{ "id": 2805369, "name": "John H. SPARKMAN, Petitioner, v. STATE BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS, State of New Mexico, Respondent", "name_abbreviation": "Sparkman v. State Board of Bar Examiners", "decision_date": "1967-03-20", "docket_number": "No. 8202", "first_page": "551", "last_page": "554", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "77 N.M. 551" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "425 P.2d 313" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M.", "id": 8835, "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "59 A.2d 863", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "142 N.J.Eq. 484", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.J. Eq.", "case_ids": [ 903638 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nj-eq/142/0484-01" ] }, { "cite": "207 N.W. 966", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "970" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "189 Wis. 441", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "case_ids": [ 8693850 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "452" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wis/189/0441-01" ] }, { "cite": "224 P. 750", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "752" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "193 Cal. 388", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal.", "case_ids": [ 2153029 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal/193/0388-01" ] }, { "cite": "294 N.W. 550", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "236 Wis. 38", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "case_ids": [ 8684326 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wis/236/0038-01" ] }, { "cite": "125 A.L.R. 1149", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "344 Mo. 932", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo.", "case_ids": [ 1882607 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mo/344/0932-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 A.2d 517", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "192 Md. 737", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Md.", "case_ids": [ 2255907 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/md/192/0737-01" ] }, { "cite": "117 F.2d 23", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 476512 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/117/0023-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 App.D.C. 151", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "App. D.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "75 N.M. 627", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5371374 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/75/0627-01" ] }, { "cite": "75 N.M. 617", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5372725 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/75/0617-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 450, "char_count": 6229, "ocr_confidence": 0.669, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.1592458524672714e-07, "percentile": 0.769573438451431 }, "sha256": "bda3b4e6d3dccb1579b77f484accc4a50efa271d7ae26d6818c3afd0eeba8f1b", "simhash": "1:b31aa69faf976eb8", "word_count": 1063 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:38:38.028708+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "CHAVEZ, C. J., and NOBLE, COMPTON and CARMODY, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "John H. SPARKMAN, Petitioner, v. STATE BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS, State of New Mexico, Respondent." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nHENSLEY, Chief Judge, Court of Appeals.\nThe petitioner seeks to review and to reverse a ruling of the Board of Bar Examiners.\nIn September, 1964, the petitioner applied for admission to practice law in New Mexico on motion. The' application was denied and the two reasons assigned therefor were as follows:\n(1) No exceptional circumstances were presented that would warrant waiving the requirement of examination, and\n(2) The applicant has not actively and continuously practiced law in any other state for seven of the eight years immediately preceding the filing of his application, three years of which were continuously in one jurisdiction, as prescribed by Rule II, subd. A, par. 10, of the Rules Governing Bar Examiners.\nThereafter, the petitioner in February, 1966, moved for reconsideration and appeared in support of his motion. In due time he was advised by the Board of Bar Examiners that his application was denied for the following reasons:\n\u201c(1) Testimony presented to the Board by applicant clearly indicates that he has not generally held himself out as an attorney and actively and continuously practiced law for 7 of the last 8 years immediately prior to filing his application;\n\u201c(2) That prior to moving to Albuquerque from Oklahoma and since February, 1959, he was paid a salary by State Farm Insurance Co.;\n\u201c(3) That his income from law practice as such was a minor part of his total income ;\n\u201c (4) That he was- not listed as an attorney in\u2019any directory;\n\u201c(5) That he did not maintain a law office separate from the office of his employer; that he did not have an \u2018attorney\u2019 sign on the office door, or otherwise hold himself out to the general public as an attorney;\n\u201c(6) That such law practice which he did was conducted from his home and was limited to such matters as would not conflict with his employment.