With California allowing non-lawyers to study with attorneys to become an attorney–reciprocity will have a plethora of uneducated Californians telling YOU, the educated lawyers, why YOU are wrong. Have fun!

9:32, reciprocity doesn't necessarily mean you have to recognize admittees who didn't graduate from an ABA accredited law school.

Nevada looking at and heading toward adopting UBE and reciprocal admission is typical of the Board of Governors & Supreme Court "jump on the band wagon" policy choices. It's inevitable that our governing clowns will adopt UBE and reciprocity.

To allow reciprocity, we should adopt very high standards to allow an attorney to obtain a license by motion instead of exam. For example, our Bar could permit admission on motion if: 1) applicant has completed (5-10?) years of active practice in another jurisdiction that allows reciprocal admission; 2) achieved a score of 80th% on the UBE and MPRE; 3) pass comprehensive background check (no prior discipline, no sanctions, no other aggravating circumstances like DUIs, unpaid taxes or child support, history of malpractice cases, etc.); 4) pays $10,000 or some other number that would allow the admission to be fully processed and compensates SBN for the convenience of admission by motion; and 5) applicant's home bar permits similar reciprocal admission. Of course, attorneys could alternatively go through the traditional application and exam process.

If you have an opinion on any of this, you need to speak up outside of this anonymous platform.

I disagree with 9:32AM. California does not have reciprocity so it will not be included in any changes to Nevada's rule regarding the issue. As to individuals who have not gone to law school taking the CA BAR, I am not sure that is still the law there.

@9:59; I agree with most but not all of your points/requirements. I don't see a rational basis for setting the motion fee at $10k. That would far exceed any realistic costs the SBN would incur in processing the motion and recommending to the NSC whether it should grant or deny it.

Texas has had an admission by motion process for at least 20 years and it works fairly well. It, along with other states with an efficient and effective long established process could be a reasonable starting point for drafting rules for admission by motion in Nevada. At a minimum, the process should require:

1) The state bar membership from which the applicant is seeking recognition and reciprocity must be in good standing and grant reciprocity to Nevada attorneys seeking admission on motion to that state;

2) Graduation from an ABA law school or obtaining a functional equivalency certification (currently allowed for traditional applicants wishing to sit for the Nevada Bar);

3) Successfully passing the MPRE exam with the score required if taken as part of sitting for the Nevada bar exam (wouldn't matter where taken or when, but the score would have to meet the requirement);

4) Having passed the MBE portion of the original bar exam with a score matching that which is required to pass the Nevada MBE portion of the bar exam (again the when/where doesn't matter but the score does);

5) The applicant pass the same background investigation that an applicant seeking admission by testing must pass;

6) The applicant have at least 5 years of active practice of law within the 8 years immediately preceding the motion;

7) The applicant has no prior discipline imposed of the nature that would disqualify them from admission by testing method.

Once admitted by motion, all rules applicable to an attorney admitted by examination would be equally applicable to an attorney admitted by motion.

But doesn't this miss the point about how bar discipline works when an attorney is admitted in more than one jurisdiction? Discipline is reciprocal. The discipline in one jurisdiction becomes discipline in all jurisdictions where the attorney is licensed. So wouldn't the bad reputation of an itinerant litigator raise flags during character and fitness review?