Post by CCADP on Aug 2, 2005 8:16:15 GMT -5
Court says La. doesn't have to let foreign visitors practice law
Rejecting arguments from foreign attorneys, including some who came to
Louisiana to help the poor, a federal appeals court ruled that the state
may block foreigners who are in the state temporarily from practicing law
in state courts.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal ruling, released Monday, upheld a
state court rule that says every applicant to practice law in the state
must be a U.S. citizen or an alien who has established a residency in the
state.
Challenging the rule were 6 foreign attorneys who were in the state on
temporary student or work visas. 2 of them worked with agencies such as
the Capital Post-Conviction Project of Louisiana or the Innocence Project
New Orleans, which represent poor people in appeals of criminal
convictions, including death penalty cases.
"The decision, although not unexpected, is very disappointing," said Louis
Koerner, an attorney who represented a Canadian and three French citizens.
"We are examining our options," he added. Those options included seeking a
rehearing before the appeals court and, if need be, going to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
Koerner said he believes the state is blocking visiting foreigners from
practicing law in the state because of the success some have had in recent
years in appealing death row cases. He said it was common for the state to
admit temporary aliens to the bar until 2003.
His clients, he said, are simply interested in practicing law here because
of Louisiana's French heritage and similarities between Louisiana and
French law.
An attorney for the state Supreme Court, which was a defendant in the case
because it sets court rules, said he was pleased with the decision. And he
denied allegations that foreigners' success in defending state convicts
had anything to do with the policy. "I know of no evidence to support that
charge," said Bruce Schewe.
The 5th Circuit opinion, written by Judge Edith Jones on behalf of a
three-judge panel, was released Monday and dated Friday. It acknowledged
U.S. Supreme Court rulings giving aliens the same equal protection and due
process rights as citizens, but said those cases dealt with resident
aliens, not temporary visitors.
Louisiana has a legitimate interest in limiting the rights of visiting
aliens who want to practice law, the opinion said, noting that the state
is concerned about the difficulty in contacting, regulating or, if
necessary, disciplining foreign lawyers who might leave for their home
countries.
"The State's determination that the easily terminable status of
nonimmigrant aliens would impair these interests and their enforcement
capacity is not irrational," Jones wrote.
Voting with Jones was Judge Jerry Smith.
Dissenting on a key point in the case, Judge Carl Stewart said there is no
reason to believe the U.S. Supreme Court meant in its earlier opinions to
exclude nonresident aliens from the same protections afforded resident
aliens.
"In discussing the alien suspect class, the Supreme Court has referred to
resident aliens, aliens and non-citizens interchangeably," Stewart wrote.
As for the state's ability to regulate or discipline lawyers, Stewart
noted that U.S. citizens and resident aliens are also able to head for
other nations. "Citizens have a constitutional right to travel," Stewart
wrote.
2 lower court cases, with conflicting results, were combined in the 5th
Circuit case.
1 federal district judge, in a case involving Emily Maw and Caroline
Wallace, both of England, had overturned the rule, saying it was arbitrary
and unconstitutional discrimination.
But a different judge, in a challenge brought by Koerner's clients:
Canadian Maureen Affleck, and French citizens Karen LeClerc, Guillaume
Jarry and Beatrice Boulord, upheld the rule.
(source: Associated Press)
Rejecting arguments from foreign attorneys, including some who came to
Louisiana to help the poor, a federal appeals court ruled that the state
may block foreigners who are in the state temporarily from practicing law
in state courts.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal ruling, released Monday, upheld a
state court rule that says every applicant to practice law in the state
must be a U.S. citizen or an alien who has established a residency in the
state.
Challenging the rule were 6 foreign attorneys who were in the state on
temporary student or work visas. 2 of them worked with agencies such as
the Capital Post-Conviction Project of Louisiana or the Innocence Project
New Orleans, which represent poor people in appeals of criminal
convictions, including death penalty cases.
"The decision, although not unexpected, is very disappointing," said Louis
Koerner, an attorney who represented a Canadian and three French citizens.
"We are examining our options," he added. Those options included seeking a
rehearing before the appeals court and, if need be, going to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
Koerner said he believes the state is blocking visiting foreigners from
practicing law in the state because of the success some have had in recent
years in appealing death row cases. He said it was common for the state to
admit temporary aliens to the bar until 2003.
His clients, he said, are simply interested in practicing law here because
of Louisiana's French heritage and similarities between Louisiana and
French law.
An attorney for the state Supreme Court, which was a defendant in the case
because it sets court rules, said he was pleased with the decision. And he
denied allegations that foreigners' success in defending state convicts
had anything to do with the policy. "I know of no evidence to support that
charge," said Bruce Schewe.
The 5th Circuit opinion, written by Judge Edith Jones on behalf of a
three-judge panel, was released Monday and dated Friday. It acknowledged
U.S. Supreme Court rulings giving aliens the same equal protection and due
process rights as citizens, but said those cases dealt with resident
aliens, not temporary visitors.
Louisiana has a legitimate interest in limiting the rights of visiting
aliens who want to practice law, the opinion said, noting that the state
is concerned about the difficulty in contacting, regulating or, if
necessary, disciplining foreign lawyers who might leave for their home
countries.
"The State's determination that the easily terminable status of
nonimmigrant aliens would impair these interests and their enforcement
capacity is not irrational," Jones wrote.
Voting with Jones was Judge Jerry Smith.
Dissenting on a key point in the case, Judge Carl Stewart said there is no
reason to believe the U.S. Supreme Court meant in its earlier opinions to
exclude nonresident aliens from the same protections afforded resident
aliens.
"In discussing the alien suspect class, the Supreme Court has referred to
resident aliens, aliens and non-citizens interchangeably," Stewart wrote.
As for the state's ability to regulate or discipline lawyers, Stewart
noted that U.S. citizens and resident aliens are also able to head for
other nations. "Citizens have a constitutional right to travel," Stewart
wrote.
2 lower court cases, with conflicting results, were combined in the 5th
Circuit case.
1 federal district judge, in a case involving Emily Maw and Caroline
Wallace, both of England, had overturned the rule, saying it was arbitrary
and unconstitutional discrimination.
But a different judge, in a challenge brought by Koerner's clients:
Canadian Maureen Affleck, and French citizens Karen LeClerc, Guillaume
Jarry and Beatrice Boulord, upheld the rule.
(source: Associated Press)