Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Lifting the Bar

By: dmc-admin//February 16, 2009//

Lifting the Bar

By: dmc-admin//February 16, 2009//

Listen to this article

Members of the state Supreme Court have lingering concerns about a petition that would allow foreign attorneys to take the bar exam in Wisconsin.

But based largely on the presentations of two women, the court voted 5-2 to approve an interim rule encouraging the Board of Bar Examiners to grant special waivers to qualified foreign-trained attorneys who want the opportunity to practice law in the state.

At an open administrative conference hearing on Feb. 9, Mexican attorney Cynthia Herber and British attorney Gail Worley stated their support for creation of Supreme Court Rule 40.055.

The majority of justices indicated that both women struck them as qualified candidates and others like them should be given the opportunity to become licensed in the state right now, but reservations about proof of practice requirements and quality of education standards prevented the court from adopting a permanent rule.

“I think I reacted like everyone else to these two women,” Justice N. Patrick Crooks said during the discussion. “They ought to have the opportunity [to take the bar exam].”

“We will continue to work towards a permanent rule,” Crooks continued.

Herber, who initially had not planned on speaking, said that her and Worley’s appearances likely helped personalize the issue for the court.

“Sometimes you see people’s credentials on paper and you cannot really tell much from a piece of paper,” said Herber, who practiced law in Mexico for 12 years. “It always helps to add a human face.”

Waived In

The two women’s stories helped persuade the court to alter its stance established In the Matter of Bar Admission of Altschuler (1992), which essentially superseded BBE authority to allow foreign attorneys to take the bar.

Though the BBE has always had the option of granting special waivers, BBE Director John Kosobucki said board members have been reluctant to challenge the precedent set by the Supreme Court.

“The Altschuler case said the board has discretion to waive the rule, but they chose not to do that and I think anytime you opt to waive a rule you are opening up yourself for second guessing,” Kosobucki said.

Support from the Supreme Court will help alleviate some of that hesitation, according to Kosobucki, but he said the BBE will not simply “rubber-stamp” applicants.

Review of an applicant’s credentials will be based on the criteria set forth in the petition, such as experience and strength of a country’s legal system. The BBE then has discretion to grant or deny the opportunity to take the exam.

The BBE can also require an applicant to take supplemental law courses if necessary.

“I think the board was waiting for a good case to come before it and we have two excellent examples where the board can do that,” Kosobucki said.

Herber moved from Mexico to Pennsylvania in 1996 and came to Wisconsin five years ago. While she has not practiced law in almost 13 years, she has worked as a certified court interpreter since 2005 and as a paralegal in Pennsylvania.

Worley practiced for three years in Britain and moved to Wisconsin in 2004. She has worked at a law firm in Kenosha under the title of “foreign licensed attorney not licensed to practice in Wisconsin.”

Kosobucki said both Worley and Herber have contacted the BBE repeatedly throughout the last several years about the necessary steps to gain licensure in Wisconsin and had been told they are not eligible.

Now both could be eligible to take the next bar exam on July 1, pending a review of their credentials.

Coming Back

Though the court supported a temporary rule, adoption of a permanent one is contingent on several questions being answered.

Among the concerns expressed by the justices was what the proof of practice standards should be and whether character and fitness requirements need to be met prior to taking the exam.

The original language of the petition said an applicant had to have practiced law for five of the last seven years in their native country, which would have disqualified both Worley and Herber.

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, who voted against the interim rule, also questioned whether someone who practiced law “for five years, 20 years ago in Uganda, then came here and took an LLM, which is totally researched based,” should be able to take the bar.

Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson suggested that a potential applicant’s character and fitness requirements be met prior to being allowed to take the exam.

Kosobucki said he expects the 11 members of the BBE will be able to work with the court to develop a permanent rule. In the meantime, the board will review any applications that are submitted from foreign attorneys.

Herber said she does not want a “free pass,” but simply the opportunity to prove herself as an attorney.

“I don’t want someone to just wave me in,” Herber said. “I do envision some people not being worthy and some people being incredibly worthy.”

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests