Click here for information about our Directors.

One Bar Exam Is More Than Enough

The NAAMJP is a public benefit corporation founded by attorneys for the benefit of attorneys seeking to obtain bar admission in another State or U.S. District Court without taking another bar exam.   The ABA MJP Commission has concluded that one bar exam is more than enough almost 10 years ago.  We are actively petitioning for the equivalent of a driver’s license for lawyers.  We seek the same rights to interstate travel that lawyers in the EU and Canada already possess.

Our founding fathers brought forth a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.   If all men and women are created equal, and American lawyers are men and women, than all American lawyers are created equal.  The issue the NAAMJP is litigating is whether the equal rights, privileges and immunities inherent in bar admission on motion, which the United States Supreme Court has squarely held is a constitutionally protected privilege and immunity, Supreme Court of Virginia v. Friedman, 487 U.S. 59 (1988), and has been adopted in 39 States, resulting in the admission on motion of over 60,000 attorneys, should be provided to all American attorneys.  That is one nation under God with liberty and justice for all.   

In our lawsuit challenging the California Supreme Court bar admission rules, we request every registered in-house counsel and legal services attorneys be converted to full licensure and that the sister-state attorney bar exam be abolished.  We also petitioned that every District Court in the Ninth Circuit provide reciprocal general admission to all sister-state attorneys.  Other lawsuits are being filed. When Brown v. Board of Education was decided the Supreme Court consolidated seven test cases.  We ask you to join us and contribute to finance this national precedent setting litigation that is designed to bring an end to the separate but equal era for lawyers.

The NAAMJP goal is to have obtained full admission on motion privileges for all attorneys by the end of 2013 in all U.S. District Courts and State Supreme Courts that do not presently provide equal privileges and immunities, including the tit-for-tat admission rules that provide you get admission on motion in our jurisdiction if our attorneys get admission on motion in your jurisdiction.

The NAAMJP has already filed suit on behalf of multiple highly competent experienced attorneys who have been stripped of their law license based on the whim of local licensing officials implementing archaic policies, similar to the licensing of printing presses in the 16^th Century, that serve no purpose in the 21^st Century other than decreasing competition and providing monopoly protection.  See our Pending Litigation Page.

Plaintiff KIMBERLY JANE ALFRIEND was a “registered legal services attorney” employed by the Children’s Law Center (CLC) of Los Angeles under California Rule 9.45.  She completed a rigorous rite of passage including ABA law school graduation for entry into the legal profession.  She is admitted to the bar of the Maryland Supreme Court, but she is not admitted in California.  She forfeited her privilege and immunity under Rule 9.45 and is categorically ineligible to appear in a California courtroom on behalf of CLC and the indigent — after three years as a “registered legal services attorney.”  It is arbitrary and irrational to conclude that an attorney somehow becomes categorically disqualified with three years of experience as a registered legal services attorney, but is categorically qualified before reaching three years.  Rule 9.45. is not related to public protection. It is monopoly protection.  She is thus no longer one of small number (16) of registered local services attorneys in a state with 35 million people.

Plaintiff DAWN BERTUCCI passed bar exams in Maryland and New York.  She has been a lawyer in good standing since 1998.  Like thousands of other women, she moved across State lines to further her (physician) husband’s career.  She was recently divorced and has two children six and eight.  She has been failed on the California bar exam three times.  This is a test that five nationally respected testing experts have concluded fails to meet testing Standards, and it is not a valid or reliable test.  See our Blog Bar Examiners on Steroids.  The last time Dawn took the test, she became sick and exhausted during the middle of it and was forced to withdraw. It is physically impossible for her to go thru this ordeal as a single mom with two children at home.  Dawn is left with the Hobson’s choice of either giving up being a lawyer or a mother.

If you are California registered in-house counsel this could be you.  The NAAMJP has had numerous in-house counsel members who have unfortunately disappeared. Under California Rule 9.46, the corporate in-house counsel like the registered legal services attorney, pays the same dues, must comply with the same CLE requirements, and must be licensed in another jurisdiction.  In-house counsel is registered in perpetuity, but 30 days after they lose their employment, the attorney is deleted from the rolls. Many in-house positions are terminated for business reasons such as merger. Rule 9.46 does not facilitate public protection when counsel has already been licensed. It is a bar admission rule that perpetuates the status quo long after the quo has lost it status.

