Brief For Committee of Bar Examiners This brief c

This brief concerns two issues. First, Is Section 6060(e) of the California Business and Professions Code unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clauses of the United States and California Constitutions? Second, if this section is unconstitutional, may the Court judicially reform it without completely invalidating it?

From the time it was founded, in the 1950s, until the early 1990s, the school was accredited by the California Committee of Bar Examiners. Under the provisions of Section 6060 of the California Business and Professions Code, this meant that students graduating from Bentworth were entitled to sit for the California Bar Exam after completing three years of legal study. Students graduating from unaccredited law schools are required to complete four-years of legal study before sitting for the bar exam.

Throughout its operation, Bentworth Law School's student body has been comprised of individuals from the local region. The racial composition of the region changed during the 1980s, as many of the landowners sold out to large commercial enterprises. These new enterprises relied upon migrant workers, rather local farmworkers. As a result, families who had lived in the region for several generations moved away. The families of the migrant workers, who were predominantly Hispanic, moved into the local region.

Bentworth began to lose its student base. It sold off land to raise money for an uneasy

. . .
). According to the respondents, the Bar Association discriminated against Hispanic law students by revoking Bentworth's accreditation and thereby requiring Bentworth's students to comply with the four-year study rule in order to qualify for the bar exam. According to the respondents, this is the same sort of action which the Supreme Court held to be violative of the equal protection clause in Yick Wo. The present case, however, is not similar to Yick Wo. In Yick Wo, the statute in question prohibited the operation of laundries in buildings not made of stone or concrete, except with a permit issued by the Board of Supervisors. The plaintiffs in that case were able to show that the Board of Supervisors granted such permits to all but one of the non-Chinese applicants, but refused such permits to all of the Chinese applicants. The purposeful discrimination in that case was clear and unambiguous. Non-Chinese applicants were treated more preferentially or, rather, the Chinese applicants were treated more harshly without exception. In the present case, the statute was enacted in order to protect unqualified law students from fruitlessly pursuing legal careers. It was also enacted to ensure that the people of California were se
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Bar Association, Cal Rptr, Supreme Court, Court Appeals, Kopp Court, Bar Examiners, Board Supervisors, Whittle United, Batson Court, Bar Exam, law schools, equal protection, section 6060e, bar association, cal rptr, law students, unaccredited law schools, unaccredited law, section 6060, supreme court, bar exam, hispanic law students, equal protection clause, committee bar examiners, students graduating unaccredited,
Approximate Word count = 6505
Approximate Pages = 26 (250 words per page)