In re Ahmed M. Hamid-Ahmed
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
Thomas J. Donovan, Jr., Attorney General, and Eleanor L.P. Spottswood, Assistant Attorney General, Montpelier, for Respondent-Appellee.
PRESENT: Reibеr, C.J., Skoglund, Robinson, Eaton and Carroll, JJ.
¶ 1. SKOGLUND, J. Applicant, Ahmed M. Hamid-Ahmed, appeals a decision of the Vermont Board of Bar Examiners (Board) denying his application to take the Vermont bar exam. Because appellant does not meet the requirements outlinеd in the Vermont Rules of Admission to the Bar, we affirm.
¶ 2. No material facts are in dispute. Applicant has a bachelor‘s degree with a mаjor in criminal justice and a Master of Laws degree (LLM) from Widener University School of Law. However, he does not have a Juris Doctоr (JD) or a substantially equivalent law degree from a foreign or domestic non-approved law school, he has not enrolled in a law office study program, and he has not been admitted to any other bar, foreign or domestic. Despite this, applicant argues that he is eligible to take the bar exam under
¶ 3. The Vermont Rules of Admission to the Bar lay out three ways an applicant can satisfy the educational requirements necessary to be eligible to sit fоr the bar exam: (a) graduate from an approved law school, (b) complete the Law Office Study Program, or (c) graduate from a non-approved law school, if the equivalency requirements of Rule 8 are met.
¶ 4. If an applicant is a graduate from a foreign, non-aрproved law school, they must meet the requirements of both Rule 8(b)(1) and (b)(2). Subsection (b)(1) requires the applicant to establish that “he or shе has . . . completed a legal education at a Foreign Law School whose curriculum provided training in a system based on the сommon law of England and that is otherwise equivalent to graduation from an Approved Law School, as determined by the equivalenсy determination process.” And, subsection (b)(2) requires the applicant to have “been admitted to the bar of a court of general jurisdiction in the country in which the Applicant attended the Foreign Law School and [to have] maintained good standing in that bar or rеsigned from that bar while still in good standing.”
¶ 5. Subsection (c) of Rule 8, titled “Equivalency Determination Process” and referenced in Rule 8(b)(1), outlines the requirements an applicant must meet to show that their graduation from a non-approved law school satisfies the educational requirements. Within this subsection, there is a “Cure Provision,” which provides that “[a]pplicants who do not meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this rule, may cure deficiency by obtaining an LLM degree . . . at an Approved Law School in the United States.”
¶ 6. Applicant urgеs this Court to adopt a broad reading of Rule 8(c)(4) to make the curing provision applicable to everyone with an LLM applying to sit for the Vermont bar exam, regardless of their legal educational and professional background. This interpretation is contrary to the most
¶ 7. It is an essentially universal practice to interpret rules, regulations, and statutes based on the plain meaning of the language when read in context of the text as a whole. City of Burlington v. Dep‘t of Emp‘t & Training, 148 Vt. 151, 154, 530 A.2d 573, 575 (1987) (explaining that court must interpret statute as whole “and if possible, give еffect to every word, clause, and sentence.” (quotation omitted)). And, if the plain meaning is clear on the face of the rule, it must be enforced as such. See e.g., Heffernan v. State, 2018 VT 47, ¶ 7, __ Vt. __, 187 A.3d 1149 (noting that “interpretation begins with the plain language” and “if the language in question is clear,” analysis ends).
¶ 8. Based on the plain meaning of its terms, Rule 8(c)(4) allows those who graduated from a foreign law school to “curе” the shortcomings of their foreign law degree, which has provided inadequate preparation to practice law in Vermont either because the degree was not based on the common law of England or did not meet the other equivalency requiremеnts set forth in Rule 8(c)(1)-(3). To cure a shortcoming in foreign law degree, an applicant must have a foreign law degree and must also meet the other requirements of Rule 8(b). Here, applicant does not deny that he does not have a foreign law degree and thаt he has not been admitted to another bar, either foreign or domestic. Applicant‘s proposed interpretation of Rule 8(c)(4) is untenable when the plain language is read in the context of Rule 8 and the remainder of the Vermont Rules of Admission to the Bar, and thus thе Board properly rejected it and denied applicant‘s application to take the bar exam.
¶ 9. Next, appliсant argues that the Board violated his due process rights when it denied his application but did not explicitly notify him of the process for appealing that decision to this Court. This Court has consistently held that “a party‘s failure to present any substantive analysis or argument оn . . . constitutional issues constitutes inadequate briefing, which we [will] decline to address.” Trudell v. State, 2013 VT 18, ¶ 30, 193 Vt. 515, 71 A.3d 1235 (declining to address appellant‘s argumеnt because it consisted of one citation to case law with no explanation or supporting analysis);
Affirmed.
FOR THE COURT:
Associate Justice