2022-BA-01693 Precedential Application for rehearing denied. Processed

In Re: Committee On Bar Admissions Cfn-665798

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed February 14, 2024

Also decided on this docket: La., May 23, 2024; La., November 8, 2023

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

  • 372 So. 3d 801 not in our corpus
  • 563 So. 1 not in our corpus

Opinion text

Supreme Court of Louisiana
February 14, 2024
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: COMMITTEE ON BAR ADMISSIONS
CFN-665798 No. 2022-BA-01693
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Committee on Bar Admission - Applicant Other; Applying for Rehearing;
_ _ _ _ _ _
February 14, 2024
Application for rehearing denied. See per curiam:
W
eimer, C.J., would grant the rehearing.
JBM
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
PDG
02/14/2024 "See News Release 008 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
N
O. 2022-BA-1693
I
N RE: COMMITTEE ON BAR ADMISSIONS CFN-665798
ON
REHEARING
P
ER CURIAM
A fter petition er successfully pass ed the Louisiana Bar Examination and the
Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam (“MPRE”) , t he Committee on Bar
Admissions (“Committee”) declined to certify him for admission based on character
and fitness grounds. On petitioner’s application, we appointed a commissioner to
take evidence regarding petitioner’s character and fitness. The commissioner filed
his report with this court, recommending that petitioner be conditionally admitted to
the practice of law. Neither party objected to this recommendation. We accepted
this recommendation and held petitioner was eligible to be admitted to the practice
of law subject to certain conditions. In re: Comm ittee on Bar Admissions CFN -
665798, 22-1693 (La. 11/8/23), 372 So. 3d 801.
The Committee filed a timely application for rehearing. Although the
Committee does not take issue with the court’s judgment insofar as it pertains to
petitioner’s character and fitness, it now argues for the first time that petitioner is not
eligible for admission because his scores on the bar exam and the MPRE are older
than five years and are no longer valid under Supreme Court Rule XVII, § 8(C) .
1
Pretermitting the merits of the Committee’s arguments, we find the issue of
the validity of petitioner’s scores is not properly before the court at this time because
this issue was not presented on original hearing. See Rodrigue v. LeGros, 563 So.
1
Supreme Court Rule XVII, § 8(C) provides that a passing score on the essay portion of the bar
exam, and a passing score on the MPRE, “shall be valid for a period of five (5) years from the date
of the examination.”

2

2d 248, 257 (La. 1990) (“[w]e generally do not grant rehearings to consider issues
raised for the first time in the application for rehearing.”).
Accordingly, the application for rehearing is denied.

REHEARING DENIED