*2 NESBETT, DIMOND J.,C. that he to the Alaska Before bar examination after 1965. For and RABINO JJ. reason he the that was denied admission to by bar the Board of Governors DIMOND, Justice. petitioned Alaska Bar Association. He has made Brewer the that At time for this court admission to the bar without Bar Alaska the to application for admission provisions examination. He claims that the provided Association, Act Alaska Bar the in the statute the of one fail as to effect the eligible that one was a bar examination if, in addi- examination Alaska was an invalid and unwar limitation ap- the meeting requirements, the inherent and final other ranted tion to an- power the plicant passed a bar examination of this stand court had a of Columbia ards for admission to the or the District other state by a employed Alaska actively in reasonable standard for been admission because govern- it state federal had no rational connection with by firm or the or law Alaska, least for at denied legal nature in work a ment equal protec court years, and cant due of law and consecutive three contrary best interests tion in the of the law fourteenth that was determined amendment to the' federal .constitution2 profession that qualify under article did not sections 1 I of Alaska be admitted.1 One Act, however, fail- if he had taken and constitution.3 (C) provided: has a resident of Alaska been 08.08.130 1.AS years petition- for at least three before person is A admitted; ing the be court the Alaska Bar employed actively (D) has been States; (1) of the United is a citizen by firm or the state or a years age; (2) is over 21 government in work of a federal (3) a of the state been resident has consecutive nature years; at least three the date at before least by application (E) supreme examina- for admission court determines by reciprocity, and the date for tion or is best of those that in the interests legal profession or the examination for admission he be served admitted, nothing except the board that for certification date reciprocity person permit paragraph admitted be shall the admission attorney be at least 90 shall who after made; plication the Alas- taken and failed to has bar examination. ka graduate (4) a law school is a 135 the In SLA approved by Bar Associa- the American by deleting subsec- amended AS 08.08.130 clerkship completed a tion or has (A), (B), (O), (E). (D) (6) tion required by § manner chapter; and to the fed- 2. The amendment fourteenth passed (5) examination has constitution eral Bar; given or shall any person [D]eprive — requirements (1) (6) meets property, section, (4) of this * * deny any nor (A) has equal protection of the laws. the District of Colum- another state or bia; Const, and 7 §§ art. standing good (B) vide: is member in Bights. This Inherent Section the District the bar of state or prin- Columbia; constitution is dedicated to ceptable held Houston we to this court. Bar examinations commonly throughout and au inherent and final used the states as thority repre- admis test of determine standards for one’s fitness to advise and *3 re practice to the of law in this state sent clients sion When matters. one pass that the appropriate properly side in court. also held fails to an We may governing examination, legislature enact laws administered not unrea- law, may require practice say of but that sonable to that he has demonstrated his proficiency admit than lack justify this court to on standards other in law so toas accepted denying right or established the court. him the those to be admitted to the accept legislative stand bar. or not we the legislature-impos- Whether We believe that practice disqualification ards or for admission to ed rules for one who took and depends upon they of law whether have the bar examination after 30, rational connection with one’s fitness to 1965 did have rational connec- June tion with one’s be admitted to the hold that law Alaska. We will Alaska Bar and was not an unwarranted there is such rational connection the inherent legislative cation of the standards has a court to determine the such tendency reasonable whether admission. Because such a rational con- knowledge has a sufficient nection exist legislative did and the re- Alaska to hold himself out to quirement arbitrary, and because public adequately prepared that he is to as applicant did take and fail to the bar efficiently obligations sume re examination after there has June sponsibilities represent commensurate with not been a denial of due persons matters. refusing applicant admission the Alaska Bar.6 legislature AS 08.08.1305the protec- equal Nor do we find a denial of stated in effect judgment in its one provision in AS tion of the laws. The who was ineligible for ad- 08.08.130which made one Alaska Bar without examination mission examination if without statute would be ineligible pass the he had taken and failed to took and failed to a bar examination 30, 30, after bar examination 1965 was after say 1965. We cannot legis- legislative contained in 1965 enactment of judgment was unreasonable 30, effective lature7 which became on such a determining standard for The effect was to eligibility 1965.8 for admission to the bar is unac- 5. Statute 6. Cf. 353 U.S. wards of their persons shall be erty, piness, [*] corresponding obligations and to the State. der the ciples rights, right Section 7. Due Process. No Schware P.2d [*] opportunities, and 232, 238-39, deprived life, liberty, all (Alaska 1963). Board note 1 persons own enjoyment and entitled to industry; have a natural S.Ct. pursuit to the persons Examiners, of the that all people prop- have 1 E. hap- law. un- re- 8. Article 7. may, membership 47 was 262, stitution 2d another v. State Bar of Ed.2d (1957); SLA 644, legislature provided, 77 S.Ct. 1965, 796, approved II, section effective concurrence Application Since no other effective date ch. enactment. of each 47, this law April 722, become effective California, date.” 1.§ that “Laws 1 (1957); Konigsberg house, L.Ed.2d governor two-thirds became Houston, SLA 353 U.S. provide which was 1965, 810, effective on ninety April 252, 819 P. Johnson.2 In those make I those cases concluded that AS the Alaska bar could not be used a basis for admission effective date amination after the
act, may have taken but not those who ef- to such
failed the bar examination
fective date. distinction see here
We persons.9 groups When
between the two *4 for ad adopts new obliged by the
mission to the laws equal protection of
requirements STITES, Appellant, retrospective so E.C. legislation make its encompass situations which existed v. Evans, Foley legislation becomes effec B. to the time Mel LOCAL Learned, Appellees. M. A. Mrs. prospective To make the tive. here, only, done satis operation as was requirements of constitutional fies of Alaska. operating long so as the invidiously discrimi prospectively does not persons. nate between different classes here.
There was no such discrimination attempted qualify for
All under AS without examination
.admission in that
08.08.130(6)10 treated alike were bar exami
.who took the 1965 after the effective date of
nation admission
act were
to the Alaska Bar without examination. findings of fact and
The amended of the Alaska Bar Associa-
clusions
tion which determined that
not entitled to admission to af- AS petition Applicant’s
firmed. Bar Association
amination is denied. (concurring).
RABINO Justice
I concur the result reached
majority my for the reasons stated dis opinions
senting Hanson1 Leege Martin, 9. In note 379 P.2d Statute 1963), we said that Ct.), (Supreme L.J., No. Yol. protection provision of article section 6, p. (June 1966). 1 of the Alaska constitution was “a which, (Supreme Ct.), against L.J., No. hibition laws in their Yol. p. (June plication, make distinctions be- persons.” tween