\u201d\nIt is this ruling that the petitioner seeks to have reviewed on the ground that it amounted to an abuse of discretion.\nThe issue is narrowed to the determination of one fact, that is, had the petitioner generally held himself out as an attorney and had he actively and continuously practiced law for at least seven of the eight years immediately preceding the filing of his application, three years of which had been continuously in one jurisdiction.\nIn Rask v. Board of Bar Examiners, 75 N.M. 617, 409 P.2d 256, and in Warren v. Board of Bar Examiners, 75 N.M. 627, 409 P.2d 263, both decided in 1966, we reviewed Rule II, subd. A, par. 10, which appears in the pocket supplement to the New Mexico Statutes, Comp.1953, following \u00a7 18-1-8. We do not deem it expedient to repeat the background for and the development of the rule which is as yet unchanged. It should be noted again, however, that the burden was on the petitioner to present facts warranting the exercise of discretion by the Board to waive examination. It is also his burden before this court. Further, the task of the petitioner becomes more oppressive here for we will not overturn the judgment of the Board except to correct an injustice, or unless we are convinced that the ruling of the Board was not well founded.\nThe facts presented in this matter conclusively show that the petitioner was employed by State Farm Insurance Companies on a full-time salary basis as claims adjuster in Muskogee, Oklahoma, from February, 1959, until moving to New Mexico in August, 1964.\nBriefs submitted have not been helpful and our own research produced little authority. We find an expression of the court in American Automobile Association v. Merrick, 73 App.D.C. 151, 117 F.2d 23, to be as apt here as there:\n\u201cWe are referred to no case, and we have not found one, in \u2019which it is held that the collection or arbitration of claims alone amounts to the practice of law.\u201d\nSee Appeal of Rogers, 192 Md. 737, 83 A.2d 517; Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Jones, 344 Mo. 932, 130 S.W.2d 945, 125 A.L.R. 1149; State ex rel. Junior Ass\u2019n of Milwaukee Bar v. Rice, 236 Wis. 38, 294 N.W. 550. In People v. La Barre, 193 Cal. 388, 224 P. 750, 752, it was said,\n\u201cThe \u2019phrase \u2018actual practice\u2019 is open but to one construction. It is the opposite of casual or occasional or clandestine practice, and carries with it the thought of\nactive, open, and notorious engagement in , a. business, vocation, or profession. *. * * >>\nAlso pertinent is In re Pierce, 189 Wis. 441, 452, 207 N.W. 966, 970, where the court stated:\n\u201cAn \u2018actual practice\u2019 requires, and must command, a substantial portion of the working time of the practitioner.\u201d\nAnother persuasive case is Auerbacher v. Wood; 142 N.J.Eq. 484, 59 A.2d 863, where a County Bar Association attempted to enjoin the alleged unlawful practice of law. In that case the court said,\n\u2018What constitutes the practice of law does not lend itself to precise and all-inclusive definition. There is no definite formula which automatically classifies every case. * * * Where the pri\u25a0mary service is nonlegal, the purely incidental use of legal knowledge does not characterize the transaction as the wrongful practice of law.\u201d\nWe do not propose to submit a definition of the practice of law that may be employed to fit all situations and activities. We consider that each case must be examined in the light \u00f3f its own facts. The petitioner having been a salaried employee engaged primarily in adjusting claims from February, '1959, to August, 1964, has not met the .requirement of Rule II, subd. A, par.- 10;. He'-has-not generally held himself out as.'ani-attorney, and actively and continuously practiced law for at least seven of the eight years immediately preceding the filing of his application.\nThe petitioner has failed to establish that the ruling of the Board was not well founded, or that it was unjust.\nThe decision of the Board of Bar Examiners will not be disturbed. The petition filed in ths court will be denied.\nIt is so ordered.\nCHAVEZ, C. J., and NOBLE, COMPTON and CARMODY, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HENSLEY, Chief Judge, Court of Appeals." } ], "attorneys": [ "John H. Sparkman, pro se, Albuquerque, for petitioner.", "Vance Mauney, Arturo G. Ortega, Albuquerque, Sumner S. Koch, Santa Fe, for respondent." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "425 P.2d 313\nJohn H. SPARKMAN, Petitioner, v. STATE BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS, State of New Mexico, Respondent.\nNo. 8202.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nMarch 20, 1967.\nJohn H. Sparkman, pro se, Albuquerque, for petitioner.\nVance Mauney, Arturo G. Ortega, Albuquerque, Sumner S. Koch, Santa Fe, for respondent." }, "file_name": "0551-01", "first_page_order": 583, "last_page_order": 586 }