IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF POCAHONTAS COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA



Norman Lee Alderman, Plaintiff
Pro Se
v. Civil Action No.: 08-C-29

Pocahontas County Board of Education
a.k.a Pocahontas Schools, Corporate Defendant
926 5th Avenue
Marlinton, WV 24954

And co-defendants:

Board Member Kenneth E. Vance, Individual Defendant
Board Member Ruth Taylor, Individual Defendant
Ex-Board Member Emery Grimes, Individual Defendant
Board Member Tommy Vanreenen, Individual Defendant
Board Member Jesse Groseclose, Individual Defendant
Superintendent J. Patrick Law, Individual Defendant
Board Treasurer Alice Irvine, Individual Defendant In their official and personal capacities.


PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS RESPONSE REGARDING REQUESTING THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF POCAHONTAS COUNTY ORDER A REHEARING OF THE GRIEVANCE DECISION BEFORE A FULLY QUALIFIED AND CERTIFIED ALJ AND THAT JUDGE ROWE RECUSE HIMSELF FROM THE CASE AS UNQUALIFIED.

Comes now the Plaintiff, Norman Lee Alderman, pro se to provide an answer to the court as follows:

1. A Motion for Summary Judgment has been entered by Respondent. As such, any decision will pivot upon whether or not there exists an actual dispute as to matter of fact or law. Secondly, the question involves whether there has been a hearing by a qualified judge in the matter.

We have cited two actual examples within the court system which are indicative of the judicial necessity of the court to investigate the accuracy and validity of the statements made under oath in order to arrive at a true understanding of the matter.

Our request is that the Pocahontas County Circuit Court conduct an investigation into the truth and accuracy of the statements made by respondents in the ALJ hearing which have been the foundation of the WV Supreme Court’s decision. The precedents we have set forth indicate that the court has the power to ensure that it is not basing its decisions on perjury. We are prepared to present evidence to impeach the testimony of Law and Irvine in this matter. Respondent has attempt on multiple occasions to “stay” the discovery process thereby limiting our access to documentation of these perjured statements.

Of course, it should be noted that the fact of the statements are contained in the transcript of the ALJ year.

Circuit Court Judge Irene Berger ruled in our favor originally. It is noteworthy that the question when posed to another Circuit Court Judge in the Mezzatesta case has also resulted in an overturning of the ALJ. Thus we have two contemporary cases involving the same ALJ, Denise Spatafore, which have been overturned by a tried and qualified judge.

The Hampshire County Board has chosen note to appeal the Mezzatesta verdict at this time and in fact have voted to restore him to his job pursuant to the circuit judge’s order.

In the midst of this current lawsuit, Alderman v. Pocahontas County Board of Education it was discovered that the ALJ Denise Spatafore who heard Alderman’s case and Mezzeteesta’s care was not qualified to serve as an ALJ. Mezzattesta’s case was won even without the question of the qualifications of the ALJ. Plaintiff has raised this issue in his case not because he didn’t win at the circuit court level but because the circuit court decision of Judge Irene Berger was “reversed” by the WV Supreme Court in repudiation of a fully, qualified judge and in affirmation of the decision of an ALJ who hadn’t taken any Continuing Legal Education Courses for 6 years (four years immediately preceding Alderman’s hearing.

This meant that Denise Spatafore had failed to maintain her credentials as established by the WV Supreme Court to be a lawyer. On a more local matter, she had failed to maintain her legal acuity and her legal knowledge which is in itself a violation of the judicial canon. Plaintiff Alderman is guaranteed by state law, namely the Constitutions of West Virginia and the United States, that his property rights can not be taken away without “due process” of law.

Plaintiff has not had an opportunity to avail himself of the West Virginia Grievance Procedure which mandates a hearing before an (qualified) administrative law judge. It is plaintiff’s argument that Denise Spatafore lacked the credentials to hear the case, therefore plaintiff has been denied his “due process” rights.

2. Now it appears that Judge Rowe has a somewhat similar problem with competency as Judge Spatafore. Only in his case, (he graduated from an unaccredited law school) he may lack even the fundamentals of legal competency as required by “due process of law.” He may have never possessed the legal competency to establish jurisdiction. He sat on the Pocahontas County Circuit Bench for nearly 12 years. This raises a major question for all those who stood before him at this time.

