In re Alpert, 38 N.Y.2d 680 (1976)
The Appellate Divisions in New York do not have the authority to deny an applicant admission to the Bar based on their independent determination that the applicant lacks adequate general or legal educational preparation or qualification when the Court of Appeals rules and Judiciary Law requirements are met.
Summary
Alpert, admitted to practice in Pakistan and a resident alien in New York, applied for admission to the New York Bar on motion, relying on his years of practice in Pakistan, a common-law jurisdiction. The Appellate Division denied his application based on the recommendation of its Committee on Character and Fitness, which found him lacking the necessary legal training and ability for admission without examination. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Appellate Divisions’ authority is limited to assessing moral character and fitness, while determining legal educational qualifications rests with the Court of Appeals. The Court emphasized the need for a uniform, statewide standard for educational qualifications.
Facts
The applicant, Alpert, was admitted to practice law in Pakistan in 1954.
He actively practiced law in Pakistan for more than five years.
In 1972, Alpert became a resident alien in New York State.
The New York Court of Appeals issued an order stating that Pakistan’s jurisprudence is based on English common law, satisfying the requirements for admission on motion.
Alpert applied to the Appellate Division, Third Department, for admission to the New York Bar on motion.
The Committee on Character and Fitness found that Alpert displayed good moral character.
However, the Committee did not recommend him for admission because it believed he lacked sufficient legal training and ability.
Procedural History
Alpert applied to the Appellate Division, Third Department, for admission to the New York Bar on motion.
The Appellate Division denied Alpert’s application, accepting the recommendation of the Committee on Character and Fitness.
The New York Court of Appeals granted Alpert leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Appellate Division, in exercising its responsibility for screening for “character and fitness,” may exclude an applicant for admission on motion on the ground that he lacks sufficient legal educational preparation and qualification, despite meeting other requirements.
Holding
No, because the Appellate Divisions’ authority is limited to assessing moral character and fitness, while determining legal educational qualifications rests with the Court of Appeals.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the determination of general and legal educational qualifications has traditionally been separate from the determination of character and general fitness. The Court of Appeals retains responsibility for the former, while the Appellate Divisions are responsible for the latter. The Court stated, “Compliance with either alternative ends the inquiry with reference to general and legal educational qualification. Any supplemental or substitute requirement as to this aspect of the applicant’s eligibility for admission must be made by provision of the Rules of the Court of Appeals. There is none now.” The Court emphasized the importance of a single, statewide standard for educational qualifications. The Court further reasoned that the argument for the Appellate Division’s authority relied on an overbroad and inaccurate statement in Matter of Harvey, 309 NY 46. Policy considerations also support the Court’s decision. The Court stated, “The individualized aspects of any inquiry into moral character and personal fitness—factors which often involve local perceptions and criteria—permit, even suggest, that both investigation and ultimate determination with respect thereto appropriately be the responsibility of the Appellate Divisions at the departmental levels. The same is not true with respect to educational and legal qualification, which is a requirement separate and distinct from “character and fitness”. With respect to the former, fairness and common sense mandate that there be a single State-wide standard. Any departmental unevenness would be highly inappropriate, if not legally suspect.”