From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Gordon

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 13, 1979
48 N.Y.2d 266 (N.Y. 1979)

Summary

holding that State's justification for residency requirement, the “observ [ation] and evaluat[ion] [of] the applicant's character,” was insufficient due to “alternatives which are less restrictive than denial of admission to practice which would further this interest”

Summary of this case from Schoenefeld v. Schneiderman

Opinion

Argued October 15, 1979

Decided November 13, 1979

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department.

John Cary Sims, Alan B. Morrison, of the Bar of the District of Columbia, admitted on motion pro hac vice and Daniel Riesel for appellant.

Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Daniel M. Cohen of counsel), in his statutory capacity under section 71 of the Executive Law and CPLR 1012 (subd [b]).



Appellant, a resident of North Carolina, mounts this challenge to the constitutionality of CPLR 9406 (subd 2). That rule provides that a person may not be admitted as a member of the Bar of this State unless he furnishes proof "that he has been an actual resident of the state of New York for six months immediately preceding the submission of his application for admission to practice". Among other infirmities, it is claimed that the rule is violative of the privileges and immunities clause of article IV of the Federal Constitution. We agree with that contention.

In addition to those who are actual residents of New York, section 464 of the Judiciary Law provides that a person otherwise eligible for certification by the Board of Law Examiners for admission to the Bar shall be considered to be an actual resident and citizen of the State during any period of time in which he is employed full time within the State of New York.

"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States" (US Const, art IV, § 2, cl 1).

A graduate of the University of Virginia Law School and member of the Bars of Virginia and North Carolina, appellant was employed as in-house counsel to Western Electric Company in New York City. After working in New York for over two years, appellant qualified for, took and passed the New York State Bar Examination in July, 1977. Before he was notified of the results of the examination, however, appellant was unexpectedly transferred to North Carolina by his employer, where he presently resides.

At the time this controversy arose, eligibility to take the Bar examination, like eligibility for admission to Bar, was premised, at least in part, upon the residency of the applicant (22 N.Y.CRR 520.2 [a] [3]).

Apparently under the dual impression that his prior New York residence qualified him for admission to the Bar and that, by virtue of his employment, he was engaged in the practice of law in New York, appellant filed an application for admission to practice with the Committee on Character and Fitness of the First Department (Judiciary Law, § 90, subd 1; CPLR 9402; 22 N.Y.CRR 520.9). In view of appellant's North Carolina residence, the committee deferred action on his application. Appellant thereupon challenged the residency requirement by petitioning the Appellate Division for admission without certification of the Committee on Character and Fitness (CPLR 9404). The Appellate Division denied the application, holding CPLR 9406 (subd 2) constitutional ( 67 A.D.2d 215). Although appellant relies upon a number of constitutional provisions in support of his claim that the residence requirement for admission to the Bar is unconstitutional, it is necessary only to address the claim that the rule denies nonresidents the same privileges and immunities accorded residents.

Actually, appellant was required to satisfy two six-month durational residency requirements: one to take the Bar examination (22 N.Y.CRR 520.2 [a] [3]; the other to satisfy the admission requirements of CPLR 9406 (subd 2).

In addition to meeting two durational residency requirements (n 4, supra), three other conditions must be satisfied. Unless waived, the applicant must pass an examination conducted, semiannually, by the State Board of Law Examiners. Second, the applicant must possess the requisite character and fitness consistent with that required of an attorney. To assist in this evaluation, the applicant must furnish the Committee on Character and Fitness with affidavits attesting to his good moral character, fill out a detailed questionnaire and undergo a personal interview with a committee member. Finally, the applicant must swear that he will support the Federal and State Constitutions (see, generally, Law Students Research Council v Wadmond, 401 U.S. 154, 156-157).

It is asserted that CPLR 9406 (subd 2) denies appellant equal protection and due process of law (US Const, 14th Amdt). Although unnecessary to pass upon these claims, we note that similar challenges to six-month durational residency requirements have been rejected in the past (Matter of Tang, 39 A.D.2d 357, app dsmd 35 N.Y.2d 851; Tang v Appellate Div. of N.Y. Supreme Ct., First Dept., 373 F. Supp. 800, affd 487 F.2d 138, cert den 416 U.S. 906; Wilson v Wilson, 416 F. Supp. 984, affd 430 U.S. 925; Suffling v Bondurant, 339 F. Supp. 257, affd sub nom. Rose v Bondurant, 409 U.S. 1020).