Plaintiff Alderman raises this question at this time because of the unique conjunction of the questions of competency as have been raised by the unqualified ALJ and possibly the unqualified Circuit Judge. The question is enhanced further by the fact that Plaintiff now has the reasoned, and seasoned judicial opinion of Judge Berger who has unquestionable credentials.

Furthermore, plaintiff is himself a teacher, a licensed teacher in the state of West Virginia. He is required by law to have graduated from an accredited teacher’s college and to maintain his license (and his right to continued employment as a teacher) he must take additional continuing education courses in his field just like Spatafore had to take continuing legal education courses.


3. Plaintiff requests Judge Rowe to act upon his own motion as a matter of right and a matter of justice in this case. The obvious step in the case is recusal; he turns over the matter to a circuit judge who has unquestioned jurisdiction to decide. Failing that plaintiff would request Judge Rowe’s resignation from the bench.


4. According to WV law a circuit judge has the jurisdiction to hear the case and to render a decision which results in justice.

It should be noted that Plaintiff has been working with the Pocahontas County Prosecutor for three years to an investigation of the misappropriation of funds. The State Police have conducted a full investigation. Current Prosecutor Price has concurred with plaintiff that he has a good case. Because she is the statutory attorney for the board she has requested the appointment of a special prosecutor. Plaintiff is anxiously awaiting that appointment and has been for several weeks.

In the interim, the instant case has been passing through the legal system. There is an ALJ case which corresponds directly to plaintiff’s case in Kanawha County Circuit Court currently under review.

There are over 300 people who may be impacted by the Kanawha case. It may require the rehearing of literally hundreds of cases.

Plaintiff did not invent this issue! The West Virginia Public Workers Union is involved in the Kanawha County Case.

The matter of Judge Rowe’s qualifications came up last fall in the election period. Plaintiff videotaped Judge Rowe’s response to his question. Judge Rowe does not claim to have graduated from an accredited law school. The closest thing to a claim is an entry in a law directory some years later where it says that he graduated from George Mason Law School. Look at the dates and you will see that he never actually attended George Mason Law School. It was only some years later than he started claiming that he was a graduate of George Mason Law School.

I searched the Acts of the Virginia Assembly and I cannot find where they granted an exception for the International Law School previous graduates to be declared graduates of George Mason Law School. Judge Rowe’s claim to be a graduate of George Mason Law School doesn’t hold water.

All he claims, even in the court documents, that he took the West Virginia Bar exam. This is despite the fact that the rules did not allow for a graduate of an unaccredited or out-of-state attorney to obtain a WV license via examination. He quotes as his authority, a representative of the bar, who supposedly had told him that he could take the exam if he was licensed in another state. He never tells us who that member of the bar was. I have personally queried the rules relevant at that time and can not find an rule that allowed for that exception. He does not quote his source of authority in his answer to the Barry Bruce complaint. He does allude to the “exception” that was imposed at a later date that when he took the WV Bar Exam. But that would result in an ex-post facto implementation of a rule. The ABA has been quite explicit in demonstrating its distaste for ex-post facto qualifications.

I am not seeking redress of my grievance for anyone other than myself; but on the same hand I will pursue this matter as high as necessary in our judicial system. It may well turn the legal system in WV on its head but I am determined to see this through.

A copy of this paper is being given to Donna Price, our prosecutor, with the hopes that she will intervene in this matter. And if necessary I will be glad to file a judiciary complaint and a complaint with the Disciplinary Commission.

Please note that I am raising not merely “how” Judge Rowe got permission to take the test (this was an issue in the David Ryder case) But I have added an additional cause of action as to the “competency” of a non-lawyer serving as a judge. Judge Rowe by definition would be no more qualified to be a judge than to be a lawyer. The Rules require that a judge graduate from an “accredited” law school. Judge Rowe did not graduate from an accredited law school. In fact, it was NOT accredited for nearly three years after the judge graduated. Furthermore, his law school that he graduated from WAS NEVER ACCREDITED. George Mason Law School was not accredited until 1981.

