the Board of Governors has acted unreasonably in following this same policy.
Rules for admission to the bar are, of course, general in their specifications. They apply to classes of applicants and are drawn to meet normal conditions. They cannot very well be tailored to meet the special merits of individuals or of individual law schools. To require the Board of Governors to look into the individual qualifications and standards of every nonaccredited law school whenever a graduate from that school applies to take the bar examination, would be to impose upon the board an unreasonable burden. The policy of the board sets forth a condition precedent to take the bar examination in this state and it applies to all general applicants who are not otherwise qualified under the *610Admission to Practice Rules. It is correlative and explicit with the ultimate purpose of all regulations for the admission of attorneys to assure the courts the assistance of advocates of ability, learning, and sound character and to protect the public from incompetent and dishonest practitioners. The policy is a valid and reasonable exercise of the discretion of the Board of Governors as heretofore directed and approved by this court.
The petitioner argues that he did not have notice of the policy or rule of the Board of Governors for its approval of law schools since it was not noted or defined in its rules booklet and that the policy, therefore, cannot apply to his situation. This argument is without merit. The failure of the board to delineate its policy in the rules booklet was in no way prejudicial to the plaintiff since the approved law schools are listed in the booklet and Pepperdine University School of Law is not included in the list.
 The petitioner further argues that in ¡any event the Board of Governors is obligated by the full faith and credit clause, U.S. Const, art. 4, § 1, to extend full faith and credit to a provisional accreditation of the petitioner’s law school by the committee of bar examiners of the California State Bar. The implication is that since California has allowed such graduates to take the California bar examination, it is incumbent upon the state of Washington to allow such graduates to take the Washington bar examination. We do not find that the constitutional provision for full faith and credit is applicable here. A state is not required to subordinate its laws and policies concerning peculiarly domestic affairs and matters involving local sovereignty to the law and policies of other states. Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Hunt, 320 U.S. 430, 88 L. Ed. 149, 64 S. Ct. 208, 150 A.L.R. 413 (1943), rehearing denied, 321 U.S. 801, 88 L. Ed. 1088, 64 S. Ct. 483 (1944), and cases cited therein; Gaskins v. Gaskins, 311 Ky. 59, 223 S.W.2d 374 (1949). The qualifications for the admittance of attorneys to practice before the courts of the State of Washington is peculiarly a domes*611tic affair within the ambit of the jurisdiction of the judicial branch of government of this state.
The petitioner raised a contention in oral argument which we will not consider as it was not discussed or supported by argument in his brief. State ex rel. Schwab v. State Bar Ass’n, 80 Wn.2d 266, 493 P.2d 1237 (1971), and cases cited therein.
For the reasons set forth herein, we hold that the petition of Robert Leslie Schatz for writ of mandamus compelling the Board of Governors of the Washington State Bar Association to examine the petitioner as to his qualifications for admission to the bar must, upon the showing submitted, be denied. His application for admission to practice without examination and upon motion is likewise denied.
Hamilton, C.J., Finley, Neill, and Stafford, JJ., and Ott, J. Pro Tern., concur.