The principal purpose of the privileges and immunities clause, like the commerce clause, is to eliminate protectionist burdens placed upon individuals engaged in trade or commerce by confining the power of a State to apply its laws exclusively to nonresidents (Paul v Virginia, 8 Wall [75 US] 168, 180; Tribe, American Constitutional Law, § 6-32, p 406). In essence, the clause prevents a State from discriminating against nonresidents merely to further its own parochial interests or those of its residents (Hicklin v Orbeck, 437 U.S. 518; Mullaney v Anderson, 342 U.S. 415; Toomer v Witsell, 334 U.S. 385). While the precise reach of the clause must await further clarification, it is settled that a State may not premise an individual's right to engage in his chosen occupation within its borders solely on residence. Thus, the clause has been consistently interpreted to prevent a State from imposing discriminatory burdens on nonresidents, whether by means of artificial trade barriers in the form of unequal licensing fees (Toomer v Witsell, supra), taxes imposed on out-of-State vendors (Ward v Maryland, 12 Wall [79 US] 418), or employment preferences granted only to residents (Hicklin v Orbeck, supra).

Many have recognized the "mutually reinforcing relationship" between the privileges and immunities and the commerce clauses (Hicklin v Orbeck, 437 U.S. 518, 531, supra; Toomer v Witsell, 334 U.S. 385, 407-409 [FRANKFURTER, J., concurring], supra; Tribe, American Constitutional Law, § 6-32, at p 404). The manifest distinction between the two is that the privileges and immunities clause is an affirmative grant of rights to individuals whereas the commerce clause has been read to limit the power of the individual States to restrict the free flow of goods and services across State lines (see Philadelphia v New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617, 621-622).

At one time, the privileges and immunities clause was thought to recognize what, within the philosphical terminology of the day, were termed "natural rights" (see Corfield v Coryell, 6 Fed Cas 546 [No. 3230]). Under this earlier theory, the purpose of the clause was to guarantee every citizen a group of fundamental rights which no State could transgress (see Calder v Bull, 3 Dallas [3 US] 386, 388). With the passage of time, however, it has become settled that the clause does not import that a citizen carries with him a set of well-defined privileges and immunities no matter where he may travel. Rather, the clause is meant "to insure to a citizen of State A who ventures into State B the same privileges which the citizens of State B enjoy" (Toomer v Witsell, 334 U.S. 385, 395, supra).

This is not to say, of course, that the privileges and immunities clause forbids a State from ever differentiating between residents and nonresidents. Matters which directly implicate its sovereignty, such as voting (Dunn v Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330) or entitlement to public office (Chimento v Stark, 414 U.S. 802), furnish ready examples of areas in which a State may constitutionally condition eligibility upon residence. Moreover, where the disparate treatment does not implicate "those 'privileges' and 'immunities' bearing upon the vitality of the Nation as a single entity", there is no requirement that the State treat resident and nonresident alike (Baldwin v Montana Fish Game Comm., 436 U.S. 371, 383). But those areas exempt from privileges and immunities protection are narrow and do not embrace the grant of a license to practice law.

As noted, the breadth of the privileges and immunities clause is presently unclear. In any event, there are certain rights deemed fundamental for privileges and immunities purposes which severely limit the power of the State to discriminate against nonresidents. In addition to the right to engage in one's chosen occupation, these fundamental rights include the right to own and alienate property within the State (Blake v McClung, 172 U.S. 239), the right to equal treatment in the courts (Canadian Northern Ry. Co. v Eggen, 252 U.S. 553) and the right to seek services available in the State (Doe v Bolton, 410 U.S. 179). A nonresident wishing to exercise at least these rights in a foreign State is entitled to the same privileges and immunities a resident of that State receives.

