Read More of the latest news on our
Click here for
information about our Directors.
One Bar Exam Is More Than Enough
NAAMJP is a public benefit corporation founded
by attorneys for the benefit of attorneys
seeking to obtain bar admission in another
State or U.S. District Court without taking
another bar exam.
The ABA MJP Commission has concluded
that one bar exam is more than enough in 2000.
We are actively petitioning for the
equivalent of a driver’s license for lawyers.
We seek the same rights to interstate travel that
lawyers in the EU and Canada already possess.
founding fathers brought forth a new nation
conceived in liberty and dedicated to the
proposition that all men are created equal.
If all men and women are created equal,
and American lawyers are men and women, than
all American lawyers are created equal.
The issue the NAAMJP is litigating is
whether the equal rights, privileges and
immunities inherent in bar admission on
motion, which the United States Supreme Court
has squarely held is a constitutionally
protected privilege and immunity, Supreme
Court of Virginia v. Friedman, 487 U.S. 59
(1988), and has been adopted in 39 States,
resulting in the admission on motion of over
60,000 attorneys, should be provided to all
That is one nation under God with
liberty and justice for all.
The NAAMJP has lawsuits pending in federal court challenging the tit-for-tat bar the admission rules of the Arizona Supreme Court, Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. These tit-for-tat bar admission rules provide, “you get admission on motion here if our lawyers get admission on motion in your jurisdiction.” These tit-for-tat bar admission rules serve no legitimate governmental purpose as the Supreme Court has already squarely held bar admission on motion is constitutionally protected, and the Supreme Court will not presume that sister-state attorneys are not fully qualified. These tit-for-tat admission rules are they the product of an evolutionary hard-wired need to retaliate against others who show us disrespect by returning that abuse.
The NAAMP also has pending lawsuit challenging the California Supreme
Court bar admission rules, we request every
registered in-house counsel and legal services
attorneys be converted to full licensure and
that the sister-state attorney bar exam be
Brown v. Board of Education was decided the
Supreme Court consolidated seven test cases.
We ask you to join us and contribute to
finance this national precedent setting
litigation that is designed to bring an end to
the separate but equal era for lawyers.
NAAMJP goal is to have obtained full admission
on motion privileges for all attorneys in all U.S. District Courts and
State Supreme Courts that do not presently
provide equal privileges and immunities,
including the tit-for-tat admission rules that
provide you get admission on motion in our
jurisdiction if our attorneys get admission on
motion in your jurisdiction.
NAAMJP has already filed suit on behalf of multiple
highly competent experienced attorneys who
have been stripped of their law license based
on the whim of local licensing officials
implementing archaic policies, similar to the
licensing of printing presses in the 16th
Century, that serve no purpose in the 21st
Century other than decreasing competition and
providing monopoly protection.
our Pending Litigation Page.
Plaintiff KIMBERLY JANE ALFRIEND
was a “registered legal services attorney”
employed by the Children’s Law Center (CLC) of
Los Angeles under California Rule 9.45.
She completed a rigorous rite of
passage including ABA law school graduation
for entry into the legal profession.
She is admitted to the bar of the
Maryland Supreme Court, but she is
admitted in California.
She forfeited her privilege and
immunity under Rule 9.45 and is categorically
ineligible to appear in a California courtroom
on behalf of CLC and the indigent — after
three years as a “registered legal services
It is arbitrary and irrational to
conclude that an attorney somehow becomes
categorically disqualified with three years of
experience as a registered legal services
attorney, but is categorically qualified
before reaching three years.
Rule 9.45. is not related to public
protection. It is monopoly protection.
She is thus no longer one of small
number (16) of registered local services
attorneys in a state with 35 million people.
Plaintiff DAWN BERTUCCI
passed bar exams in Maryland and New York.
She has been a lawyer in good standing
Like thousands of other women, she
moved across State lines to further her
(physician) husband’s career.
She was recently divorced and has two
children six and eight.
She has been failed on the California
bar exam three times.
This is a test that five nationally
respected testing experts have concluded fails
to meet testing Standards, and it is not a
valid or reliable test.
See our Blog Bar Examiners on Steroids.
The last time Dawn took the test, she
became sick and exhausted during the middle of
it and was forced to withdraw. It is
physically impossible for her to go thru this
ordeal as a single mom with two children at
Dawn is left with the Hobson’s choice of
either giving up being a lawyer or a mother.
If you are California registered
in-house counsel this could be you.
The NAAMJP has had
numerous in-house counsel members who have
unfortunately disappeared. Under California
Rule 9.46, the corporate in-house counsel like
the registered legal services attorney, pays
the same dues, must comply with the same CLE
requirements, and must be licensed in another
In-house counsel is
registered in perpetuity, but 30 days after
they lose their employment, the attorney is
deleted from the rolls. Many in-house
positions are terminated for business reasons
such as merger. Rule 9.46 does not facilitate
public protection when counsel has already
been licensed. It is a bar admission rule that
perpetuates the status quo long after the quo
has lost it status.
"He who looks upon a conflict between right and wrong, and does not help the right against the wrong, despises and insults his own nature, and invites the contempt of mankind." - Frederick Douglass
from Temple University and a J.D. from
Temple University School of Law (1983). He
is a member in good standing of the bar of
the Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and U.S.
Supreme Court, as well as numerous other
federal courts. He has attended Gerry
Spence’s Trial Lawyers College. He is a
member of the American Bar Association’s
Litigation Section and Legal Education and
Admissions. He testified before and
presented written argument to the ABA MJP
Commission hearing in San Diego. See “A
Nationwide Need for the Primacy of the First
Amendment Rights to Advocate, Associate, and
Petition in the New Millennium” at
He has written numerous articles published
in legal newspapers calling for full
reciprocal bar admission. He spearheaded
legislation in California that was enacted
into law 99-0 in 2000 calling for full
reciprocal admission for experienced
sister-state attorneys, that was
subsequently, diluted to
provide only second class limited bar
admission privileges for corporate counsel
and attorneys working for qualified pro bono
organizations with the promise the issue would be re-visited in a few years.
W. PEYTON GEORGE
is a member of the New Mexico, Virginia, District of Columbia, and Oklahoma Bars as well as the U. S. Supreme Court and lesser Federal Courts. He has a Bachelor of Science Degree from University of Central Oklahoma and a Juris Doctor Degree in Law from American University. He is also a graduate of both the FBI Academy and the Army War College. Peyton has also held several high profile Active and Reserve military assignments where he achieved the rank of Colonel, U. S. Army JAG, receiving the “Legion of Merit” award. His legal related experiences include serving as a partner in the Lathrop and Gage and the Miles and Stockbridge Law Firms, as a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and as a Congressional Liaison Officer for Cabinet Level Departments. Peyton has over thirty years experience in providing legal representation and counsel to individuals and large and small businesses, in civil, administrative and criminal related matters. These include complex litigation, government relations and general legal practice. He maintains a nationwide network of attorneys and consultants to serve client’s needs, and is also available as needed for service as a mediator, arbitrator, or trustee.
graduated from the University Of Maryland School Of Law. He is admitted in Maryland, Arizona, and the District of Columbia. He has served as an Assistant State’s Attorney in both Baltimore City and Baltimore County, an Assistant Federal Public Defender in Maryland, an Assistant United States Attorney in Maryland, where he became Chief of the Criminal Division. He is as a former partner in a Dickstein & Shapiro He has practiced as lead trial counsel in the litigation and trial of complex insurance coverage cases for Fortune 500 companies. He has been a trial lawyer for more than 41 years, and he has first-chaired more than 150 jury trials and over 1,000 contested cases. He was ranked in Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business as a leading individual in the area of Insurance. He was selected as a Fellow by the Litigation Counsel of America. He was listed in The Best Lawyers in America in the area of Insurance Law and Washington DC Super Lawyers. Mr. Kolman is also a year cancer survivor, and a past member of the board of directors of the Maryland Victim Assistance Network, the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, and the Maryland Chapter of the Leukemia Society of America.
L. RUSSELL is a graduate of the University of Akron School of Law (1974). He has 16 years experience as an Assistant United States Attorney having served as a federal prosecutor in the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland), Southern District of Florida (Miami), Central District of California (Los Angeles), Northern District of California (San Francisco and San Jose ), and the Department of Justice Headquarters in Washington, D.C. Mr. Russell has conducted 45 criminal trials in seven United States District Courts, and he has successfully argued appeals in the First, Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits. He is a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of Ohio, Supreme Court of the United States, and many other federal courts. He testified before and presented written argument to the ABA MJP Commission hearing in San Diego. See
BLOOM is a graduate of Northwestern and he holds a J.D. form New York University School of Law (1965). He is admitted to practice in New York, the United States Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit, and the Northern District of California. He has been counsel for defendant in numerous high profile criminal cases including Geronimo Pratt.
OWEN is a graduate with Great Distinction, from Oakland College of Law. He has an L.L.M. with honors from Golden Gate University School of Law. He is a member of bar of the Arizona Supreme Court, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. He has authored, Environmental Justice Enforcement Requires Reassessment Under the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and Environmental Statutes. 30 Golden Gate University Law Review 379. Mr. Owens is an Instructor of Constitutional Law and Environmental Law at Oakland College of Law.