This post relates to the procedural practice of law (litigation, really). Although not specific to "Unfair Competition," it is particularly relevant to these issues, given the frequent comparison of California's restrictive covenant laws (and seemingly-resultant increase in trade secret litigation) to most of the rest of the country. I received the email below. I think it's an important and timely issue, and I tend to agree with their perspective. So, as they requested, I am sharing it. Dear Russell Beck: The National Association for the Advancement of Multijurisdiction Practice filed a Complaint in the Northern District of California NAAMJP v. California Supreme Court 11-5046 SBA petitioning to have the California experienced attorneys' bar exam invalidated. This Complaint alleges that five nationally respected testing experts have concluded the California bar exam for experienced sister-state attorneys is neither a valid or reliable test. Testing experts and statisticians have developed what is termed a standard error of measurement. The Complaint alleges that standard error of measurement for the experienced attorneys' exam is over 50%. The Complaint further requests the California Supreme Court to adopt the ABA 20/20 Commission's recommendation that all attorneys with three years of experience be provided full admission on motion privileges without taking another bar exam. In the Information Age requiring experienced attorneys to reinvent the wheel makes as much sense as licensing printing presses in the 16th Century. A copy of the complaint can be found at http://www.mjplaw.org/pending_litigation.html. The ABA 20/20 Commission concluded that 65,000 attorneys have been admitted to the bar of another State on motion in 39 States during the last ten years. It further urged all States to adopt its recommendation. It concluded that there is no reason to conclude that an attorney with three years of experience will be any less competent then a newly minted attorney. The 20/20 Commission admission on motion link is available on our Blawg at mjplaw.org. We at NAAMJP know that your blog reaches thousands of lawyers that are affected by the Multijurisdicitonal Practice Rules. Therefore, we are asking for your help in spreading the word so we can advance MJP rules and help our fellow American Attorneys. Our web page is www.mjplaw.org , thank you for y our understanding and help, feel free to contact us for any further information at (310) 207-1776, or at firstname.lastname@example.org. Sincerely, Joe Giannini Director, NAAMJP Share this post: Share Email Twitter Facebook StumbleUpon Digg Reddit Like this: Be the first to like this post.
Read more detail on Recent Employment Law Posts –Legal notice about the Multijurisdictional Practice rubric : Hukuki Net Legal News is not responsible for the privacy statements or other content from Web sites outside of the Hukuki.net site. Please refer the progenitor link to check the legal entity of this resource hereinabove.
Do you need High Quality Legal documents or forms related to Multijurisdictional Practice?