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

lawsuitattorneylawyersummary judgmentdiscrimination
summary judgmentdiscrimination

Related Cases

Frey v. Department of Health and Human Services, 106 F.R.D. 32, 50 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1381
View Case »
Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers v. Henry, 276 Ga. 571, 581 S.E.2d 37, 03 FCDR 1560
View Case »
City and County of San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions, Inc., 38 Cal.4th 839, 135 P.3d 20, 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 771, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4709, 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6880
View Case »
Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773, 95 S.Ct. 2004, 44 L.Ed.2d 572, 1975-1 Trade Cases P 60,355
View Case »
Baylson v. Disciplinary Bd. of Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 764 F.Supp. 328, 59 USLW 2742
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Supreme Court of Virginia v. Friedman, 487 U.S. 59, 108 S.Ct. 2260, 101 L.Ed.2d 56, 56 USLW 4669

Facts

Myrna E. Friedman, a Maryland resident and qualified attorney, applied for admission to the Virginia Bar under Rule 1A:1, which allows qualified lawyers from other states to be admitted without examination, provided they are permanent residents of Virginia. The Virginia Supreme Court denied her application based on her non-residency, despite her argument that the residency requirement violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Friedman subsequently filed a lawsuit against the Virginia Supreme Court and its Clerk, leading to a summary judgment in her favor.

Friedman practices and maintains her offices at the company's principal place of business in Vienna, Virginia.

Issue

Does Virginia's residency requirement for admission to the state bar without examination violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution?

The question for decision is whether this residency requirement violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 1.

Rule

The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, § 2, cl. 1, protects nonresidents' rights to practice law on equal terms with residents, and any state discrimination against nonresidents must be closely related to substantial state objectives.

The nonresident's interest in practicing law on terms of substantial equality with those enjoyed by residents is a privilege protected by the Clause.

Analysis

The Supreme Court found that Virginia's residency requirement discriminated against nonresidents by preventing them from practicing law on equal terms with residents. The Court emphasized that the requirement did not serve a substantial state interest and was not justified by the need for commitment to the state or familiarity with its laws. The Court noted that nonresidents could maintain an office in Virginia and fulfill their professional obligations without being residents.

Virginia has failed to show that its discrimination against non-residents bears a close relation to the achievement of substantial state objectives.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling, declaring that Virginia's residency requirement for bar admission without examination violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

We hold that Virginia's residency requirement for admission to the State's bar without examination violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

Who won?

Myrna E. Friedman prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court determined that the residency requirement imposed by Virginia was unconstitutional and discriminatory against nonresidents.

The District Court entered summary judgment in Friedman's favor, holding that the requirement of residency for admission without examination violates the Clause.

You must be