## Facts

- David W. Doering earned a B.S. in criminal justice from the University of Nebraska–Lincoln in 1977.
- Doering attended Western State University College of Law in California and received a J.D. in 1982.
- During Doering’s attendance, Western State was not approved by the American Bar Association (ABA), though it held other accreditations (including California bar examiner and regional accreditation).
- After graduation, Doering failed bar examinations in Montana and California, but later passed the Georgia bar examination.
- Doering was admitted to practice in Georgia and worked as an attorney in good standing there.
- Doering moved to Nebraska to be closer to his ill parents and sought to practice in Nebraska without taking the Nebraska bar examination.
- In 2007, Doering applied to the Nebraska State Bar Commission for admission without examination as a Class I‑A applicant.
- Nebraska Supreme Court Rule 5C required a Class I‑A applicant to have “a first professional degree from a law school approved by the ABA.”
- The Commission denied the application because Doering’s J.D. was not from an ABA‑approved law school at the time he earned it.
- At a Commission hearing, Doering submitted affidavits from Western State faculty and administrators stating that the school’s program was substantially similar to ABA‑approved law schools.
- The Commission again denied the application, and Doering appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether Rule 5C’s requirement of a first professional degree from an ABA‑approved law school bars Class I‑A admission without examination for an applicant whose U.S. law school was not ABA‑approved when the applicant graduated, even if the applicant claims the program was substantially equivalent to an ABA‑approved program.
2. Whether the existence of a separate process that can excuse or evaluate foreign legal education requires the court to excuse Rule 5C’s ABA‑approval requirement for graduates of non‑ABA‑approved U.S. law schools seeking admission on motion.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the Nebraska State Bar Commission’s denial of Doering’s Class I‑A application for admission without examination.
- The Court held that Rule 5C sets a mandatory eligibility requirement: an applicant for admission on motion must possess a first professional degree from an ABA‑approved law school.
- The Court rejected Doering’s request for a case‑by‑case substitute for ABA approval based on “substantial similarity” or equivalency evidence.
- The Court rejected the argument that rules addressing foreign legal education require the same flexibility for graduates of non‑ABA‑approved U.S. law schools.
- The Court concluded the Commission did not act arbitrarily or abuse its discretion by applying Rule 5C as written.

## Legal Principles

- The Nebraska Supreme Court has constitutional authority over admission to the practice of law and enforces bar‑admission rules it has adopted.
- When an admission rule conditions admission on motion on graduation from an ABA‑approved law school, proof that a non‑ABA school’s curriculum is comparable does not satisfy the rule.
- A waiver or evaluation mechanism designed for foreign‑educated applicants does not require the court to waive the ABA‑approval requirement for domestically educated applicants from non‑ABA schools.
- A bar commission acts properly when it applies the court’s admission rules according to their terms, and denial based on failure to meet an express educational requirement is not arbitrary.
- Applicants who do not qualify for admission without examination may seek admission through other authorized routes, including taking the Nebraska bar examination.

## Conclusion

In *In re Doering*, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the denial of an attorney’s application for admission on motion because Rule 5C required a J.D. from an ABA‑approved law school and the applicant’s degree was earned at a school that lacked ABA approval at the relevant time; the Court declined to treat equivalency evidence or foreign‑education procedures as a basis to excuse the rule’s express requirement.


In re Doering, 751 N.W.2d 123, 275 Neb. 1004 (2008)