Editor’s note: This piece from the SCOV Law Blog is by SCOV Law editor Andrew Delaney.
In re Hamid-Ahmed, 2018 VT 113
Ahmed Hamid-Ahmed applied to take the Vermont bar exam. The board rejected his application based on its assessment that he didn’t meet the educational requirements.
He appeals.
Hamid-Ahmed has a bachelor’s degree and a master of law, called an LLM. What he doesn’t have is a J.D. or something like it. He isn’t enrolled in the law-office-study program and he hasn’t been admitted to any other bars. But he argues Vermont’s bar admission rules allow him to sit for the Vermont bar (specifically the “curing provision” in Rule 8(c)(4)). He also argues that the board violated his due process rights when it didn’t explicitly tell him about the process for appealing to SCOV.
In case you didn’t know, there are three ways to sit for the bar exam in Vermont: (1) graduate from an approved law school; (2) complete the law office study program; or (3) graduate from a non-approved law school if equivalency requirements are met.
Now, a foreign-trained lawyer who hasn’t been trained in common-law principles can “cure” that deficiency by getting an LLM from an approved law school in the United States.
Hamid-Ahmed asks SCOV to adopt a broad reading of the rule to make the curing provision applicable to anyone with an LLM regardless of the rest of the educational background. Perhaps realizing that debt-ridden J.D. holders might be rioting in the streets if SCOV adopts this reading or perhaps applying the classic apples-oranges analysis, SCOV declines the invitation. SCOV says: “This interpretation is contrary to the most basic principles of statute and rule interpretation.”
The foreign-equivalency-cure provision applies to make up for shortcomings in a foreign legal education when it comes to Vermont practice. It’s not a loophole for just anyone that gets an LLM.
SCOV also addresses the due-process claim. Because Hamid-Ahmed figured out how to appeal to SCOV, even if the board didn’t explicitly tell him how to do it, there’s no prejudice. No harm, no foul.
Read the story on VTDigger here: SCOV Law Blog: Barred from the bar exam.