Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorney
attorney

Related Cases

San Diego Navy Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Society, Inc., 162 Cal.App.3d 358, 208 Cal.Rptr. 494, 50 A.L.R.4th 913
View Case »
McIntosh v. Mills, 121 Cal.App.4th 333, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 66, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6992, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9468
View Case »
Morrison v. Brandeis University, 125 F.R.D. 14, 52 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 473, 49 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,917, 13 Fed.R.Serv.3d 906, 53 Ed. Law Rep. 518
View Case »
Patton v. Turnage, 260 Ga.App. 744, 580 S.E.2d 604, 03 FCDR 1135
View Case »
In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 88 S.Ct. 1222, 20 L.Ed.2d 117, 43 O.O.2d 459
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Frazier v. Heebe, 482 U.S. 641, 107 S.Ct. 2607, 96 L.Ed.2d 557, 55 USLW 4877, 7 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1139

Facts

David Frazier, an attorney residing and practicing in Mississippi, applied for admission to the bar of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. His application was denied based on local rules requiring attorneys to either live in Louisiana or maintain an office there. Frazier argued that these rules were unconstitutional, leading to a series of court decisions that ultimately reached the Supreme Court.

Petitioner, an attorney who maintained both his residence and his law office in Pascagoula, Mississippi, and who was a member of the Mississippi and Louisiana State Bars, was denied admission to the Bar of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana because he neither lived nor had an office in Louisiana, as required by the court's local Rule 21.2.

Issue

Whether a United States District Court may require that applicants for general admission to its bar either reside or maintain an office in the State where that court sits.

The question for decision is whether a United States District Court may require that applicants for general admission to its bar either reside or maintain an office in the State where that court sits.

Rule

A district court has discretion to adopt local rules necessary for its business, including rules governing admission to its bar, but such rules must be consistent with principles of right and justice.

A district court has discretion to adopt local rules that are necessary to carry out its business, including rules governing admission to its bar.

Analysis

The Supreme Court found that the residency and office requirements imposed by the Eastern District of Louisiana were unnecessary and irrational. The Court noted that there was no empirical evidence to support the claim that nonresident attorneys were less competent or available than resident attorneys. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that modern communication systems and alternative means of ensuring attorney availability made the local rules unjustifiable.

We find both requirements to be unnecessary and irrational.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision, holding that the District Court was not empowered to adopt rules requiring members of the Louisiana Bar who apply for admission to its bar to live in, or maintain an office in, Louisiana.

We therefore need not address the constitutional questions presented.

Who won?

David Frazier prevailed in the case as the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, stating that the local rules discriminated against nonresident attorneys without justification.

We therefore conclude that the residency requirement imposed by the Eastern District is unnecessary and arbitrarily discriminates against out-of-state attorneys.

You must be