In re Application of Doering

1004 	275 NeBrASKA reporTS
entitled to an exemption. The sole assignment of error by St.
Monica’s is without merit.
CoNCLUSIoN
We affirm the denial of application for property tax exemp-
tion filed by St. Monica’s.
A ffirmed .
iN re A pplicATioN of dAvid w. doeriNg for
A dmissioN To The N ebrAskA sTATe bAr .
751 N.W.2d 123
Filed June 27, 2008. 	No. S-34-070004.
1. Rules of the Supreme Court: Attorneys at Law: Appeal and Error. The
Nebraska Supreme Court will consider the appeal of an applicant from a final
adverse ruling of the Nebraska State Bar Commission de novo on the record made
at the hearing before the commission.
2. Rules of the Supreme Court: Attorneys at Law. The Nebraska Supreme Court is
vested with the sole power to admit persons to the practice of law in this state and
to fix qualifications for admission to the Nebraska bar.
3. Rules of the Supreme Court: Attorneys at Law: Waiver. The Nebraska Supreme
Court has the power, under appropriate circumstances, to waive the application of
its own rules regarding the admission of attorneys to the Nebraska bar.
4. Rules of the Supreme Court: Attorneys at Law: Intent. The Nebraska Supreme
Court rules for Admission of Attorneys are intended to weed out unqualified appli-
cants, not to prevent qualified applicants from taking the bar.
5. Rules of the Supreme Court: Attorneys at Law: Waiver. exceptions to the
Nebraska Supreme Court rules for Admission of Attorneys should be recognized
and waivers granted whenever it can be demonstrated that the rules operate in such
a manner as to deny admission to a petitioner arbitrarily and for a reason unrelated
to the essential purpose of the rule.
6. Rules of the Supreme Court: Attorneys at Law. While a strict application of
Neb. Ct. r. for Adm. of Attys. 5C (rev. 2005) may not always be appropriate for
those who attended law school outside the United States, a strict application of rule
5C is appropriate for graduates of nonaccredited United States law schools.
original action. Denial of application affirmed.
robert F. Bartle, of Bartle & geier Law Firm, for applicant.
Jon Bruning, Attorney general, and Tom Stine for Nebraska
State Bar Commission.
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
11/01/2026 04:54 AM CST

heAvicAN, 	C.J., 	wrighT, 	coNNolly, 	gerrArd, 	sTephAN,
mccormAck, and miller -lermAN, JJ.
gerrArd, J.
David W. Doering graduated from Western State University
College of Law (Western State) in Fullerton, California, in
1982. At the time of his graduation, Western State’s law school
was not approved by the American Bar Association (ABA).
In 2007, Doering filed an application with the Nebraska State
Bar Commission (Commission), seeking admission without
examination as a Class I-A applicant.1 The Commission denied
Doering’s application on the basis that he did not possess a first
professional degree from a law school approved by the ABA,
as required by rule 5C of the Nebraska Supreme Court rules
for Admission of Attorneys. Thereafter, at Doering’s request, a
hearing was held before the Commission, and Doering presented
evidence regarding his educational qualifications and Western
State’s credentials. The Commission again denied Doering’s
request, and he appeals.
FACTS
Doering received a bachelor of science degree in criminal jus-
tice from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in 1977. In 1979,
Doering enrolled at Western State. After successfully complet-
ing 3 years of coursework, Doering earned a juris doctor degree
from Western State in 1982.
Doering’s transcript shows that his first-year law school cur-
riculum consisted of two terms of civil procedure, two terms of
contracts, two terms of property, two terms of torts, and one term
of criminal law. During his second and third years, Doering took
courses in family law, constitutional law, media law, law office
management, space law, wills and trusts, community property,
education law, legal research and writing, evidence, investigative
technique, remedies, the Uniform Commercial Code, agency and
partnerships, corporations, criminal procedure, clinical educa-
tion, and professional responsibility. The record indicates that
at some point while attending Western State, Doering took the
1 See Neb. Ct. r. for Adm. of Attys. 5A(1) (rev. 2005).
IN re AppLICATIoN oF DoerINg 	1005
Cite as 275 Neb. 1004

