Sander v. State Bar of California Scheduled for Special Oral Argument Session at UC Berkeley School of Law

Dear Colleagues:

The Supreme Court of California has calendared oral argument for Sander v. State Bar of California on October 9, 2013 at 10:00 am at UC Berkeley School of Law. The Court’s special oral argument session is open to the public.

Below is a summary of the amicus curiae brief For People of Color, Inc. filed with the Court in this matter.

What:

Special Oral Argument Session of the Supreme Court of California at UC Berkeley School of Law

When:

Wednesday, October 9, 2013 at 10:00 am

Where:

UC Berkeley School of Law
215 Boalt Hall
Berkeley, California 94720

*****

For People of Color, Inc. Files Amicus Curiae Brief In Support of The State Bar of California’s Protection of Bar Applicants’ Private Information

Los Angeles, California – March 07, 2012

For People of Color, Inc. (“FPOC”) filed an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court of California in support of the State Bar of California’s efforts to protect the privacy interests of all bar applicants. In Sander v. State Bar of California (Case No. S194951, Supreme Court of California), Plaintiffs are improperly seeking the following private and extremely sensitive information of all bar applicants from 1972 to 2007: (1) race, (2) law school, (3) whether the applicant is a transfer student, (4) year of law school graduation, (5) total raw score on first bar exam, (6) total scaled score in first bar exam, (7) raw MBE score, (8) scaled MBE score, (9) raw essay score, (10) scaled essay score, (11) raw performance test score, (12) scaled performance test score, (13) bar passage, (14) law school GPA, (15) LSAT score, and (16) undergraduate GPA.

FPOC, whose membership includes current and prospective members of the State Bar of California (“State Bar”) from all ethnic and racial backgrounds, filed its brief to support the State Bar’s efforts to protect bar applicants’ private data. The State Bar, which is governed by the Supreme Court of California, has repeatedly assured bar applicants that their private information, which they are required to provide in order to seek admission to the State Bar, would not be disclosed. In its brief, FPOC argues: “The State Bar’s promises of confidentiality reconfirm the constitutional right of applicants to control the dissemination of their personal information. Applicants have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information at issue based on the State Bar’s promises of confidentiality, which must be honored to preserve the integrity of the State Bar and the judiciary overall. Applicants’ reasonable expectation of privacy is also supported by the State Bar’s longstanding pattern of nondisclosure of applicants’ records. The State Bar has never released applicants’ private information to members of the public and there is no reason why it should be compelled to start now.”

Anthony Solana, Jr., FPOC’s president and chairperson, states: “This is an important case because disclosure of this sensitive information will potentially expose all bar applicants to irreversible invasions of their constitutionally protected privacy interests, despite clear promises of confidentiality made by the State Bar. I am extremely grateful to our wonderful team of attorneys. They spent countless hours to ensure that our membership’s interests were presented to the Court.”

The law firms of Perkins Coie LLP and Lim, Ruger & Kim, LLP represented FPOC. In particular, Sunita Bali, Norma Nava, and Vilma Palma-Solana were primarily responsible for drafting FPOC’s amicus curiae brief.