Justices Revive Military Spouse's Request to Practice Law in Georgia
“Harriet O'Neal took on this challenge because she knew it was about more than one person,”said Linda Klein of Baker Donelson. “She knew that it was about standing up for all those who will apply for military spouse waivers in the future and ensuring they face a process that is clear, fair and consistent.”
September 11, 2018 at 10:39 AM
4 minute read
The Georgia Supreme Court on Monday overruled the Board of Examiners' denial of a military spouse's request to practice law without having to pass the state bar exam.
“Harriet O'Neal filed a waiver petition with the Board of Bar Examiners on November 30, 2017, asking that she be allowed to practice law in Georgia without sitting for the Georgia bar exam and without meeting the usual requirements for admission without examination. Specifically, O'Neal based her request for a waiver on her status as the spouse of an active member of the military who had been transferred here,” the court said in a unanimous unsigned opinion.
The board denied the request without giving a reason, the court said, vacating that decision and remanding the matter “pursuant to this Court's inherent power in matters of attorney discipline and bar admissions.”
According to the court, O'Neal graduated from Louisiana State University Law School in 2014, took and passed the Louisiana bar exam and was admitted to practice in Louisiana in October 2014.
“Without more, O'Neal does not meet the general requirements for admission to the Georgia Bar on motion without examination, as outlined in the Rules Governing Admission to the Practice of Law, because (1) she passed the bar in Louisiana, which does not offer reciprocity with Georgia or any other state, and (2) she has not been 'primarily engaged in the active practice of law' for the preceding five years, as she has only been a lawyer for three years,” the court said.
But O'Neal requested a waiver of the requirements based on the board's waiver policy for military spouses.
The court said the board denied O'Neal's application without giving a reason, although later, in briefing to the Supreme Court, the board took issue with the Louisiana test, O'Neal's experience and her law school grades.
The court remanded for the board “to clearly apply the military waiver policy and explain why.”
Heidi Faenza, director of the Board of Bar Examiners, said the board ”is reviewing the opinion and after completing its review, will make a determination as to how to proceed in light of the direction given by the Supreme Court.”
A group of Georgia lawyers went on record in support of O'Neal, including Linda Klein of Baker Donelson, former president of the American Bar Association.
Klein said by email Monday that, by vacating the Board of Bar Examiners' decision, the Georgia Supreme Court has recognized the importance of the military spouse waiver program in helping address the problems that arise when a lawyer's active duty spouse is relocated under military orders.
“Harriet O'Neal took on this challenge because she knew it was about more than one person,” Klein said. “She knew that it was about standing up for all those who will apply for military spouse waivers in the future and ensuring they face a process that is clear, fair and consistent.” Klein said the Supreme Court's direction on remand “to clearly apply the military waiver policy” requires the Board of Examiners to explain its criteria and decisions.
“The affidavit of an attorney who supervised Harriet's work, now part of the record, demonstrates her competence to practice law in Georgia. Hopefully future applicants will now have the opportunity to supply similar important information to support their waiver requests,” Klein said.
“Given the incredibly high unemployment rate among spouses of active duty service members, we need initiatives such as the military spouse waiver program,” Klein said. “Military spouse underemployment creates many problems that threaten our national defense.”
Klein said that retention of active duty military personnel “suffers when families don't have sufficient income to repay the military spouse's student loans.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrom 'Confusing Labyrinth' to Speeding 'Roller Coaster': Uncertainty Reigns in Title IX as Litigators Await Second Trump Admin
6 minute read'The Court Will Take Action': Judge Upbraids Combative Rudy Giuliani During Outburst at Hearing
Trending Stories
- 1What to Know About Naming a Law Firm
- 2Texas Shows the Way Forward in Resolving Mass Tort Gridlock
- 3Ninth Circuit Rules on Inherent Authority and FRCP 37(e)
- 4Where CFPB Enforcement Stops Short on Curbing School Lunch Fees, Class Action Complaint Steps Up
- 5Appellate Court's Decision on Public Employee Pension Eligibility Helps the Judiciary
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250