1006 	275 NeBrASKA reporTS
Multistate professional responsibility examination (Mpre) and
received a score that satisfies Nebraska’s Mpre requirement.2
At all times relevant to this case, Western State was accredited
by the Committee of Bar examiners of the State of California
and accredited by the Western Association of Schools and
Colleges. However, during the time that Doering attended and
eventually graduated from Western State, the law school was not
accredited by the ABA.
After graduation, Doering took, but failed, bar examinations in
Montana and California. In 1992, Doering sat for and passed the
georgia bar examination, and was admitted to the georgia bar in
1992. Beginning in March 1995 and continuing until February
1996, Doering worked as a volunteer for the georgia Indigent
Defense Council. In February 1996, the felony trial division of
the georgia Indigent Defense Council made the decision to start
its own office and separated from the georgia Indigent Defense
Council. The director of the felony trial division offered Doering
a position with the felony trial division as a staff attorney, which
Doering accepted. Doering worked as a staff attorney and was
eventually promoted to senior attorney, where he remained until
he moved to Nebraska in 2006.
The record reflects that Doering is currently a lawyer in good
standing with the georgia bar. Doering testified that he moved to
Nebraska in 2006 in order to be closer to his parents, who were
in poor health.
on April 12, 2007, Doering submitted a Class I-A applica-
tion to the Commission seeking admission to the Nebraska
bar without examination.3 In a letter dated June 18, 2007, the
Commission denied Doering’s application because he had not
received his law degree from an ABA-approved law school.
Doering appealed the Commission’s denial, and a hearing
was held.
Doering testified and presented evidence at the hearing.
Included in the evidence offered by Doering were two affidavits
by richard e. Jenkins, an associate dean and professor of law
at Western State. In his affidavits, Jenkins testified to, among
2 See, rule 5A(1)(c); Neb. Ct. r. for Adm. of Attys. 16 (rev. 2004).
3 See rule 5A(1)(b).

other things, Western State’s curriculum and its accreditations.
Jenkins, who graduated from Western State in 1974 and later
joined the teaching faculty at Western State in 1976, testified
that he is familiar with the accreditation standards of the bar
examiners of the State of California and the ABA and that both
accreditation standards “are equal or substantially equivalent.”
Attached to one of Jenkins’ affidavits was an exhibit which
set forth various ABA accreditation requirements as they existed
in 1982. These requirements included standards relating to the
law school library, the number of full-time faculty members,
and faculty workload and compensation. given these ABA stan-
dards, Jenkins opined that “[r]elative to the number of fulltime
faculty . . . and other requirements relative to faculty teaching
loads, study and law library requirements, . . . Western State
. . . offered a program substantially similar to ABA-approved
law schools.”
Jenkins further averred that it was his understanding that “the
single and most important reason” why Western State had not
applied for accreditation with the ABA by the time Doering
graduated in 1982 was because the ABA then required “through
rule 202, that a law school should be organized as a non-profit
educational institution,” prohibiting for-profit law schools, such
as Western State, from receiving ABA accreditation. Jenkins
testified that Western State did not seek ABA accreditation “until
some time in approximately 1987” and that Western State “was
first accredited by the ABA in the mid-1990s.”
Doering presented evidence that in 1995, the Department
of Justice brought an antitrust lawsuit against the ABA and
obtained a consent decree under which the ABA was enjoined
from “adopting or enforcing any Standard, Interpretation or
rule, or taking any action that has the purpose or effect of pro-
hibiting a law school from . . . being an institution organized as a
for-profit entity.”4 Doering’s evidence indicates that as a result of
this ruling, the ABA removed its requirement that a law school
be organized as a nonprofit educational institution in order to
receive ABA accreditation.
4 U.S. v. American Bar Ass’n, 934 F. Supp. 435, 436 (D.D.C. 1996).
IN re AppLICATIoN oF DoerINg 	1007
Cite as 275 Neb. 1004

