Joseph R. Giannini v. Manuel L. Real A. Wallace Tashima

Good Law
911 F.2d 354·1990 WL 116948·1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 14098
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 16, 199089-55466California3,320 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hug, J.

This case presents two issues: (1) whether the California Bar Examination and its grading process are constitutional; and (2) whether the Local Rules of the United States District Courts for the Central, Southern and Eastern Districts of California, which require attorneys seeking admission to those courts to be members in good standing of the California State Bar, are constitutional. The district court held both the bar examination and the local rules to be constitutional. We affirm.

I. Procedural Background

Joseph R. Giannini, a California resident, is an attorney who passed the New Jersey and Pennsylvania bars. After failing the California bar twice, Giannini challenged the constitutionality of the California Bar Examination. Giannini v. The Comm. of Bar Examiners, C-87-3797-JGD. We affirmed the district court’s dismissal of that action, holding that Giannini had failed to appeal to the state supreme court which has the authority to grant or deny admission to the bar, and that Giannini therefore had suffered no deprivation under federal law. Giannini v. The Comm. of Bar Examiners, 847 F.2d 1434, 1435 (9th Cir.1988).

In a separate action, Giannini challenged the federal…

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.