Green v. Oklahoma Board of Bar Examiners

2016 OK 98, 381 P.3d 754, 2016 Okla. LEXIS 98, 2016 WL 5219550
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedSeptember 20, 2016
DocketSCBD No. 6327
StatusPublished

This text of 2016 OK 98 (Green v. Oklahoma Board of Bar Examiners) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Green v. Oklahoma Board of Bar Examiners, 2016 OK 98, 381 P.3d 754, 2016 Okla. LEXIS 98, 2016 WL 5219550 (Okla. 2016).

Opinions

KAUGER, J.:

¶ 1 The only issue presented is whether a lawyer who has been practicing law in the military since 2007 may be admitted to the Oklahoma Bar Association without examination pursuant to Rule 2 of the Oklahoma Rules Governing Admission to the Practice of Law, 5 O.S. Supp. 2015 ch. 1, app. 5.1 We hold that the applicant meets the qualifications for admission without examination and is hereby admitted to the Oklahoma Bar Association, effective immediately.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2 The facts are agreed by the parties. The appellant," Major James M. Green (Major Green) grew up in Muskogee, Oklahoma, and graduated from high school there in 1991. He then served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps for nine years. After an honorable discharge, he obtained an undergraduate degree from Northeastern [756]*756State University in Tahlequah, Oklahoma, and a law- degree from Thomas M. Cooly Law. School in Lansing, Michigan. Major Green was admitted to the Florida Bar Association in May of 2007. Florida is not a reciprocal state with Oklahoma.

¶ 3 In June of 2007, Major Green returned to the Marines as an attorney and on March 21, 2008, he was designated a Judge Advocate after having attended the Naval Justice School in Newport, Rhode Island. Since that time, he has served in a variety of roles. He is currently Regional Victims’ Legal Counsel for the National Capitol Region, which includes the eastern United States and Europe.

¶ 4 Major Green has been stationed at the United States Marine Corps Base at Quanti-co, Virginia since approximately the beginning of 2001. Most of his work occurs at His office provided by the military at Quantico. In January of 2014, he became a member of the Virginia Bar after taking the Virginia bar examination. [Virginia has reciprocity with Oklahoma.] Seeking to retire from the military and return to Muskogee to practice law and be near his family, Major Green filed an application for admission on motion under Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Admission to the Practice of Law in the State of Oklahoma, 5 O.S. Supp. 2015 eh.l, app. 5.2

¶ 5 On March 13, 2015, the Board denied his application because he had not engaged in the practice of law in a reciprocal state for five of seven years immediately preceding his application. There were no other aspects of his application which were disputed, ie. good moral character, due respect for the law, and fitness to practice law. Major Green then asked for a hearing under Rule 11, 5 O.S. Supp. 2015 ch.1, app. 5.3 On September 4, 2015, Major Green appeared pro se before the Board for a hearing regarding his eligibility for admission under Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Admission, 5 O.S. Supp. 2015 ch.1, app. 5. On October 19, 2015, the Board denied his application. Apparently, a majority of the nine board members voted to deny Major Green’s application but no vote was recorded.

¶ 6 The Board agreed that he had engaged in the practice of law for five of the last seven years, but determined that serving and practicing law in the military was not a “reciprocal state” under Rule 2. The Board commended Major Green for his service, but offered no sympathy and advised him to take the Oklahoma Bar Exam. The Board also admitted that our rules make it difficult for any military lawyer to ever qualify for reciprocity, but concluded that was no justification to grant admission.4

[757]*757UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CAUSE, THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO RECIPROCITY.

¶ 7 Green argues that the military “jurisdiction” is a reciprocal jurisdiction for purposes of Rule 2. He contends that: 1) the language in Rule 2 refers to both reciprocal jurisdictions and reciprocal states; 2) military courts grant Oklahoma lawyers and judges the right of admission on motion without the requirement of an exam and their exam requirements for admission without examination are similar to Oklahoma; and 3) alternatively, if he does not qualify for admission, the Rule should be amended to clarify that no military attorney who has practiced law on active duty can be admitted on motion to the Oklahoma Bar as military service members are ordered to move every four years.

¶ 8 The Board agrees that practicing law as an attorney for the military since at least 2008 satisfies the requirement that he has been engaged in the practice of law for five of the last seven years.5 Nevertheless, because: 1) the right to practice law in the military depends upon his admission to a state bar, he must be licensed and practicing in a reciprocal state; and 2) neither the military nor the federal government are primary bar licensing authorities, so admission to practice remains dependent upon prior admission to a state bar. The Board also acknowledges that many lawyers who practice in the federal and military arena are required to move frequently to work and serve their country, and while it may be unfair, Major Green overstates the burden imposed on such military lawyers. According to the Board, those lawyers must practice within the borders of a reciprocal state. Major Green had clients in Russia. If he had been a member of the Virginia Bar for five years, would he also be required to subtract from his five years any time he spent outside of the borders of Virginia?

¶ 9 The responsibility for the due administration of justice and regulation and control of the Bar is vested in the Supreme Court,6 including the right to define and reg[758]*758ulate its practice,7 In exercising our inherent power to organize, regulate and control the Oklahoma Bar Association, we established the Rules Governing Admission to the Practice of Law in Oklahoma, 5 O.S. Supp. 2011 ch.1, app. 5. This Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the licensing of attorneys.8

¶ 10" Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Admission to the Practice of Law in Oklahoma concerns admission to the. Bar on motion, without examination. The current version of Rule 2, Section 1, provides in pertinent part that:

Persons who are graduates of an American Bar Association approved law school, have been lawfully admitted to practice and are in. good standing on active status in-a reciprocal state, and have engaged in the actual and continuous practice of law in a reciprocal state for at least five of the seven years immediately preceding application for admission under this Rule. The years of practice earned in multiple reciprocal jurisdictions cannot be combined. (Emphasis supplied).

The Rule does refer to reciprocal states, and reciprocal jurisdictions. In Section 4, the terms “former jurisdiction,” “nonreciprocal jurisdiction”, and “reciprocal jurisdiction” are also used. It provides:

Section 4. It is the purpose of this rule to grant reciprocity to qualified judges and lawyers from other jurisdictions and to secure for Oklahoma judges and lawyers like privileges. If the former jurisdiction of the applicant does not grant to Oklahoma judges and lawyers the right of admission on motion, then this Rule shall not apply and the applicant must, before being admitted to practice in Oklahoma, comply with the provisions of Rule Four.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cox v. Dawson
1996 OK 11 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1996)
R. J. Edwards, Inc. v. Hert
1972 OK 151 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1972)
Ford v. Board of Tax-Roll Corrections
1967 OK 90 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1967)
Archer v. Ogden
1979 OK 130 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1979)
Matter of Reinstatement of Kamins
1988 OK 32 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1988)
Minie v. Hudson
1997 OK 26 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1997)
Kimble v. Kimble
2011 OK 85 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2011)
Keating v. Edmondson
2001 OK 110 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2001)
Carlile v. National Oil & Development Co.
1921 OK 163 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1921)
Charley v. Britton-Johnson Oil Co.
1927 OK 447 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1927)
In Re Integration of State Bar of Oklahoma
1939 OK 378 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1939)
Bertrand v. Laura Dester Center
2013 OK 18 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2013)
Washington v. State ex rel. Department of Corrections
1996 OK 139 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1996)
In re the Reinstatement of Bodnar
2016 OK 12 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2016 OK 98, 381 P.3d 754, 2016 Okla. LEXIS 98, 2016 WL 5219550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-v-oklahoma-board-of-bar-examiners-okla-2016.