[In case there's any doubt, he lost this one, too.]
For those not familiar with the background, in 1998, after graduating from
law school, Ken Smith applied to become a lawyer in Colorado. He had
passed
the bar exam, but ran afoul of the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board.
Specifically, on the basis of some legal actions that Ken had initiated
when
he was still a law student (and also ostensibly because of a perceived
lack
of candor by Ken), the Bar Examiners asked Ken to submit to a
psychological
examination. Ken refused, and was consequently DENIED a licence to
practise
law in Colorado. See:
<http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/Order.htm>
Ken then sued the Colorado Supreme Court and the Colorado Bar Examiners'
Board in Federal District Court, where Judge Edward Nottingham dismissed
his
suit. Ken appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, where he fared
no
better:
<http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2003/06/02-1481.htm>
Ken then tried his luck in State District Court, where Judge H. Jeffrey
Bayless also dismissed his case. Ken then appealed to the Colorado
Supreme
Court -- who were among the DEFENDANTS in his case -- and you can guess
the
outcome:
<http://65.45.99.70/opinions/opinion.cfm?OpinionID=5343>
Well, as it transpires, Ken wasn't done yet. He refiled his case in
Federal
District Court, adding Judge Nottingham, the 10th Circuit, and Judge
Bayless
to the list of defendants. Here is the result:
<http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2007/05/04-1468.htm>
In light of these events, does ANYONE have any doubts that the Colorado
Bar
Examiners' Board made the right call in the first place?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
