The sad reality is that most victims of illegal employment discrimination have no realistic means of redress.
This is because our court system is absurdly antiquated and has not changed appreciably since it declared itself the place where the buck stops in Marbury v. Madison (1803).
Victims of employment discrimination who are poor or middle class often can’t find an attorney who will take their case because the cost is too high in light of the potential damages. And they can’t effectively represent themselves because federal and state courts have adopted obscure and unnecessary rules and procedures that seem to be designed to keep them out.
There is virtually no public acknowledgement of this problem because apparently it is too complicated or un-glamorous for mainstream media.
I would like to applaud the heroic efforts of an organization that is trying to change this sorry state of affairs – the National Association for the Advancement of Multijurisdictional Practice (NAAMJP) of Los Angeles, CA. The NAAMJP has filed lawsuits in several jurisdictions challenging parochial bar admissions rules.
NAAMJP wants to ensure that, once licensed, a lawyer in good standing can practice in any state.
Repealing anti-competitive and anti-consumer bar admission rules would increase competition among legal service providers and lower costs for consumers.
The real reason for requiring licensed lawyers to take another state’s bar exam is to discourage them from practicing in that state. In other words, the state bar association is misusing the law to prevent competition. The defenders of the status quo are large and powerful law firms in the state who lobby the legislature and contribute to political campaigns. They are abetted by federal district court judges who want to maintain complete control over their fiefdoms.
According to the NAAMJP, lawyers in the European Union and Canada do not face the kind of geographical licensing restrictions that are imposed upon U.S. lawyers (and consumers).
Nevada, for example, requires out-of-state lawyers to take the entire bar exam (a two-day test) as if they had just graduated from law school. This protects a handful of large and complacent Nevada law firms from competition (particularly from California) and enables the state court system to exact high fees for each case filed by an out-of-state attorney or firm. All of this drives up the cost and availability of legal services in Nevada. This is a form of institutionalized corruption that is completely indefensible and yet continues year after year.
Lawyers from around the country regularly contact me for advice about workplace bullying and age discrimination but I cannot represent clients in Nevada because I am licensed in Pennsylvania. Who benefits? Attorneys in Nevada who know far less about this area of the law than I do.
For anyone who is interested, The ABA Journal has a story this month about the challenges faced by the NAAMJP in federal courts, which thus far have shown themselves to be intent upon maintaining the current anti-consumer practices.
The NAAMJP contends that barriers to admission erected by state bar associations violate, among other things, the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of association and speech.