My additional issue is that there is a legitimate reason for law schools to be accredited. If one can graduate from an unaccredited law school and take the bar exam that does not guarantee competence in the legal field. Secondly, “accreditation” is the means by which a law abiding society has determined that education and training received are of an acceptable quality to ensure competency. Failure to graduate from an “accredited” law school is prima facie evidence of a lack of competence. The state has determined that the possession of an “accredited” education is a valuable thing to be recognized by the government.

You wouldn’t want a doctor or a teacher to graduate from an unaccredited school. Do you want someone working on your brain or your eye who graduated from an “unaccredited” institution. Neither do I!

I will admit that there are some persons who are better teachers than I who have never darkened the door of an accredited teacher’s college. Yet, the public school system is an institution of government. And to maintain the integrity of that institution the government has established a system called “accreditation.” My college had to go through a “self-study” on occasion to maintain its accreditation. When I graduated from college, I was able to obtain a teacher’s license from the state of WV because the state recognized that the college I graduated from was “accredited.”

I am asking the same thing of Judge Rowe. I don’t know how he obtained his license but that is not the sole issue here. I want to know that he has an education of a quality that will stand up to the accreditation process of his peer group. Somehow he managed to get a license without presenting proof that he graduated from an accredited law school. His peer group had to graduate from an accredited law school.

The joke at my college was that the dorm that I lived in as a freshman was once called Felix Hall. It was condemned and they renamed it Mahan Hall.

At this point, I am asking for a qualified judge to provide a full and fair evidentiary hearing as allowed me by WV law. I am asking that the court honor my civil rights to have due process.


5. ALJ Denise M. Spatafore who ruled in plaintiff’s case ceased to be qualified as a lawyer from 2001 until 2008 because she deliberately and intentionally ignored clear and plain law to maintain her credentials as a licensed lawyer in the State of West Virginia. We have outlined this failure in detail in a previous motion and have included exhibits proving our allegations. Because she ceased to maintain her credentials, she was no longer functioning as a qualified judge.


6. Ms. Spatafore has a 100% record of denying grievances to Pocahontas employees during that time of in competency. This is beyond the realm of probability and speaks well of incompetence.


7. The West Virginia Grievance Board boasts of a statewide rejection of plaintiff’s grievances at the rate of approximately 90%. The WV legislature has tried to correct this anomaly with a rewrite of the grievance law but apparently to little or no effect.


8. An ALJ in the grievance system works for the Grievance Board and is subject to the “will and pleasure” of that board thereby ceasing to be an independent adjudicator of labor disputes.


9. This allegation is supported by the most recent case of Thomas Gillgooy, an administrative law judge who was fired for exposing the fact that Denise Spatafore and Brenda Gould had ceased to maintain their required “Continuing Legal Education” regimen. The Grievance Board has settled the Gillgooy grievance since then in favor of Mr. Gillgooy.


10. This leaves the question of his allegations regarding the unqualified ALJ’s Spatafore and Gould and it is for this reason that we have presented this matter to the court. This matter is timely presented to court despite the fact that the actual hearing occurred more than two years ago. The question did not surface until last fall. Plaintiff had no other way of knowing that Denise Spatafore was unqualified to serve as an ALJ. She had failed to disclose this matter to me or my attorney at the time of the hearing. Through various freedom of information requests I investigated the matter and found ample documentation from the WV Grievance Board, etc. that indicated that Spatafore had dropped her continuing legal education program for nearly six years. (again, see previous motion regarding her attempts to mitigate her in competency)


11. The State Bar of West Virginia has recently reaffirmed that they believe that ALJ’s should maintain their status as lawyers. They suspended Spatafore from further hearings until she got her continuing education courses which she did shortly (Please keep in mind that even she makes no claim that she got all the required courses in for the six year period. In fact, WV law forbids a lawyer from taking the CLE for more than “one reporting” period. Ms. Spatafore would have had approximately three reporting periods of two years each to have mitigated the CLE deficiency. It is not legally possible for her to have taken the courses which she failed to take for the three-year reporting periods she missed. One, yes but by law not three! As was pointed out in a Gazette article, this would be the equivalent of someone owing six years back taxes but only paying the back taxes on one, or perhaps two years.