No extended discussion is necessary to demonstrate that the right to pursue one's chosen occupation free from discriminatory interference is the very essence of the personal freedom that the privileges and immunities clause was intended to secure (Hicklin v Orbeck, 437 U.S. 518, 524-525, supra; Ward v Maryland, 12 Wall [79 US] 418, 430, supra). It is now beyond dispute that the practice of law, despite its historical antecedents as a learned profession somehow above that of the common trades, is but a species of those commercial activities within the ambit of the clause (cf. Bates v State Bar of Ariz., 433 U.S. 350, 371-372; Goldfarb v Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773, 788). From the standpoint of both the public and the legal profession itself, the practice of law is analogous to any other occupation in which an independent agent acts on behalf of a principal.

Nor can it be maintained that CPLR 9406 (subd 2) works no invidious discrimination against nonresidents. An attorney admitted to practice in one State who desires to practice in New York must often give up an established practice and residence, move to New York and forfeit the right to engage in his or her chosen occupation for at least six months and often appreciably longer. One who desires to engage in a multistate practice, concentrating on a particular area of expertise, is effectively foreclosed from doing so by the requirements of CPLR 9406 (subd 2). Those attorneys now employed by large corporations, currently comprising more than 10% of the legal profession (Yovovich, The Tense Marriage Between Business and Lawyers, Barrister, Spring 1979, p 43), whose duties entail frequent interstate relocation are similarly penalized by the operation of the rule. The disparity of treatment between residents of the State and nonresidents is manifest: given two equally qualified candidates who have passed the Bar examination (or, for that matter, meet the other requirements for admission on motion) and possess the requisite character and fitness, the rule would deny one admission based solely upon residence.

These considerations, together with an often unstated feeling that durational residency requirements constitute protectionist trade barriers for the economic protection of local interests, have given rise to numerous calls to nationalize admission to the Bar (e.g., Smith, Time for a National Practice of Law Act, 64 ABAJ 557; Brakel Loh, Regulating the Multistate Practice of Law, 50 Wn. L Rev 699; Note, 56 Cornell L Rev 831).

Where the State imposes a wide-ranging restriction which significantly impairs the efforts of nonresidents to earn a livelihood, the discriminatory action must surmount two distinct hurdles. First the governmental interest claimed to justify the discrimination must be carefully examined to determine whether that interest is substantial, that is, whether "non-citizens constitute a peculiar source of the evil at which the statute is aimed" (Toomer v Witsell 334 U.S. 385, 398, supra). Assuming that nonresidents do indeed present a problem with which the State may legitimately address, the inquiry then focuses upon whether the means adopted to achieve that goal are narrowly drawn and are the least restrictive alternatives available (Hicklin v Orbeck, 437 U.S. 518, 528, supra).

It is undisputed that New York has a constitutionally permissible interest to assure that those admitted to the Bar possess knowledge of the law as well as the character and fitness requisite for an attorney (Judiciary Law, § 90; Law Students Research Council v Wadmond, 401 U.S. 154, 159; Schware v Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 239). But appellant has not been excluded from membership in the Bar due to any challenge to his knowledge of the law of this State or to his good character. Rather, the exclusion is based solely upon his residence in North Carolina — a criterion which serves no purpose other than to deny persons the right to pursue their professional career objectives because of parochial interests.

There is nothing in the record to indicate that an influx of nonresident practitioners would create, or even threaten to create, a particular evil [within the competence of the State] to address. No valid reason is proffered as to why admission to practice law before the courts of this State must be made dependent upon residency. Indeed, aside from an oblique reference to the purported "dangers" said to be inherent in the licensing of nonresident lawyers, the State is at a complete loss to justify the blanket discrimination against nonresidents arising from the operation of CPLR 9406 (subd 2). Nevertheless, some have attempted to identify reasons supporting residency requirements for admission to the Bar (see Note, 92 Harv L Rev 1461, 1480). On the whole, however, these justifications serve only administrative convenience and thus are not closely tailored to serve a legitimate State interest (cf. Sosna v Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 406).