1008 	275 NeBrASKA reporTS
Following this rule change, Western State applied for and
received ABA accreditation. For some reason, not apparent
from the record, Western State temporarily allowed its ABA
accreditation to lapse. In 2005, Western State reacquired, and
has maintained until the present time, provisional accreditation
from the ABA. The record indicates that a school that is provi-
sionally approved by the ABA is entitled to all the rights of a
fully approved law school. After reviewing Doering’s law school
transcript, Jenkins testified that Doering’s academic experience
and course of study from 1979 to 1982 was essentially the same
as the academic experience and course of study for law students
who graduated from Western State in 2007.
on october 23, 2007, the Commission again denied Doering’s
application on the basis that he lacked a first professional degree
from an ABA-approved law school. Doering now appeals to
this court.
ASSIgNMeNT oF error
Doering assigns, restated, that the Commission erred in deny-
ing his application seeking admission to the Nebraska bar.
STANDArD oF reVIeW
[1] The Nebraska Supreme Court will consider the appeal of an
applicant from a final adverse ruling of the Commission de novo
on the record made at the hearing before the Commission.5
ANALYSIS
[2] The Nebraska Supreme Court is vested with the sole power
to admit persons to the practice of law in this state and to fix
qualifications for admission to the Nebraska bar.6 rule 5A(1)(b)
requires a Class I-A applicant, such as Doering, to have attained
“educational qualifications at least equal to those required”
of Class II applicants (i.e., those required to take the written
examination). And Class II applicants, pursuant to rule 5C, must
possess their first professional degree from an ABA-approved
5 In re Application of Brown, 270 Neb. 891, 708 N.W.2d 251 (2006); Neb. Ct.
r. for Adm. of Attys. 15 (rev. 2000).
6 In re Application of Budman, 272 Neb. 829, 724 N.W.2d 819 (2006). See
Neb. Const. art. II, § 1, and art. V, §§ 1 and 25.

law school.7 Thus, Doering must meet the ABA-approved law
school requirement or, in the absence of such degree, seek a
waiver of rule 5C.
[3-5] Doering concedes that Western State was not accredited
by the ABA at the time he graduated in 1982. Nevertheless,
Doering requests that we waive the application of the educa-
tional qualifications in rule 5C as they apply to him. This court
has the power, under appropriate circumstances, to waive the
application of its own rules regarding the admission of attorneys
to the Nebraska bar.8 In determining whether a waiver of the edu-
cational qualifications requirement is appropriate, we are guided
by certain principles. We have explained that our “admission
rules [are] intended to ‘weed’ out unqualified applicants, not to
prevent qualified applicants from taking the bar.”9 We have also
noted that “exceptions should be recognized and waivers granted
‘“whenever it can be demonstrated that the rules operate in such
a manner as to deny admission to a petitioner arbitrarily and for
a reason unrelated to the essential purpose of the rule.”’”10
Doering notes that under certain circumstances, we have
waived rule 5C where a foreign-educated applicant proves that
the education he or she received was equivalent to that for a
juris doctor degree available at an ABA-approved law school.11
Doering argues that given his circumstances—in particular, his
allegation that Western State would have been ABA-accredited
at the time of his graduation but for its proprietary status—we
should extend to him, a graduate of an unaccredited United
States law school, the same waiver opportunity afforded to
foreign-educated applicants. This we decline to do.
7 See In re Application of Brown, supra note 5.
8 See In re Application of Collins-Bazant, 254 Neb. 614, 578 N.W.2d 38
(1998).
9 In re Application of Gluckselig, 269 Neb. 995, 1001, 697 N.W.2d 686, 691
(2005).
10 In re Application of Collins-Bazant, supra note 8, 254 Neb. at 621, 578
N.W.2d at 43.
11 See, In re Application of Budman, supra note 6; In re Application of Brown,
supra note 5; In re Application of Gluckselig, supra note 9; In re Application
of Collins-Bazant, supra note 8.
IN re AppLICATIoN oF DoerINg 	1009
Cite as 275 Neb. 1004

1010 	275 NeBrASKA reporTS
[6] While we have, on occasion, granted waivers to graduates
of foreign law schools, there is a critical distinction between
graduates of foreign law schools and graduates of nonaccred-
ited U.S. law schools. The ABA does not evaluate foreign law
schools for accreditation; thus, there is no way for citizens of
foreign countries to attend an ABA-accredited school in their
own country.12 Accordingly, we reaffirm what we said in In re
Application of Collins-Bazant13: While a strict application of
rule 5C may not always be appropriate for those who attended
law school outside the United States, a strict application of
rule 5C is appropriate for graduates of nonaccredited U.S.
law schools.
For applicants who graduate from U.S. law schools, we have
chosen, as reflected in rule 5C, to rely upon the ABA accredi-
tation process as an objective determination of the educational
environment for prospective attorneys. The ABA’s process for
evaluating law schools is extensive and involves many detailed
standards for law school organization and administration, the
educational programs offered, the faculty, admissions, the library,
and the law schools’ actual physical facilities.14 The ABA’s stan-
dards are an appropriate, effective, and objective means of mea-
suring the quality of a law school and “provide assurance that
applicants to the bar ‘have experienced a generally uniform level
of appropriate legal education.’”15
In the present case, Doering would have us evaluate nonac-
credited U.S. law schools on a case-by-case basis to determine
whether a particular school, at a certain point in time, provided a
legal education that was substantially equivalent to that from an
ABA-accredited law school. But such a case-by-case approach
into the individual qualifications and standards of every nonac-
credited U.S. law school, whenever a graduate from that school
applies to the bar, would impose upon this court an unreasonable
12 See In re Application of Collins-Bazant, supra note 8. See, also, In the
Matter of Tocci, 413 Mass. 542, 600 N.e.2d 577 (1992); Application of
Macartney, 163 Ariz. 116, 786 p.2d 967 (1990).
13 In re Application of Collins-Bazant, supra note 8.
14 See Fla. Bd. of Bar Ex’mrs re Mass. School, 705 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1998).
15 In the Matter of Tocci, supra note 12, 413 Mass. at 548, 600 N.e.2d at 581.

