Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Taylor v. Safly
Citations: 276 Ark. 541; 637 S.W.2d 578; 1982 Ark. LEXIS 1469Docket: 79-170
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; July 12, 1982; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
On April 30, 1979, petitioners, who are black law school graduates, filed an action seeking admission to the Arkansas bar without taking the bar examination and requesting amendments to the Supreme Court's rules governing bar admissions. Despite being graduates of ABA-accredited law schools and having taken the bar exam multiple times without passing, the petitioners alleged systemic racial discrimination that violated their rights to equal protection and due process. They provided statistical evidence of disparities in bar exam success rates among black applicants and highlighted deficiencies in examination procedures. The petitioners outlined four main arguments for relief: 1. Admission based on racial discrimination by the State of Arkansas and the State Board of Law Examiners. 2. Violation of due process rights by the examination procedures. 3. Reference to existing statutes supporting their admission. 4. Request for the court to implement equitable admission rules. During oral arguments, the spokesperson for the petitioners acknowledged changes in their circumstances since the case was initiated, including the death of one petitioner and the relocation of others. Consequently, they focused on the fourth argument, seeking court direction for the Board of Law Examiners to establish procedures that allow applicants to access exam questions, their answers, and model answers for review, paralleling a precedent set by the Alaska Supreme Court regarding fair examination processes. The State Board of Law Examiners is encouraged to seriously consider the proposal for a review process for bar examination failures, although a unilateral order to implement it is not supported. The proposal is recognized as beneficial, particularly for candidates who fail, as the current system lacks transparency and fairness, leaving candidates unaware of their specific shortcomings. The document references the Supreme Court case Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, emphasizing that individuals cannot be barred from practicing law without valid reasons, and highlighting the necessity of procedural fairness. It is suggested that each examiner prepare model answers alongside their questions, which could be shared with candidates upon request to enhance fairness. While the petitioners’ request for a mandated review process is ultimately denied, the judges express that the potential benefits of such a system outweigh the modest efforts required to implement it. Judges George Rose Smith, Hickman, and Dudley concur with this conclusion.