APR 3 - Applicants for Admission to Practice Law

• Proposed Changes to APR 3 - Applicants for Admission to Practice Law (in Word Format)
• Comments Received for APR 3 - Applicants for Admission to Practice Law

GR 9 Cover Sheet

Suggested Amendments

ADMISSION AND PRACTICE RULES (APR) Rule 3.

Submitted by the Washington State Bar Association

A. Name of Proponent:

Washington State Bar Association

Robin L. Haynes, WSBA President

B. Spokesperson:

Paula C. Littlewood, Executive Director

Jean K. McElroy, General Counsel/Chief Regulatory Counsel

C. Purpose:

Some of the primary purposes of all of the suggested amendments to the APR are to eliminate duplication of rules and regulations, combine sections of the APR that describe nearly identical processes or qualifications common to all licenses to practice law, align terminology used throughout the APR to make the rules more readily understandable, and streamline certain aspects of Bar administration.

Rule 3 deals with qualifications and prerequisites for applications for admission to practice law. The suggested amendments incorporate information from existing APR 8, APR 12, and APR 28, and set forth both shared and unique requirements for the lawyer, limited license legal technician (LLLT) and limited practice officer (LPO) license types. Additionally, by combining this information in one rule, it should assist interested applicants and members of the public with understanding the differences and similarities among the license types.

The following describes each suggested amendment to APR 3 and the suggested amendment’s purpose and intended effect:

APR 3(a)

The suggested amendments to APR 3(a) are intended to acknowledge that admission to the practice of law in Washington may not mean admission to practice as a lawyer, in light of the existing three types of licenses – for lawyers, LLLTs and LPOs. Additionally, the suggested amendments are intended to acknowledge that the words “bar examination” often are generally understood to mean a licensing examination for admission to practice as a lawyer. Because each of the three types of admission to practice law may involve administration of an examination, it would be advisable to simply use the word “examination” in most instances. The suggested amendments also explicitly state that anyone wishing to be licensed to practice law in Washington must be of good moral character and fit to practice.

APR 3(b)

APR 3(b) sets forth the ways in which applicants can qualify to take the bar examination to qualify to practice law as a lawyer in Washington.

A suggested amendment in the first sentence of APR 3(b) would add language clarifying that in order to qualify to take the Uniform Bar Exam (UBE) in Washington, a lawyer applicant must not be eligible for admission by motion or by transfer of a UBE score. This change is intended to prevent a form of cheating that can occur when people who do not need to take the bar examination take it in order to capture questions used on the multiple choice portion of the exam, and to preserve WSBA resources from having to administer the bar examination when it is not necessary for the applicant’s admission.

The suggested amendments to APR 3(b) would clarify the types of law degrees from either U.S. schools or schools in other countries that are required in order to qualify for the lawyer bar examination in Washington. The suggested amendments would also reorder some of the subsections for greater clarity and ease of comprehension.

APR 3(c)

The suggested amendments in this section would make clear that admission by motion currently is an option available to lawyers only. The suggested amendments would create no substantial changes to current procedures.

APR 3(d)

These suggested amendments essentially would put into court rule the admissions policies adopted by the Board of Governors beginning in 2012 and currently found on the WSBA admissions website; the policies themselves have been in place since implementing the Uniform Bar Exam (UBE). Because the UBE is a primary method for admission to the practice of law as a lawyer, it is more appropriate to include the requirements in the APR.

APR 3(e)

The qualifications for LLLT applicants currently are found in APR 28(D), sections 1-3. The suggested amendments to APR 3(e) would move the provisions related to qualification for the LLLT exam to this rule; the exception would be that current APR 28(D)3(d) going forward would be found in the new language in the suggested amendments to APR 28 Regulation 3.

The only substantive change from the currently stated requirements is that in the suggested amendments, the Paralegal Core Competency (PCC) Examination administered by the National Federation of Paralegal Associations is specifically identified as the LLLT core curriculum examination. This would represent a change to the text of the rule, intended just to bring the APR into alignment with current practices; the PCC examination has been designated as the LLLT core curriculum examination by LLLT Board policy throughout the history of the LLLT program.

APR 3(f)

This suggested amendment would reorganize information rather than make any substantive change to the requirements.

APR 3(g)

This section addresses emeritus pro bono admission procedures and has been moved from APR 8(e). The suggested text also incorporates changes to bring LLLTs and LPOs within the coverage of the rule, in addition to lawyers. In addition, the suggested amendments would make it so that being an emeritus pro bono practitioner would only be available to lawyers, LLLTs and LPOs who have been admitted to practice law in Washington, and would remove the rarely used out-of-state lawyer provisions.

APR 3(h)

This section was formerly denoted as (d) and was titled “Exceptions”. With the suggested amendments, it would explicitly address withholding approval or permission to take examinations until the applicant establishes that all requirements have been met and until any character and fitness inquiry has been completed.

The suggested amendments would also delete specific information about character and fitness requirements from this rule; this reflects an intention to reduce duplicative information and place all character and fitness provisions in APR 20-25.6.

APR 3(i)

The suggested amendments would change the title of this section from “Forms” to “Applications; Fees; Filings”; would amend language in section (1)(A) and (1)(B) to clarify responsibility for the performance of certain activities. The suggested amendment to (1)(C) would add a reference to the character and fitness rules, set forth in other rules.

The new text in the suggested amendments to APR 3(i)(2) and 3(i)(3) addresses refunds and transfers of applications between exam administrations, and would give the Bar the authority to establish responsive policies to guide administration of the examinations. Refund and transfer procedures were formerly found in APR 12 Regulation 2 (as to LPO applicants) and the WSBA Admissions Policies (as to lawyer applicants), as well as being touched upon in various other places in the APR. Amending the APR to clarify that refunds and transfers will be handled according to Bar policy gives the Bar clear authority to make any changes to the policies as needed.

D. Supporting Material:

http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/2016APRCoverLetterToCourt.pdf