and unnecessary burden. The resources of this court are neither
sufficient nor suited to the task of conducting such individual-
ized waiver determinations. Furthermore, we believe that for us
to evaluate U.S. law schools on a case-by-case approach would
yield results far less reliable than those of the ABA, and would
invite challenges as to the quality of such determinations.16
Simply stated, the ABA is best equipped to perform the func-
tion of accrediting law schools, and we will continue to rely on
its determinations.
The circumstances in the present case illustrate the difficultly
we would face if we were to grant waivers for rule 5C on a case-
by-case basis, rather than relying on the ABA’s accreditation.
Here, Doering claims that the education he received at Western
State from 1979 until 1982 was functionally equivalent to that of
an ABA-approved law school. Yet Doering offered little by way
of comprehensive evidence to support this claim. The evidence
Doering did offer suggested that the only reason Western State
was not ABA-accredited at the time he graduated in 1982 was
because of its proprietary status. However, other courts have
considered Western State’s accreditation history, and their opin-
ions suggest that, from June 1977 until approximately July 1981,
a proprietary law school could have applied for and received
provisional ABA accreditation if the school substantially com-
plied with all other standards.17 But despite being invited to do
so, Western State did not apply, and when Western State did
eventually apply in 1987, it was denied accreditation for reasons
other than its proprietary status.18
Doering’s request for a waiver does not explain or address
these inconsistent findings and relies solely on the limited evalu-
ation permitted by the evidence he adduced at the hearing. This
evaluation is, necessarily, less detailed and reliable than the
searching inquiry of the ABA accreditation process. The ABA
16 See Appeal of Kartorie, 486 pa. 500, 406 A.2d 746 (1979).
17 See, Application of Urie, 617 p.2d 505 (Alaska 1980); In re Nort, 96 Nev.
85, 605 p.2d 627 (1980); Application of Hansen, 275 N.W.2d 790 (Minn.
1978).
18 See, In re Lewis, 86 S.W.3d 419 (Ky. 2002); Application of Urie, supra note
17; In re Nort, supra note 17; Application of Hansen, supra note 17.
IN re AppLICATIoN oF DoerINg 	1011
Cite as 275 Neb. 1004

1012 	275 NeBrASKA reporTS
has the resources to conduct an examination that is far more
credible than any that could be performed by this court or an
applicant for admission to our bar. And to evaluate law schools
case by case, based on the limited evidence adduced by a par-
ticular applicant, would risk inconsistency and unfairness to stu-
dents who were otherwise identically situated. As we stated in
In re Appeal of Dundee,19 “[i]f we do not apply rule 5 uniformly
rather than on a case-by-case basis, it will cease to operate as a
rule at all.”
It is for precisely these reasons that we have chosen, in rule
5C, to rely on the ABA’s well-founded, consistent, and defini-
tive conclusions. Therefore, we continue to hold that waiver
of rule 5C is not available to graduates of nonaccredited U.S.
law schools. Because Western State was not ABA-accredited
at the time Doering graduated, we affirm the decision of the
Commission to deny his application for admission.
CoNCLUSIoN
To evaluate an applicant’s legal education effectively, consis-
tently, and expeditiously, we have elected to utilize the accredi-
tation resources of the ABA. While waiver of rule 5C may, in
certain circumstances, be appropriate for graduates of foreign
law schools, rule 5C will not be waived for graduates of non-
accredited U.S. law schools. At the time Doering graduated,
Western State was not ABA-accredited; therefore, his applica-
tion for admission to the Nebraska bar should be denied. The
decision of the Commission is affirmed.
deNiAl of ApplicATioN Affirmed .
19 In re Appeal of Dundee, 249 Neb. 807, 812, 545 N.W.2d 756, 760 (1996).