In the Matter of Jenny Lindsay ( 2021 )

In the Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided: June 1, 2021
S21Z0101. IN THE MATTER OF JENNY LINDSAY.
PER CURIAM.
Jenny Lindsay appeals the denial by the Board of Bar Examiners
(“Board”) of her petition for waiver of certain educational eligibility
requirements prescribed under the Supreme Court of Georgia Rules
Governing Admission to the Practice of Law (“Rules”). For the reasons
discussed below, we conclude that the Board did not abuse its
discretion in denying Lindsay’s waiver petition. Therefore, we affirm.
Lindsay was educated at De Montfort University in Leicester,
United Kingdom and is licensed to practice law in England, Wales, and
parts of the Caribbean. In the fall of 2018, she enrolled in an LL.M.
program at Emory University School of Law (“Emory”). Following the
completion of her LL.M. program, Lindsay sought to apply to take the
Georgia Bar Exam.
All applicants seeking to take the Georgia Bar Examination are
required, among other things, to satisfy various educational
requirements as a condition of eligibility to take the exam. See
generally Rules, Part B, § 4. One such requirement is the conferral of
a professional degree in law – i.e., a J.D. or an LL.B. – from a law
school approved by the American Bar Association (“ABA”). See id. at
§ 4 (b) (1). For lawyers educated outside of the United States, the
Rules provide that the requirement of § 4 (b) (1) may be satisfied if the
lawyer (1) “[r]eceived his or her legal education and graduated from a
foreign law school” meeting certain criteria; (2) “[i]s authorized to
practice law in a foreign jurisdiction”; and (3) has been awarded an
LL.M. by an ABA-approved law school. See id. at § 4 (c). In addition,
for all applicants, the Rules provide that “[a]n applicant shall not be
permitted to take the examination unless evidence is first received
directly from the schools involved showing that he or she meets the
educational requirements of these Rules.” Id. at § 4 (d). The
“evidence” so required must be in the form of an official transcript. See
2
id.1 Thus, the Rules require both the fulfillment of the educational
requirements and the corresponding documentation in the form of an
official transcript.
Lindsay was unable to obtain an official transcript from Emory
by the published deadline for the Bar Exam she sought to take, which
was administered in October 2020.2 As detailed in Lindsay’s waiver
petition, she was involved in a dispute with Emory, which arose after
she was involuntarily withdrawn from a mandatory contracts class for
failure to comply with the class attendance policy. Lindsay filed a
grievance – which was ultimately unsuccessful – and she maintained
that this dispute remained unresolved and warranted her
nonpayment of university fees. Although Lindsay was ultimately
permitted to register for courses and apparently completed her degree
requirements, she continued to withhold payment, and a hold was
placed on her student account. As a result of the hold, Emory’s
1The “official transcript” requirement is subject to an exception for recent
graduates, but this exception does not apply here.
2 The bar exam typically administered in July was postponed twice in 2020
due to the COVID-19 pandemic; it was first postponed to September 2020 and
then again to October 2020.
3
Registrar refused to release Lindsay’s official law school transcript,
and she missed the applicable deadline for submission of her
transcript to the Office of Bar Admissions, which made her ineligible
to take the October 2020 Bar Exam.
Consequently, Lindsay submitted a petition to the Board for a
“waiver of the educational requirements of the Bar Examinations
and/or the official transcript.”3 In her petition, Lindsay contended that
there was good cause to waive the educational requirements due to her
legal education and “long years of practical legal service in common
law jurisdictions,” and because her inability to obtain an official law
school transcript was the result of Emory’s “recalcitrant disregard” for
her “civil, human, and constitutional rights.” Lindsay detailed at
length her experience in the practice of law in the United Kingdom
and the Caribbean and her efforts to resolve the dispute with Emory.
Contending that these factors established good cause for a waiver,
Lindsay proposed that a waiver could take one of three forms: (1) a
3 While Lindsay’s petition stated at one point that she was seeking a
“Waiver of the Bar Examinations,” the petition, construed as a whole, does not
appear to have been requesting a waiver of the examination itself, and the Board
did not construe it that way.
4
waiver of the transcript requirement altogether; (2) the substitution of
an unofficial transcript for the official transcript; or (3) the filing of an
official transcript “after court proceedings and/or amicable
settlement.”
The Board denied the petition. In its denial letter, the Board
stated that Lindsay
did not satisfy [her] burden of demonstrating good cause for
waiver of the clearly posted transcript deadline
and . . . failed to demonstrate good cause for waiver of the
requirement that [she], as a lawyer educated at a law school
located outside the United States and its territories, [was]
awarded, by a law school fully approved by the American
Bar Association, an LL.M. degree for the Practice of Law in
the United States in a degree program that meets the
Board’s requirements. See [Rules], Part B, [§] 4 (c).
This appeal ensued.
As a preliminary matter, this Court has the inherent authority
to set requirements for the admission to practice law in the State of
Georgia. See In re Oliver, 261 Ga. 850, 851 (2) (413 SE2d 435) (1992).
“[A]dmission to the State Bar is governed by the Rules promulgated
by this Court, which place the burden on the applicant to establish the
fitness to practice law.” In re G.E.C., 269 Ga. 744, 745 (1) (506 SE2d
5
843) (1998). The Board may waive any of these Rules, including the
educational eligibility requirements to sit for the Bar Exam, “for good
cause shown by clear and convincing evidence.” Rules, Part F, § 5. The
good cause standard for a waiver is flexible and judged according to
the circumstances of the individual case. See id. at 745 (2).
