Supreme Court of Virginia v. Friedman

Background

Myrna Friedman is a lawyer admitted in Illinois and the District of Columbia. She worked and maintained an office in Virginia but moved her home to Maryland after marriage. Virginia's Rule 1A:1 allows qualified out-of-state lawyers to be admitted on motion without taking the bar exam, but it requires applicants to be permanent Virginia residents. The Virginia Supreme Court denied Friedman's application because she lived in Maryland, and she sued claiming the rule violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether practicing law is a fundamental privilege protected against discriminatory residency rules and applied its two-step test from prior cases. It concluded the practice of law is protected and that Virginia failed to show the residency rule was closely related to any substantial state objective. The State's claims—that residency ensured commitment to service and helped enforce a full-time practice requirement—were rejected because less restrictive alternatives (office requirement, continuing education, pro bono duties) suffice.

Real world impact

The Court held that Virginia may not deny admission on motion solely because a qualified lawyer lives in another State. That means nonresident attorneys who maintain an office and practice in Virginia can seek admission without taking the bar exam. The decision resolves the Privileges and Immunities claim but does not address the Commerce Clause or Equal Protection arguments. States that use residency rules may need to change their admission practices or abandon reciprocity.

Dissents or concurrances

Chief Justice Rehnquist (joined by Justice Scalia) dissented, arguing the Court wrongly extended Piper, warning the ruling may penalize States that had adopted reciprocity with residency limits and suggesting some States might scrap admission-on-motion programs.