IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION OF HARLIN FOR ADMISSION BY EXAMINATION
2017 OK 23
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Caleb Harlin graduated from a non-ABA, California law program (Oak Brook), passed California’s bar, and was admitted to the California Bar in 2010; he later practiced and remained in good standing.
- California is a non‑reciprocal jurisdiction with Oklahoma; Harlin sought admission in Oklahoma by examination under Rule 4, §1 (attorneys from non‑reciprocal jurisdictions).
- Board staff initially told Harlin he needed an ABA law degree to be admitted; relying on that, Harlin enrolled at Oklahoma City University School of Law (OCU) and later obtained a J.D. (summa cum laude, 2015).
- Harlin did not have an undergraduate (bachelor’s) degree; OCU admitted him under ABA Standard 502(b) as an extraordinary case.
- The Board denied Harlin’s Exam Application by Attorney because it interpreted Rule 4 to require attorney applicants to meet the §2 law‑student registration requirements (including the undergraduate degree). Harlin appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
- The Court reviewed the record de novo and found Rule 4 §1 expressly exempts attorney applicants from law‑student registration; it reversed the Board and allowed Harlin to sit for 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 the §2 law‑student registration requirements (including an undergraduate degree) | Harlin: §1 exempts attorney applicants from law‑student registration; §2(a) undergrad requirement does not apply to §1 applicants | Board: §2 lists several requirements (fingerprints, photo, NCBE report) and because some overlap it intended all §2 requirements (including undergrad degree) to apply to all applicants | Held: §1 expressly exempts attorney applicants from registration; §2(a) undergrad requirement does not apply to §1 applicants; Board reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Application of Sanger, 865 P.2d 338 (Okla. 1993) (de novo review of Board denial and applicant’s burden to show entitlement)
- Ellington v. Horwitz Enterprises, 68 P.3d 983 (Okla. 2003) (court forms and rules must conform to governing law)
- Cornett v. Carr, 302 P.3d 769 (Okla. 2013) (rules and forms are procedural and may be challenged if inconsistent with law)