Federal Litigation
THE ISSUE
1. IF all men and women are created equal are lawyers in good standing equal? The question presented is whether Local Rules that on their face create classes of citizens and lawyers exceed the rule-making authority of the United States District Courts? See Petition for Cert.
2. The second question presented is whether Local Rules that on their face create classes of citizens and lawyers and compel the petitioners, and all similarly situated licensed attorneys, to subsidize, join and associate with a second, third, and fourth mandatory state bar association as a condition precedent to obtain general admission licensing privileges in the United States District Courthouse are constitutional?
See Petition for Cert.
Practical Effect of Nonuniform and Disparate Local Rules
The California and Arizona local Rules are mirror opposites. If a citizen from California sues a citizen from Arizona on a federal claim in federal court in California, the Arizona citizen or corporation is also a party. If the first to file or venue is in California, it is arbitrary and capricious to compel the Arizona citizen to hire a California lawyer. Likewise, if venue is in Arizona, it is equally arbitrary to compel the California citizen to hire an Arizona lawyer on the identical federal claims. The same holds true on jurisdiction based on diversity. Diversity claims are also governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The purpose of diversity jurisdiction is to provide a neutral forum. The purpose of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is defeated by reliance on forum state law or office location on both federal and diversity claims in the district courts.
State Admission on Motion and Tit-for-Tat Admission
Based on recent Supreme Court precedent, we believe these tit-for-tat admission rules are clearly on unequivocally unconstitutional.
Court Briefs
The Cal Bar Exam for Already Licensed Attorneys Is Not a Valid and Reliable Test
LFRA has submitted evidence proving the 100% subjective California Bar Exam for already licensed attorneys is not a valid or reliable test.
Uniform Bar Exam (UBE)
Lawyers For Fair Reciprocal Admission believes that inexperienced attorneys should not have more constitutional or civil rights than experienced attorneys.
En Banc Petition
July 7, 2025
Lawyers for Fair Reciprocal Admission (LFRA ) v. the United States Reply Brief
August 12, 2024
Lawyers for Fair Reciprocal Admission (LFRA ) v. the United States Amended Opening Brief
May 20, 2024
Lawyers for Fair Reciprocal Admission (LFRA ) v. the United States District Court Amended Complaint Brief
January 3, 2023