The rationale most often used to uphold residency requirements is the need of Bar admission authorities to observe and evaluate the applicant's character (cf., e.g., Lipman v Van Zant, 329 F. Supp. 391, 402; Webster v Wofford, 321 F. Supp. 1259, 1262; Note, 71 Mich L Rev 838, 850-852). But in this State, the applicant himself, in submitting his application for admission, is available to the Committee on Character and Fitness and is personally interviewed by one of its members. In some cases, nonresidents are permitted to furnish affidavits attesting to the applicant's character and fitness to practice law. Nor may the discrimination visited upon nonresidents be justified upon the ground that only resident attorneys will be amenable to the supervision of our courts ( 67 A.D.2d 215, 217; Matter of Tang, 39 A.D.2d 357, 360, app dsmd 35 N.Y.2d 851). To be sure, the State has a legitimate interest in controlling the attorneys who appear in its courts. Again, however, there are alternatives which are less restrictive than denial of admission to practice which would further this interest. For example, nothing prevents the State from enacting legislation requiring nonresident attorneys to appoint an agent for the service of process within the State (cf. Hess v Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352; Doherty Co. v Goodman, 294 U.S. 623). Moreover, remedies currently available to safeguard against abuses by resident attorneys — contempt, disciplinary proceedings and malpractice actions — could be applied with equal force against miscreant nonresident attorneys.

That the State has an obligation to ensure the competency and rectitude of its counselor at law is a proposition with which none may quarrel (Matter of Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717). This obligation, however, may not be fulfilled at the expense of constitutionally protected rights (see Konigsberg v State Bar, 366 U.S. 36). By denying otherwise qualified applicants their right to practice their chosen occupation based solely on their State of residence, CPLR 9406 (subd 2) works an unconstitutional discrimination against nonresidents. Any interest the State may have in regulating nonresident attorneys is ill served by the onerous burden imposed by the rule. A number of less drastic, and constitutionally permissible, alternatives are readily available to protect the interest of the State in supervising those who practice in its courts (see, e.g., Note, 92 Harv L Rev 1461, 1487-1489).

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, and the matter remitted to the Appellate Division, First Department, for further proceedings on petitioner's application for admission to the Bar.

Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur.

Order reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to the Appellate Division, First Department, for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion herein.


Summaries of

Matter of Gordon

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 13, 1979
48 N.Y.2d 266 (N.Y. 1979)

holding that State's justification for residency requirement, the “observ [ation] and evaluat[ion] [of] the applicant's character,” was insufficient due to “alternatives which are less restrictive than denial of admission to practice which would further this interest”

Summary of this case from Schoenefeld v. Schneiderman

noting that the ability and remedies available to safeguard against unethical conduct by resident attorneys can “be applied with equal force” to nonresident attorneys

Summary of this case from Schoenefeld v. New York

stating that attorneys who wished to practice law in multiple states were “foreclosed from doing so” by the now-unconstitutional New York residency requirement for admission

Summary of this case from Schoenefeld v. New York

In Matter of Gordon, 48 N.Y.2d 266 (1979), the Court of Appeals of New York struck down, on privileges and immunities grounds, requirements that an applicant for admission to the bar by examination have been (1) a New York resident for the six months immediately preceding submission of his application for admission to practice, and (2) a New York resident at the time of his admission.

Summary of this case from In re Jadd

invalidating six-month residency requirement for bar admission

Summary of this case from In re Professional Ethics Advisory Comm. Op. 475

In Gordon, the appellant challenged the constitutionality of a rule providing that a person may not be admitted to the bar unless he furnishes proof "that he has been an actual resident of... New York for six months immediately preceding the submission of his application for admission to practice."

Summary of this case from Sheley v. Alaska Bar Association

In Matter of Gordon (48 N.Y.2d 266, 269) the CPLR provision which required that an applicant for admission to the Bar be "'an actual resident of the state of New York for six months immediately preceding the submission of his application'" was ruled unconstitutional as violative of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of article IV of the United States Constitution.

Summary of this case from Lichtenstein v. Emerson
Case details for

Matter of Gordon

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of HARRY G. GORDON for Admission to the Bar, Appellant…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Nov 13, 1979

Citations

48 N.Y.2d 266 (N.Y. 1979)
422 N.Y.S.2d 641
397 N.E.2d 1309

Citing Cases

Strauss v. Alabama State Bar

Note, 92 Harv.L.Rev. 1461, 1464 (1979). For example, in Gordon v. Committee on Character and Fitness, 48…

Schoenefeld v. New York

This requirement was later held unconstitutional by the New York Court of Appeals. Matter of Gordon, 48…