Are different testing requirements unconstitutional?

A graduate from the University of Oklahoma law school has sued the Wisconsin Bar. His problem? Wisconsin requires out of state law school graduates to take a test and allows in state students to become members without taking an exam.

Hey, news flash. Every state does something like this. In California, some students have to take a "baby bar." Some states let you waive in if you are admitted elsewhere and make you test in if you come from other states. And its not just the bar exam.

States are allowed to regulate the practice of law. There is no constitutional requirement that every person be treated the same. However, this is a great example of how lawyers, or law students, look at the extreme of a situation.

If you want to practice in a state, check the requirements BEFORE you go to law school.

Comments

[Christopher Wiesmueller]

First of all, I graduated from Oklahoma City University School of Law, not OU.

Secondly, states are required to treat out of state commerce in a manner that doesn't discriminate against it in favor of out-of-state commerce. States are allowed to regulate a lot of things, but they are no allowed to regulate commerce (including the practice of law) in a manner which discriminates agianst out-of state commerce.

Furthermore, just because every state seems to be doing it, doesn't make reciprocity constitutional either.

[Edward Wiest]

. . . and keep checking if you are ever thinking of expanding or moving your practice to another jurisdiction. When I moved to Massachusetts in the 1980's, Martindale-Hubbell's digest was six months behind in noting that the Bay State had replaced its waiver rule with a baby bar. My ignorance of the new rule held up my license six months while I waited for the next exam. One always must keep his/her eyes open. . .