12. It is for this reason, that plaintiff turns to the Pocahontas County Circuit Court for relief from this fraud that was committed. The Pocahontas County Circuit Court has, by statute the jurisdiction to intervene in this matter when there are allegations of fraud and deceit. The WV Legislature allowed the circuit court to intervene upon appeal to it if there was fraud and/or deceit which is the case before the court.


13. Plaintiff’s right to due process has been violated causing him to lose his livelihood and means for support. This matter has gone on for over three years. Ignoring plaintiff’s cries for relief from this violation is a serious matter for the court to consider. This court has the obligation to investigate plaintiff’s allegations to ensure the integrity of the WV Grievance System. Since the circuit court is court of higher resort regarding an ALJ’s decision particularly in the light of the “fraud and deceit” clauses of the statute it falls upon the shoulders of the circuit court to investigate allegations that the ALJ was not qualified to serve as an ALJ. This is what we are asking the court to do. This easily falls under the “newly discovered evidence” doctrine.

RELIEF REQUEST

I respectfully ask the Pocahontas County Circuit Court to grant my requests for summary judgment and to reject respondent’s requests for summary judgment. I have been subjected to enough legal harassment, been denied my living for three years, and I ask that this court render justice to me.

Sent to:
Respondent’s Attorney
Chip E. Williams, #8116
Pullin, Fowler, Flanagan,
Brown & Poe, PLLC
600 Neville Street, Suite 201
Beckley, West Virginia 25801

I certify that I have mailed a copy of this document via first class mail to the above and included a copy to the Circuit Court of Pocahontas County on this day June 1, 2009
Norman Lee Alderman
Signed: _____________________________________
June 1, 2009

Here is your theme song, Norman, because Judge Rowe will never resign. He may recuse himself simply to avoid having to deal with a "crazy" like you.

Crazy like a fox.

It’s really a shame that Pocahontas taxpayers have to shell out good money for lawyers to respond to tripe like this. One wonders how much Alderman has cost the county with his frivolous lawsuits. Here we have a creature who crusades about a few hundred dollars in golf money that was spent on golf team expenses, yet he costs all of us tens of thousands in legal bills. Of course the Board has no recourse except to keep spending money to keep the stake firmly buried in Alderman’s heart. Allowing him access to children again would be disastrous.

Insurance! You have already paid the bill. The company is AIG! Remember them!

As usual Alderman is wrong. AIG simply administers claims. The Board of Risk pays AIG to handle the claims. But the costs of the suits are not ultimately paid by AIG. The costs of settlements, verdicts, and defense (legal fees) are billed to the state annually. So Alderman’s hobby suits are at our expense.

From Drop Box

From Drop Box

Alderman thinks that because someone else won a suit against a board of education that means he will. This is the kind of reasoning that makes people play the lottery. Trouble is, he’s playing with our money.

If Judge Rowe is not legal then it is no surprise. I heard mention from lawyers years back that he had a secret that were it public he would be no longer a judge. SECRET REVEALED!!!

He has no business wearing the robe! Where is the Bar association when you need them? Does it prove that state employees are lazy and do not follow the rules because of the fact checking whether he was accredited takes a phone call. Who ever allowed him to take the bar should loose their job if not be put in prison. He has shown some foolish verdicts over the years and I see now why.

The bar will act if he doesn't have a friend or family member hiding paper work. He who controls the paper controls the world. Bunch of cases will need to be over-turned. State will over look it because it would cost money. He will get magic papers saying he is an honest to goodness savior of the court system and nothing will be done because these guys are all corrupt! Norman you better let me put some life insurance on you because I think you are sure wearing a BULLS EYE. You better watch driving because that is usually how they get people who rock the boat. It will look like a regular accident but you will be the worse to wear. I don't mean to scare you but I think you are in serious danger. Please be safe friend. I just hope you have someone with you all the time you can TRUST!!!

Too many good honest folks have turned up as suicides and accidents when they were actually ICED.

Be safe. You sure do not have the protection from our law. I often think your first illness was poison. All it would have taken was a common salve used on horses combined with a toxin and you would have what looked like a stroke. It would feel like someone greased your door handle on your car and your would be dying before you could wipe off your hand. Remember any thing like that back when you got sick???? There are easy means if they want you done in. I pray you stay healthy and keep stirring up these nest of thieves but you be safe ok.
I know you are doing good but they are bad folks in this world.

