## Facts

- Virginia Supreme Court Rule 1A:1 allowed attorneys admitted in other jurisdictions to gain admission to the Virginia bar “on motion” (without taking the bar exam) if specified conditions were met, including that the applicant be a “permanent resident” of Virginia.
- Myrna E. Friedman was admitted to practice in Illinois and the District of Columbia, resided in Maryland, and practiced full-time in Virginia at her employer’s Virginia office.
- Friedman applied for admission on motion and met all requirements except the Virginia residency condition.
- Virginia denied the application solely because Friedman was not a Virginia resident.
- Friedman sued the Supreme Court of Virginia and its clerk in federal court, alleging the residency requirement violated Article IV, § 2’s Privileges and Immunities Clause.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Friedman, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether conditioning admission on motion to the Virginia bar on Virginia residency burdens a privilege protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
2. If so, whether Virginia had a substantial reason for discriminating against nonresidents and whether the residency requirement was closely related to that reason.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed.
- The Court held that Virginia’s residency requirement for admission to the bar on motion violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
- The Court rejected the argument that the rule was constitutional because nonresidents could still seek admission by taking the bar examination.
- The Court concluded Virginia failed to show that excluding nonresidents from admission on motion was closely related to substantial state objectives.

## Legal Principles

- The Privileges and Immunities Clause protects a nonresident’s interest in practicing law on terms of substantial equality with residents.
- The Clause applies when a state burdens that protected activity by discriminating among otherwise qualified applicants based on residency, even if the state offers an alternative route to licensure.
- Once a protected privilege is burdened, the state must show (1) a substantial reason for differential treatment of nonresidents and (2) a close relation between the discrimination and that reason.
- General concerns about lawyers’ commitment, availability, or familiarity with local law do not justify a residency requirement when the state can address those concerns through less restrictive measures (e.g., practice requirements, office requirements, disciplinary jurisdiction, continuing education).

## Conclusion

Virginia could not reserve admission on motion to residents without a substantial justification closely tied to residency; because the asserted interests were not closely served by the residency rule, the discrimination against nonresident attorneys violated Article IV’s Privileges and Immunities Clause.


Supreme Court of Va. v. Friedman, 487 U.S. 59 (1988)