In recent
years the advent of regional and national law firms
has brought into question the premise that an attorney
limited his or her practice to an individual state,
or perhaps two states at the most. Regional and national
advertising, as well as the burgeoning growth of the
Internet, have likewise diminished emphasis on single-state
licensure for attorneys. "Multi-jurisdictional
practice" is now more common.
Consequently, in 2000,
the American Bar Association recommended that states
consider adoption of a model admission on motion rule.
Until 1985, Arkansas allowed attorneys from other states
to secure admission on motion. That year the Arkansas
Supreme Court (Court) abolished the provision, noting
it had an unconstitutional "residency" requirement.
On June 12, 2003, at the request of the Arkansas State
Board of Law Examiners (Board), the Court revived an
admission on motion provision, effective October 1,
2004. The following paragraphs provide a report on the
first year's experience with admission on motion.
APPLICATIONS
FILED
In the one-year period
following the return of admission on motion, ninety-two
applications have been filed. This number is substantially
higher than had been anticipated, and presumably reflects
an initial surge of applications that is likely to
subside in the near future. Of that number, fifty-three
applicants have been certified for admission to the
Bar of Arkansas, thirty-two applications are in various
states of processing, and, seven of the applications
have been denied as is explained in the next section.
RECIPROCITY
REQUIREMENT
The Arkansas Admission
on Motion Rule contains within it a "reciprocity"
provision. Particularly, the other state in which
the attorney maintains his or her principal place
of business or domicile must provide "a similar
accommodation" for the admission of Arkansas
attorneys in that state. The Board has considered
whether twenty-one states, which offer admission on
motion, have met that requirement.
The fourteen states
which have been determined to be "reciprocal"
include Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Tennessee,
and a number of other jurisdictions around the country.
Six states have been declined recognition as "reciprocal"
jurisdictions: Connecticut, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio,
Rhode Island, and, Virginia. Mississippi and Louisiana
have not been considered by the Board because they
do not allow admission without some form of examination.
JURISDICTIONS
FROM WHENCE THEY COME
Texas has been the source
of most applicants for admission on motion in Arkansas.
During the first year, forty applications were filed
by attorneys whose principal place of business or
domicile was Texas. Following Texas was Tennessee
with twelve applicants, Oklahoma with eleven, and
Missouri with eight. Various other jurisdictions had
one or two applicants.
NATURE
OF PRACTICE OF APPLICANTS
Virtually all applicants
for admission on motion came from a private practice
background, either as solo practitioners or members
of a law firm or partnership. One applicant had a
history as a public defender. There were eight applicants
whose primary employment during the period prior to
seeking admission here was as a corporate attorney.
One applicant had been a longtime law school professor.
Finally, it is anticipated
the number of applications will settle at around thirty-five
to fifty per year, based on the experience of jurisdictions
similar in size to Arkansas. One may review the admission
on motion rule and related information at the following
web site: courts.state.ar.us/courts/ble.html
•
|