Thank you for that advice! I am careful! Rowe is going down on this matter. He is got in a hard place. If he recuses himself, he looks guilty. If he doesn't, he sets himself up for a civil rights lawsuit (14th and 5th amendment)Plus I have the advantage in that the ALJ question is juxaposed into the mix. Both deal basically with an incompetence of the judicial system.

The direction I am working at present is not so much to challenge his "taking" the test but his "competency" as a graduate of an unaccredited law school. I am directly challenger the "judge" not the "lawyer" at this point. Can a "judge" be less competent than a lawyer?

It is one thing for a lawyer to graduate from an unaccredited law school but when that lawyer becomes a judge a much greater burden of competency falls on his shoulders. A citizen can choose a lawyer based on his credentials or lack thereof but citizens cannot not so easily choose their "judge."

There will be a lot of effort put out to hide how he managed to take the test. I am doing a great deal of research to determine how it was that he was allowed to take the test in the first place.

Ancil Ramey is claiming that the state board of examiners had a "policy" previous to his taking the test. But if this were the case, why wouldn't it be recorded somewhere. We don't need a copy of his application to see public policy. Public Policy has to be recorded SOMEWHERE. I am trying to find out.

Notice that Ramey who is the clerk for these matters does not "quote" the policy. He alludes to it. If the policy actually exists, it will be on record somewhere. I assure you that I will find it. Meanwhile, I shall assume that it doesn't exist.

The burden is upon Judge Rowe to prove that he has the necessary credentials to be a judge. In law, it is called "quo warranto." Unfortunately, I have to have the concurrence of the prosecutor to go that direction.

I delivered a copy of my paperwork to Donna yesterday. The board's insurance lawyer is attempting to force the issue by saying that I have not used the right procedure to request a special prosecutor.

What he doesn't realize is that Donna has already requested a special prosecutor to look into the perjury of Dr. Law and Alice. All I am doing is asking Judge Rowe to "append" the credentials matter to the perjury allegations. Let the prosecutor do both when he gets here!

Private investigators have looked into this matter also. Highly competent and powerful attorneys have taken up the banner against this judge. I have the benefit of their research from the court file.

My own research has just proven very fruitful yesterday. I will soon have a report on that for you.

A problem is that I have yet to see a special prosecutor and it has been nearly three weeks.

Donna is the statutory attorney for the board of education so she can't do the job. I can only hope that she will maintain her independence and not interfere with my request for a special prosecutor.

Then, of course, there is the question of the Masons. To what extent will they be willing to cover for Rowe? They left Brother Weiford swing in the wind come election day. We shall see!

I am prepared to be the test case for this question. I have already contacted an attorney for assistance with a class action suit that will bring to bear the 300 other people who have been shafted by the Grievance System. Pretty soon, all of those who have been shafted by an uncredentialed judge will start to raise up and question their cases too.

I am convinced that this is why I am on this earth, to expose the corruption of this legal system.

Published: April 22, 2009 09:53 pm print this story

Lawyer files complaint against Greenbrier County judge
Tina Alvey
Register-Herald Reporter

LEWISBURG — An attorney’s effort to have Greenbrier County Circuit Judge James J. Rowe disqualified from hearing a civil case has brought to light an ethics complaint against the judge that would otherwise have remained shrouded in secrecy.

Barry Bruce, a Lewisburg attorney who unsuccessfully challenged Rowe in last fall’s general election, filed a complaint against the judge with the Judicial Investigation Commission on Jan. 7. In that complaint, Bruce alleges Rowe made “a false statement of material fact” when taking the state bar exam in 1978.

Bruce claims Rowe misrepresented his academic credentials. Rowe obtained his law degree from the International School of Law, which was never accredited by the American Bar Association, according to the complaint.

In an April 2 letter to the JIC, Rowe acknowledged “at the time of my graduation my law school had not yet been accredited.” He continued, “Members of my class of what was then known as the International School of Law were granted permission to sit for the Virginia State Bar exam.”

