Martin v. Walton

PETITIONER: Martin
RESPONDENT: Walton
LOCATION: Vilage of Kake

DOCKET NO.: 30
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1958-1962)
LOWER COURT:

CITATION: 368 US 25 (1961)
ARGUED: Oct 17, 1961
DECIDED: Nov 06, 1961

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Martin v. Walton

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 17, 1961 in Martin v. Walton

Earl Warren:

Keith Martin, Appellant, versus Herbert Walton, as Probate Judge of Johnson County, Kansas.

Mr. Payne.

Howard E. Payne:

Mr. Chief Justice, May it please the Court.

This case comes before the Court on this appeal, presenting a matter involving an attorney admitted to the Bar of the State of Kansas and the question that is presented to the Court is whether or not under the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Constitution of the United States may an attorney who has been regularly admitted to practice in the state of his residence, in this instance, Kansas.

And who also maintains an office and in active practice in that state since the date of his admission be denied by a subsequently promulgated court rules the right to appear as counsel in the courts of Kansas and the Boards and Commissions of that state unless he associates with him, a local lawyer, a local Kansas lawyer.

The same as if he were a nonresident, non-admitted attorney for the sole reason that Mr. Martin, the appellant in this case, in addition to maintaining an office and a practice and being admitted to the Kansas Bar, also maintains an office and a practice in the sister state of Missouri.

That is essentially the question which we have here before the Court today.

Earl Warren:

He is a citizen of Kansas?

Howard E. Payne:

He is a citizen, Your Honor, a resident of Kansas, and maintains an office in Kansas.

Charles E. Whittaker:

He lives there.

Howard E. Payne:

And lives in Kansas, that is correct Your Honor.

Felix Frankfurter:

Your reference to the fact that this was a subsequently promulgated regulation or --

Howard E. Payne:

Yes.

Felix Frankfurter:

-- statute, leads me to ask, approximately what is the size of the Missouri Bar?

Howard E. Payne:

The Missouri Bar as according to the judicial findings of our Supreme Court, is approximately 1800.

Felix Frankfurter:

The whole state?

Howard E. Payne:

No, in the Kansas City -- Kansas City Missouri Bar.

The whole state, Your Honor, I do not know.

Felix Frankfurter:

But this is applied to the whole state, does it not?

Howard E. Payne:

Well, it applies to Mr. Martin practicing anywhere within any other state so long as he maintains an office in Kansas, our court has said that if he practices in a foreign state also, then he must associate with him when he practices in Kansas, a local lawyer --

Felix Frankfurter:

I just want to get the incidence of this statute or regulation.

For the whole state, you have given out, I guess, the size of the Bar, roughly what is it?

Howard E. Payne:

In the whole state of Missouri?

Felix Frankfurter:

Yes.

Howard E. Payne:

Your Honor, I do not know.

Felix Frankfurter:

Out of the 18 -- within the immediately affected area, out of the 18, how many have a practice both in Kansas and in Missouri?

Howard E. Payne:

Well, I think that probably within the so-called classification that is affected by these rules, there are approximately 25 to 40 lawyers who reside in Kansas, who maintain an office in Kansas and who are admitted to the Bar in Kansas, but who also practiced over in Kansas City, Missouri or in the State of Missouri.

Felix Frankfurter:

I'm not hitting or suggesting that numbers make the difference, I was just curious to know how many lawyers are affected by this -- by this restrictive provision?

You know, out of 15 or 20, did you say?

Howard E. Payne:

Well, it would be 25 to 40.