Clark v. State

IN RE: Pamela Danice BAXTER

96-23                                              ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered January 29, 1996


Attorney & client -- motion to affirm or adopt authorization for
     recertification -- action premature  -- motion denied. --
     Where petitioner moved the supreme court to affirm or adopt
     the authorization for recertification of her license to
     practice law made by the Chairman of the State Board of Law
     Examiners, the supreme court ruled that any action concerning
     her application for reinstatement of her law license would be
     premature until all of the conditions for reinstatement --
     specifically, petitioner's taking and passing the required bar
     examinations -- had been satisfied; the motion was denied. 


     Motion to Affirm or Adopt Chairman's Authorization for
Recertification; denied.
     Petitioner, pro se.
     No response.

     Per Curiam.*ADVREP4*
January 29, 1996






IN RE: PAMELA DANICE BAXTER
                              






96-23




MOTION TO AFFIRM OR ADOPT
CHAIRMAN'S AUTHORIZATION FOR
RECERTIFICATION




MOTION DENIED.





                           Per Curiam.


     Petitioner Pamela Danice Baxter moves the Arkansas Supreme
Court to affirm or adopt the authorization for recertification of
her license to practice law made by the Chairman of the State Board
of Law Examiners.  Baxter surrendered her law license on March 3,
1986, but now has submitted an application for reinstatement of her
law license.  The Chairman of the State Board of Law Examiners has
apparently concluded that she is eligible for readmission under
Rule XIII of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar but that
reinstatement is contingent on her taking and passing the required
bar examinations.
     It is premature for this court to take any action concerning
Baxter's application for reinstatement of her law license until all
of the conditions for reinstatement have been satisfied.  That is
not yet the case, as is evidenced by the fact that the bar
examinations remain to be taken.  The motion is denied.  When the
application for reinstatement is complete, a motion to the court
will be appropriate.