According to the Board’s published Waiver Process and Policy, 4
the Board considers waivers of the educational requirements on a
case-by-case basis. Applicants for a waiver of educational
requirements are required, among other things, to submit a “Dean’s
letter” that “analyz[es] the legal education [the applicant] received and
stat[es] whether or not it is the equivalent of an ABA-approved legal
education.” See Waiver Process & Policy. The Board has published
detailed guidelines for the content of such a Dean’s letter.5
4 See https://www.gabaradmissions.org/waiver-process.
5 The Board has provided the following guidelines regarding the scope of a
Dean’s Letter (available at https://www.gabaradmissions.org/dean-letter):
1. The Dean’s letter is one of the eight kinds of information that the
Board uses in considering [(a) the educational background of the
applicant; (b) the quality of the applicant’s educational
achievements; (c) the applicant’s substantive employment history;
and (d) the career goals of the applicant]. The Dean’s [L]etter is
6
particularly relevant to criteria (a) and (b). Therefore, the focus of the
[D]ean’s [L]etter should be an analysis of the law school education
received by the applicant as compared to an ABA-approved legal
education pursuant to the ABA Standards for Approval of Law
Schools, particularly the Standards on the Program of Legal
Education (Standards 301-306).
2. If the letter is from the designee of a [D]ean, the [L]etter should
state the fact of the designation and be signed by both the [D]ean’s
designee and the [D]ean. If the Dean’s Letter does not bear the
signature of the [D]ean, the Board of Bar Examiners require a
separate letter from the [D]ean to the Board authorizing the designee
to submit the Dean’s Letter.
3. The [D]ean or professor should include a statement of his or her
academic, teaching, and administrative experience;
4. The analysis of the legal education received should include:
(a) Information about the non-ABA-approved law school, its
history, mission, size, admission and Bar passage data (if
applicable);
(b) Composition, number, and qualifications of the faculty
(c) Course Materials used;
(d) Areas where the non-ABA-approved school does not meet
the ABA Standards (e.g., library resources, physical facilities,
non-common law curriculum);
(e) Courses taken by the applicant;
(f) Grades earned by the applicant;
(g) Whether the school offered the applicant the opportunity to
participate in such activities as Moot Court, law journal, legal
practice clinics, externships, pro bono activities, other skills
training; whether the applicant in fact participated in such
activities; if so, the achievements earned by the applicant.
5. The Board of Bar Examiners expects that all applicants who
petition for an educational waiver are exceptional individuals. The
charge to the Board of Bar Examiners from the Supreme Court of
Georgia is to assess the competence of each applicant for admission
to practice in Georgia, not to inquire into the character and fitness of
the applicant. That is the province of the Board to Determine Fitness
of Bar Applicants. The Dean’s [L]etter, therefore, should not focus on
the personal character and qualities of the applicant.
6. At the conclusion of the analysis of the law school education
7
Here, it appears that Lindsay was requesting either (a) a waiver
of the official transcript requirement – i.e., a waiver of the
documentation required to establish her fulfillment of the educational
requirements in one of the three ways she suggests in her petition; or
(b) a waiver of the actual educational requirement that she receive an
LL.M. from an ABA-approved law school, if she was unable to
document her fulfillment thereof by providing official documentation.
On appeal, the Board’s denial of these waiver requests will be affirmed
absent an abuse of discretion. See In re G.E.C., 269 Ga. at 744.
With regard to the transcript requirement, Lindsay asserts that
she “made every attempt” to obtain her transcript from Emory and
that the substance of her dispute with Emory demonstrates the good
cause warranting a waiver of the transcript requirement. The record
indicates that Lindsay failed to pay the outstanding amounts on her
student account, which prevented Emory from releasing her
received by the applicant as compared to an ABA-approved legal
education, the [D]ean or professor should state whether or not the
education received was equivalent to an ABA-approved legal
education.
8
transcript. Although Lindsay reached out to Emory’s Dean on the day
of the transcript deadline, that deadline passed. We see no abuse of
discretion in the Board’s refusal to second-guess Emory’s decision not
to release Lindsay’s transcript or in the Board’s refusal to waive the
requirement that she provide proof of the conferral of her LL.M. degree
by the published deadline.
With regard to Lindsay’s request that the Board waive that
educational requirement altogether, we also see no abuse of discretion.
It is undisputed that Lindsay did not submit a Dean’s letter
conforming to the Board’s guidelines.6 Lindsay argues that there is
good cause for a waiver because she is in good standing in foreign
countries; is an LL.M. graduate of Emory7; has no history of criminal
conduct or professional malfeasance; has passed the Multistate
Professional Responsibility Examination; has worked in law firms and
6 In her brief and an attached affidavit, Lindsay states that, as a result of
communications with the Office of Bar Admissions, she has undertaken efforts to
obtain a “comprehensive” Dean’s letter. We note that, if Lindsay does obtain a
proper Dean’s letter in conformity with the Board’s published guidelines, the
Rules do not appear to prohibit her from filing a second waiver petition.
7 Despite the absence of an official transcript, Lindsay’s waiver petition did
attach what purports to be an email from Emory’s Dean, confirming that
“[Emory’s] Registrar was able to certify [Lindsay’s] graduation.”
9
commenced her own practice in foreign countries; and has attended
the Hugh Wooding Law School in Trinidad.
However, we see no abuse of discretion in the Board’s
determination that Lindsay’s own assertions about her education and
experience are not a proper substitute for the Dean’s letter and thus
that Lindsay failed to establish good cause for a waiver of the
educational requirements. See In re Batterson, 286 Ga. 352, 353-354
(687 SE2d 477) (2009) (no abuse of discretion in denying a petition for
an educational waiver where the applicant submitted a Dean’s letter
containing only general conclusions that the applicant’s education was
equal to the requirements of an ABA-approved school).
Denial of waiver petition affirmed. All the Justices concur.
10