New York Law Review

Tag: Legal Education

  • In re Alpert, 38 N.Y.2d 680 (1976): Authority of Appellate Divisions to Determine Legal Education Qualifications for Bar Admission

    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.”

  • New York University School of Law, In re, 26 N.Y.2d 143 (1970): Upholding Bar Admission Requirements Despite Faculty Resolutions

    In re New York University School of Law, 26 N.Y.2d 143 (1970)

    A law school cannot unilaterally alter its established program of studies, specifically the requirement of final course examinations, if that program was the basis upon which the school gained “approved law school” status for bar admission purposes.

    Summary

    New York University School of Law petitioned the New York Court of Appeals to reconsider its order requiring final examinations for bar admission eligibility, arguing that a faculty resolution had eliminated these exams due to extenuating circumstances. The Court of Appeals denied the petition. The court reasoned that Rule IV of the Rules of the Court of Appeals for the Admission of Attorneys and Counselors at Law requires a final course examination when appropriate, and the law school’s curriculum, which was registered and approved, included this requirement. The court emphasized that relaxing this rule would undermine the quality of legal education and that only those evaluated through authentic written examinations could qualify for the bar exam.

    Facts

    New York University School of Law (NYU) was an “approved law school” under the New York Court of Appeals’ rules for bar admission. NYU’s curriculum, submitted to the New York State Education Department, stated that students were required to take scheduled examinations unless excused for illness or other uncontrollable causes. This curriculum aligned with the standards of the American Association of Law Schools (AALS), which generally requires written examinations to test scholastic attainment. Following a faculty resolution, NYU sought to eliminate final examinations for the Spring 1970 semester.

    Procedural History

    NYU filed a petition with the New York Court of Appeals to reconsider its order requiring final examinations. The Court of Appeals denied the petition after considering arguments from NYU, Rutgers University School of Law (which filed a similar petition), and an Amici Curiae brief. This denial upheld the original order regarding examination requirements.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the New York Court of Appeals should interpret Rule IV of its Rules for Admission as not requiring final examinations in the Spring 1970 semester, or, in the alternative, waive or rescind the rule for NYU students.

    Holding

    No, because the law school’s approved program of studies included a firm requirement of final course examinations, and the court’s rules for admission are designed to promote the best interests of the students, the legal profession and society at large. Eliminating or dispensing with final examinations in course would tend to downgrade the quality of legal education in this State.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that its Rule IV, consistently interpreted, requires final course examinations where appropriate. NYU, as an approved law school, represented its curriculum as including these examinations. The court found no basis for NYU’s claim that the order imposed new retroactive requirements. The court noted that its order was published shortly after the faculty resolution and before the voluntary examinations were scheduled. The court rejected the argument that academic freedom justified the unilateral change, stating that a law school cannot change an essential basis of its approval without risking its approved status. The court emphasized that the law school faculty could not modify the court’s rules or lower bar admission requirements. The court quoted the AALS Executive Committee’s statement that accreditation standards and methods of evaluating student work cannot be changed hurriedly, even in emergency circumstances. The court concluded that relaxing the rules would degrade legal education, and only those evaluated by authentic written examinations could qualify for the bar exam. The court stated, “The Rules may not be relaxed, the standards lowered, by decision or resolution of a majority of the faculty of a law school. Only those applicants whose work in their courses has been evaluated by authentic written examination (whenever such examination is appropriate) may qualify to take the July 1970 Bar examination.”