Naamjp

National Ass'n for the Advancement of Multijurisdiction Practice v. Berch

Good Law
773 F.3d 1037·2014 WL 6871577·2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23091
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 8, 201413-17082California4,352 words

Opinion

Opinion

Smith, J.

Plaintiffs-Appellants (Plaintiffs) National Association for the Advancement of Multijurisdictional Practice (NAAMJP), Allison S. Girvin, and Mark Anderson filed suit against justices of the Arizona Supreme Court challenging Arizona Supreme Court Rule 34(f) (the AOM Rule), which describes how experienced attorneys can be admitted on motion to the State Bar of Arizona (Arizona Bar). The AOM Rule permits admission on motion to the Arizona Bar for attorneys who are admitted to practice law in states that permit Arizona attorneys to be admitted to the bars of those states on a basis equivalent to Arizona’s AOM Rule, but requires attorneys admitted to practice law in states that do not have such reciprocal admission rules to take the uniform bar exam (UBE) in order to gain admission to the Arizona Bar. Anderson, Girvin, and NAAMJP allege that the AOM Rule is unconstitutional under the First Amendment, the Dormant Commerce Clause, and the Privileges and Immunities Clauses of Article IV and the Fourteenth Amendment.

We hold that the AOM Rule is constitutional, and that the district court did not err in dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims on summary judgment, or in denying leave to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.