"He who looks upon a conflict between right and wrong, and does not help the right against the wrong, despises and insults his own nature, and invites the contempt of mankind." - Frederick Douglass

COUNSEL

BENJAMIN DAI, studied Social Ecology, counseling and psycho-neurobiology in the University of California system. He attended Southwestern Law School and was admitted to the California State Bar in 1991. He established his practice in the San Francisco Bay area in the areas of civil rights, constitutional law, discrimination, medical and products liability.  He provided free legal services via the San Francisco Bar Association's Volunteer Legal Services Program for three years. In 1993, he was awarded the Manuel W. Wiley Award for providing Pro Bono services to the poor by the California Bar. He is a member of the U.S. District Court, Northern California. Earlier in his career previous to his practice of law, Mr. Dai was  Political Accounts Manager with AT & T providing communication services to Democratic, Republican and Independent Conventions and Presidential Candidates. He was business and systems consultant to Fortune 500 corporations.  Eventually, he was instrumental in helping to develop Service Oriented Policies, Products and Services as Market Planning Manager with Pac Bell. Also a systems design engineer, he developed digital communications technologies in both the public and private sectors. His principal goal in electing to practice law is to assert the rights of all citizens under the United States Constitution to be able to enjoy their Lives, attain a level of Freedom and the Liberty to Pursue their Happiness in whatever they might choose to do . . . with the full Equal Protection of the law without discrimination as to race, creed, religion, sex, economic status or political persuasion.

DIRECTORS

JOSEPH ROBERT GIANNINI has B.B.A. from Temple University and a J.D. from Temple University School of Law (1983). He is a member in good standing of the bar of the Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and U.S. Supreme Court, as well as numerous other federal courts. He has attended Gerry Spence’s Trial Lawyers College. He is a member of the American Bar Association’s Litigation Section and Legal Education and Admissions. He testified before and presented written argument to the ABA MJP Commission hearing in San Diego. See “A Nationwide Need for the Primacy of the First Amendment Rights to Advocate, Associate, and Petition in the New Millennium” at http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mjp/mjp-giannini_witness.html. He has written numerous articles published in legal newspapers calling for full reciprocal bar admission. He spearheaded legislation in California that was enacted into law 99-0 in 2000 calling for full reciprocal admission for experienced sister-state attorneys, that was subsequently, diluted to provide only second class limited bar admission privileges for corporate counsel and attorneys working for qualified pro bono organizations with the promise the issue would be re-visited in a few years.

JEFFREY L. RUSSELL is a graduate of the University of Akron School of Law (1974). He has 16 years experience as an Assistant United States Attorney having served as a federal prosecutor in the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland), Southern District of Florida (Miami), Central District of California (Los Angeles), Northern District of California (San Francisco and San Jose ), and the Department of Justice Headquarters in Washington, D.C. Mr. Russell has conducted 45 criminal trials in seven United States District Courts, and he has successfully argued appeals in the First, Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits. He is a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of Ohio, Supreme Court of the United States, and many other federal courts. He testified before and presented written argument to the ABA MJP Commission hearing in San Diego. See http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mjp/mjp-russell_witness.html

CHRYSTAL C. GREEN has a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) from McGill University,  a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B) from the University of Ottawa’s French Common Law Section, and a Masters of Laws (LL.M) in Comparative Law from Howard Univeristy School of Law, the thesis of which was a comparative study of critical race feminist issues within environmental justice in Canada and the United States, examining California in particular as a model. Bilingual in English and French and practicing in both languages, she is also able to practice in both Canada and the United States, as a member of the California State Bar as well as the Law Society of Upper Canada.

Mrs. Green's interest in civil rights stems from her international upbringing. Born in Canada, and having lived in the Kenya, the United States and South Africa before returning to Montreal to attend McGill University, her international childhood was the catalyst for a lifelong commitment to civil rights. Mrs. Green currently works as a Canadian lawyer and an American attorney at an immigration law firm, continuing her commitment to civil and human rights.

BRANDON FELTON is a native of New Orleans.  Mr. Felton graduated from Morehouse College with honors and earned his law degree at the Louisiana State University’s Paul M. Herbert Law Center. He is a member of the Florida and New York bar.  Mr. Felton began his professional career as an Assistant State Attorney in Miami, Florida, where he successfully tried numerous bench and jury trials. Mr. Felton then transitioned to private practice, including insurance defense and labor and employment actions. Mr. Felton has never abandoned his dedication to community service, continuing to work as an advocate for one of the largest nonprofits in New York City.  Mr. Felton is married to Yolanda Pittman Felton, also an attorney. 

ROBERT BLOOM is a graduate of Northwestern and he holds a J.D. form New York University School of Law (1965). He is admitted to practice in New York, the United States Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit, and the Northern District of California. He has been counsel for defendant in numerous high profile criminal cases including Geronimo Pratt.

KENNETH OWEN is a graduate with Great Distinction, from Oakland College of Law. He has an L.L.M. with honors from Golden Gate University School of Law. He is a member of bar of the Arizona Supreme Court, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. He has authored, Environmental Justice Enforcement Requires Reassessment Under the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and Environmental Statutes. 30 Golden Gate University Law Review 379. Mr. Owens is an Instructor of Constitutional Law and Environmental Law at Oakland College of Law.