Experience Not Enough
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a decision to deny waiver of the educational requirements for bar admission
The petitioner, Robert M. Joost, appeals from the judgment of a single justice of this court denying without a hearing his petition to waive certain educational requirements imposed by S.J.C. Rule 3:01, as appearing in 478 Mass. 1301 (2018), for admission to the bar of the Commonwealth. Specifically, Joost seeks waiver of the requirements under S.J.C. Rule 3:01 that petitioners hold a bachelor’s degree or the equivalent and a juris doctor degree from a law school accredited by the American Bar Association (ABA).1 See S.J.C. Rule 3:01, §§ 1.1.4, 3.1.2, 3.1.3; Osakwe v. Board of Bar Examiners, 448 Mass. 85, 87 (2006). Joost acknowledges that he has not satisfied these requirements and contends that, as a practical matter given his age (eighty years old), he cannot do so now.
The Board of Bar Examiners and a single justice denied the waiver
Joost argues that his knowledge of the law ought to qualify him to sit for the bar examination despite the fact that he does not hold a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent) and did not graduate from law school. He contends that he has over fifty years of legal experience from working as a paralegal, extensive pro se litigation in State and Federal courts, and conducting courses on legal research and procedure for inmates in Federal prisons. Joost takes the position that his training and knowledge are at least equivalent to that of a law school graduate. He contends that, in these circumstances, the refusal to waive academic degree requirements violates his equal protection and due process rights, including the right to pursue a lawful occupation.
No waiver
We conclude, therefore, that Joost is not entitled to a waiver of the academic degree requirements based on experience. Instead, after a review of the record, “[w]e conclude that the concerns that prompted our adoption of the rule requiring graduation from a law school approved by the ABA would be contradicted by a waiver of the rule in this case.”
(Mike Frisch)