Rowe passed the Virginia Bar exam in July 1977; he was admitted to the state bar in the Old Dominion that fall. The next year, he was advised by a member of the West Virginia State Bar that he could take the West Virginia Bar exam if he could demonstrate he had successfully passed the bar exam in another state, Rowe wrote the JIC. He passed the West Virginia exam in February 1978.

Generally, JIC proceedings are confidential until the commission makes a determination that probable cause exists to pursue disciplinary action against the judge against whom the complaint was filed. At that point, the nine-member commission refers the matter on to the state Supreme Court for action. Then, and only then, is even the existence of the complaint publicly confirmed, according to Jennifer Bundy, the high court’s public information officer.

This particular complaint saw the light of day because of a motion made by attorney Carl Roncaglione Jr. seeking Rowe’s disqualification to preside over a case involving a land dispute between David Ryder and First National Bank. Roncaglione represents Ryder.

In an April 14 letter to Chief Justice Brent Benjamin, Rowe notes the arguments presented by Roncaglione in favor of recusal echo the allegations Bruce made to the JIC in January. Certain supporting documents, including copies of Bruce’s complaint and Rowe’s response, were placed in the civil case file at the Greenbrier County Courthouse.

Rowe maintains there is no basis for his disqualification from the Ryder civil case, just as there is no basis for Bruce’s complaint to the JIC.

As of Wednesday, the chief justice had not responded to Rowe’s letter regarding the recusal, nor did the Supreme Court clerk’s office have any record of a JIC recommendation regarding Bruce’s complaint.

As to the latter issue, Bundy said, “That just means that no probable cause has been found. So either the Judicial Investigation Commission is still investigating or they’re finished and no probable cause for further action was found.”

I am preparing to file a judicial complaint against Judge Rowe because I am convinced that he did not attend an approved law school and there therefore ineligible to be a circuit judge.

§30-2-2. Attorneys from other jurisdictions.
Any person duly authorized to practice as an attorney at law in any jurisdiction other than this state may be admitted to practice as such in the courts of this state, as a visiting attorney, or as a resident attorney, upon first complying with the rules and regulations applicable thereto prescribed by the supreme court of appeals of West Virginia, without being required to take the bar examinations of this state, if the other jurisdiction in which such person is already authorized to practice allows attorneys of this state to be admitted to the bar or to practice law in such jurisdiction without making it one of the necessary requirements that attorneys of this state take the bar examinations of such jurisdiction. The supreme court of appeals of West Virginia shall prescribe specific rules and regulations dealing with the admission of such person from another jurisdiction to practice law in this state either as a visiting attorney or as a resident attorney; and no person from another jurisdiction shall be permitted to practice in the courts of this state in either classification until he has complied with the rules and regulations pertaining to such classification established by the supreme court of appeals. Nothing herein contained shall affect the right or status of attorneys admitted to practice in this state prior to the enactment of this section.

prev | next

§ 54.1-3926. Preliminary proof of education required of applicant.

Before an applicant will be permitted to take any examination under this article the applicant shall furnish to the Board satisfactory evidence that he has:

1. Completed all degree requirements from a law school approved by the American Bar Association or the Board; or

2. Received a bachelor's degree from a four-year accredited college or university and studied law for three years, consisting of not less than eighteen hours per week for at least forty weeks per year in the office of an attorney practicing in this Commonwealth, whose full time is devoted to the practice of law; or

3. Studied law for at least three years partly in a law school approved by the American Bar Association or the Board and partly, for not less than eighteen hours per week for at least forty weeks per year, in the office of an attorney practicing in this Commonwealth whose full time is devoted to the practice of law; or

4. Received a bachelor's degree from a four-year accredited college or university and studied law for three years, consisting of not less than eighteen hours per week for at least forty weeks per year, with a retired circuit court judge who served the Commonwealth as a circuit court judge for a minimum of ten years and who at the time of commencement of the three-year study period was retired for not more than five years.

The attorney in whose office or the judge with whom the applicant intends to study shall be approved by the Board, which shall prescribe reasonable conditions as to the course of study.

(Code 1950, § 54-62; 1952, c. 553; 1960, c. 379; 1980, c. 533; 1988, c. 765; 1995, c. 336; 1998, cc. 119, 796.)

