IN RE. SUSAN M . TEEL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Corrected November 18, 2004
TO BE PUBLISHED
,$ixyrrzrrQ Courf of "ftrufurhV
2004-SC-0436-CF
[E
IN RE. SUSAN M . TEEL
~
-U-A
ORDER CORRECTING
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The motion for reconsideration of the Board of Bar Examiners'
determination is DENIED.
Cooper, Johnstone, Keller, Stumbo and Wintersheimer, JJ ., concur.
Graves, J ., dissents by separate opinion and is joined by Lambert, C.J.
ENTERED: November 18, 2004.
CHIEF JUSTICE
~~,
~-
P-
. \-~
t
TO BE PUBLISHED
,;VUyr.rM,r
Courf of `rnfurhv
'~ft
2004-SC-0436-CF
IN RE :
SUSAN M . TEEL
DISSENTING OPINION BY JUSTICE GRAVES
Because this matter demonstrates that each state, not the Federal Government
or the American Bar Association (ABA), should exercise control over the requirements
for admission to the state bar, I reiterate the reasons given in my dissent, In Re: Troy L .
Brooks , Ky., 11 S .W.3d 25 (2000) .
Applicant, Susan M . Teel, is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of
California, is in good standing with the California Bar Association, and is an "AV"
(highest rating) lawyer under the Martindale-Hubbell national attorney rating system .
After passing the rigorous California Bar Examination (arguably the most difficult Bar
Examination in the country), she was admitted to practice in California on December 1,
1981, more than twenty-two (22) years ago . She obtained an LL .M . degree in Taxation
from Golden Gate University, an ABA-accredited law school in 1989 . The Board of Bar
Examiners found her unqualified to sit for the Kentucky Bar Examination merely
because she obtained her J .D . degree from San Francisco Law School, a non ABAaccredited law school.
Notwithstanding her graduation from a non ABA-accredited law school, she has
been qualified as an instructor with the California Continuing Education of the Bar since
1999, and has been an Adjunct Faculty Member of the Masters in Taxation Program at
Golden Gate University. She is certified as a specialist in Estate Planning Trust and
Probate by the State Bar of California, which requires an additional rigorous course of
study for qualification, as well as to remain certified, and passage of an all-day
examination administered by the State Bar of California for Specialists, after the
applicant has submitted evidence of course work, client experience and
recommendations of other specialists . She has passed every test she has encountered
and demonstrated her mastery of the realities of lawyering .
The Board of Bar Examiners cavalierly, perhaps enviously, and summarily
dismisses these impressive credentials : While recognizing that Applicant was a
successful attorney in California and appears very competent, the Board feels this is in
spite of the quality of her legal education and not because of it. Such a preordained and
directed review is exclusively selective and does not fairly evaluate her entire legal
career.
Can a student at a given law school - albeit a small institution with fewer financial
resources, and less grandiose physical facilities than most ABA-accredited law schools
require, obtain a basic legal education which will afford them the fundamental tools with
which to become sufficiently competent to take the Kentucky Bar Examination - or any
other state Bar Examination? We will never know because of artificial impediments
erected by the ABA. Primary focus should be whether the bar applicant possesses the
requisite knowledge base and practice skills from the non ABA-accredited law school so
as to pass the bar examination . Law schools are made of teachers and students, not of
bricks and mortar.
The word "educate" is derived from the Latin term educare which means to lead
out. All education is ultimately self-education, and good teachers merely point one in
the right direction .
If the purpose of requiring aspiring lawyers to pass a bar exam is to protect the
public from incompetence, it is a laudable goal and should be pursued with great vigor.
The first step in doing so should be to identify the core competencies that lawyers
should have and the minimum level of knowledge required to be judged competent in
those subjects . The next step should be to test the applicant as objectively as possible.
This testing phase should be the mission of the bar exam . When graded by standards
meant to protect the applicant and the public, the bar exam should be a powerful tool for
delivering competent legal practitioners to the public . If the bar exam is properly
designed, administered, and graded, it should not make any difference how applicants
acquired their knowledge . Other than institutional self-preservation, there is no logical
reason to require applicants to have attended ABA-accredited law schools .
Typically, law schools require students to take a few courses : Civil Procedure,
Evidence, Constitutional Law, Contracts, Criminal Law, Research and Writing, Property,
Torts, and Professional Responsibility . But other subjects most important in the practice
of law today are seldom required, negotiation, mediation, factual investigation, and
witness interviewing to name just a few. The public has a right to expect that their
lawyers be at least acquainted with the legal marketplace, and bar exams should test
candidates on them.
When it comes to whether or not a law school's graduates are eligible to take bar
examinations upon graduation or shortly afterwards, in approximately 40 states the
quality of the school does not count, the ability of its graduates does not count, and
whether the school has gone further than most in remedying long-recognized
shortcomings in legal education does not count . In about 40 states, all that counts is
whether the school is accredited by the ABA . This is fundamentally unfair and unjust .
The injustice is only the greater because the graduate of a poor quality school
approved by the ABA can take the bar examination everywhere upon graduation, but
the intelligent and well-educated graduates of a high quality school not accredited by
the ABA can take the bar examination only in a few places upon graduation . Having the
LL.M . in tax law is sufficient to meet the legal education requirements prescribed in SCR
2 .014 .
Even though Kentucky has many lawyers, we still need good competent ones .
Applicant has ably demonstrated her ability in the highly competitive marketplace . I
would not hesitate to seek tax advice from her. Denying her admission is also unfair to
Kentuckians needing competent tax advice.
Lambert, CJ, joins this dissent.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
