IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION OF HARLIN FOR ADMISSION BY EXAMINATION
2017 OK 23
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Caleb Harlin graduated from Oak Brook College of Law (a non-ABA, California-recognized four-year program), passed California’s bar, and was admitted to the California Bar in 2010; he later practiced and remains in good standing in California.
- Harlin later enrolled at Oklahoma City University (an ABA-accredited law school) without an undergraduate degree under ABA Standard 502(b), graduated summa cum laude in 2015, and sought Oklahoma admission by examination as an attorney licensed in a non-reciprocal jurisdiction (California).
- Harlin applied under Rule 4 §1 (attorney applicants) to sit for the Oklahoma bar; the Board of Bar Examiners denied his Exam Application by Attorney, asserting §2 (law‑student registration) requirements—including an undergraduate degree—also applied to §1 applicants.
- The Board relied on overlapping documentary requirements in §2 (fingerprints, photo, NCBE report) and a court application form requesting undergraduate transcripts to justify applying §2(a) to attorney applicants.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed the Board’s decision de novo, concluded Rule 4 §1 expressly exempts attorney applicants from law‑student registration, and held the undergraduate degree requirement in §2(a) does not apply to §1 applicants; Harlin was permitted to take the Oklahoma bar exam.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an attorney from a non‑reciprocal jurisdiction applying under Rule 4 §1 must satisfy law‑student registration requirements in §2 (including an undergraduate degree) | Harlin: §1 expressly exempts attorney applicants from registering as law students; §2(a) therefore does not apply to him | Board: §2 contains required items (fingerprints, photo, NCBE report) common to all applicants; because §1 applicants must supply similar materials, §2(a)’s undergraduate requirement should also apply | Held: §1 exempts attorney applicants from §2 registration; §2(a) undergraduate requirement does not apply to §1 applicants; Harlin met Rule 4 requirements and may sit for the bar |
Key Cases Cited
- Application of Sanger, 865 P.2d 338 (Okla. 1993) (appellate de novo review of Board of Bar Examiners’ denial of admission)
- Ellington v. Horwitz Enterprises, 68 P.3d 983 (Okla. 2003) (court forms must be based on applicable rules; rules control over forms)
- Cornett v. Carr, 302 P.3d 769 (Okla. 2013) (court rules and forms cannot conflict with statute)