§ 54.1-3910. Organization and government of Virginia State Bar.

The Supreme Court may promulgate rules and regulations organizing and governing the Virginia State Bar. The Virginia State Bar shall act as an administrative agency of the Court for the purpose of investigating and reporting violations of rules and regulations adopted by the Court under this article. All advisory opinions issued by the Virginia State Bar's Standing Committees on Legal Ethics, Lawyer Advertising and Solicitation, and Unauthorized Practice of Law shall be incorporated into the Code of Virginia pursuant to § 30-154. All persons engaged in the practice of law in the Commonwealth shall be active members in good standing of the Virginia State Bar.

§ 54.1-3922. Powers, rules and regulations.

The Board shall do, or cause to be done, all things it considers necessary, convenient or expedient in connection with the preparation, conduct and grading of examinations, in determining the qualifications of applicants, in determining requirements for taking and passing examinations, and in granting such certificates to practice law as may be authorized by the Supreme Court. The Board may promulgate rules and regulations to aid in the exercise of its authority and in the discharge of its duties.

(1976, c. 377, § 54-57.1; 1988, c. 765; 1998, c. 796.)

prev | next

§ 54.1-3925. Application for examination.

A person desiring to take an examination under this article shall file with the Board his application therefor in such form as the Board may require not later than May 10 for the next following July examination and December 15 for the next following February examination. An application shall be deemed to be timely filed if it is mailed postage prepaid to the Office of the Secretary of the Board by registered or certified mail and if the official receipt therefor, which shall be exhibited on demand, shows mailing to the Secretary's office on or before the prescribed deadline.

(Code 1950, § 54-60; 1952, c. 553; 1960, c. 379; 1966, c. 157; 1968, c. 74; 1972, cc. 535, 824; 1974, c. 686; 1980, c. 533; 1987, c. 265; 1987, Sp. Sess., c. 2; 1988, c. 765; 1992, c. 734; 1998, c. 71.)

prev | next

§ 54.1-3926. Preliminary proof of education required of applicant.

Before an applicant will be permitted to take any examination under this article the applicant shall furnish to the Board satisfactory evidence that he has:

1. Completed all degree requirements from a law school approved by the American Bar Association or the Board; or

2. Received a bachelor's degree from a four-year accredited college or university and studied law for three years, consisting of not less than eighteen hours per week for at least forty weeks per year in the office of an attorney practicing in this Commonwealth, whose full time is devoted to the practice of law; or

3. Studied law for at least three years partly in a law school approved by the American Bar Association or the Board and partly, for not less than eighteen hours per week for at least forty weeks per year, in the office of an attorney practicing in this Commonwealth whose full time is devoted to the practice of law; or

4. Received a bachelor's degree from a four-year accredited college or university and studied law for three years, consisting of not less than eighteen hours per week for at least forty weeks per year, with a retired circuit court judge who served the Commonwealth as a circuit court judge for a minimum of ten years and who at the time of commencement of the three-year study period was retired for not more than five years.

The attorney in whose office or the judge with whom the applicant intends to study shall be approved by the Board, which shall prescribe reasonable conditions as to the course of study.

(Code 1950, § 54-62; 1952, c. 553; 1960, c. 379; 1980, c. 533; 1988, c. 765; 1995, c. 336; 1998, cc. 119, 796.)

SECTION II: ACADEMIC REQUIREMENTS
1. An applicant for a Virginia Bar Examination shall:
(A) Have received a degree from a law school approved by the American Bar Association, or the Board; or

(B) Be enrolled and in good standing in any such approved law school and, in the course of regular study, complete ALL degree requirements prior to the time such examination is given; or

(C) Have been approved by the Board and thereafter completed the required period of law study as set forth in the Law Reader Program Rule and Regulations of the Virginia Board of Bar Examiners.

2. An applicant who has received a portion of his or her legal training in a foreign law school is also required to have received a degree from an American Bar Association (“ABA”) approved law school, and if such degree is other than the LL.B. or J.D., the applicant shall furnish a certificate from the dean, assistant dean or acting dean of an ABA approved law school in Virginia that his or her foreign legal education, together with his or her approved law school degree, is the equivalent of that required for an LL.B. or a J.D. Degree in