Hanson's Appeal

198 A. 113, 330 Pa. 390, 1938 Pa. LEXIS 618
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMarch 24, 1938
DocketPetition, 982
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 198 A. 113 (Hanson's Appeal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hanson's Appeal, 198 A. 113, 330 Pa. 390, 1938 Pa. LEXIS 618 (Pa. 1938).

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Petitioner who is married desired the Board of Law Examiners to issue to her a certificate recommending *391 admission to this Court in her maiden name so that she may practice law with all its attendant circumstances in that name though using her married name while living with her husband. The Board refused to issue the certificate as requested but instead issued a certificate to her in the name of Marjorie Hanson, now Marjorie Matson. She claims that the action of the Board deprives her of the right to her maiden name which would constitute a deprivation of property without due process of law and a denial of the equal protection of the law. We recognize the common law rule that a married woman may use her maiden name for many purposes, 1 particularly after divorce. 2 But in regard to the practice of law we agree with the conclusion of the Board. We said in Montgomery County Bar Assn. v. Rinalducci, 329 Pa. 296, 197 A. 924, that the Court before whom the attorney practices has the undoubted power to formulate such rules as it sees fit to discipline, disbar or admit persons to practice. This Court, of course, has that same power as do the various courts of record of this Commonwealth and if the petitioner desires to practice law before this Court or any of the courts of this Commonwealth, she must do so in the form prescribed by the Board of Law Examiners, as approved by this Court.

The prayer of the petition is refused.

1

Bogart v. Woodruff, 96 Cal. 609; Pooler v. Hyne, 213 Fed. 154 (cert. denied, 238 U. S. 620); Lane v. Duchac, 73 Wis. 646; and see Cowley v. Cowley [1901] A. C. 450; State ex rel. Thompson v. School Directors, 179 Wis. 284.

2

Reinhen v. Reinhen, 351 Ill. 409, 413; Rich v. Mayer, 7 N. Y. S. 69; Capel v. Powell, 17 C. B. (N. S.) 744, 748, 144 Eng. Rep.-298.

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

Related

Kohlman v. Western Pennsylvania Hospital
652 A.2d 849 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1994)
Attorney T. v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel
547 A.2d 350 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1988)
McLaughlin v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.
348 A.2d 376 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1975)
In re Kramer
61 Pa. D. & C. 349 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1947)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
198 A. 113, 330 Pa. 390, 1938 Pa. LEXIS 618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hansons-appeal-pa-1938.