Meet Our Founder: Nelson A. Locke, Esq.
Fighting for the right to practice law in Texas
Nelson, founder/principal at Locke Law Offices, is a true American success story, packing several successful careers into one incredible lifelong journey. In 2005, at an age when most people would be contemplating retirement, he chose yet another new path by attending law school.
While managing his mortgage banking firm full-time, he attended Concord Law School at Purdue University Global for 5 years, graduating in 2011. He founded his own successful practice in 2013 after passing two rigorous California Bar Exams. In addition, he was admitted to the federal bar in five different states.
That presents an interesting question: Even with a California Bar license and a 9-year active practice of law without complaints or regulatory issues - why won’t the state of Texas allow Nelson to be admitted to the Texas Bar?
A lifetime built on achievement
As a young man, Locke served our country honorably during the Vietnam Era as a non-commissioned officer of the United States Marine Corps. After that, he also:
Served for 13 years as CEO and Chairman of Amstar Financial Services, a successful, publicly traded Residential Mortgage Lender. He developed and managed the entire public offering.
Spent 10 years as Legal and Compliance Officer at Value Financial Mortgage Services. The firm specialized in reverse mortgage banking, originating over 5,000 loans under his direction.
Has been a licensed mortgage loan originator and underwriter since 1991.
Because he found mortgage finance to be driven by compliance and much of what he did involved working with complicated federal laws, Nelson decided that a law degree was a logical next step in his career while continuing to help consumers.
“I was looking for a virtual law program that would fit my life and my needs, and Concord Law provided all of those advantages,” he said. “It’s an award-winning university with an outstanding reputation, and was the first to provide a high-quality legal education through an online program.”
So what’s the issue?
Texas denies Bar Admission to graduates of non-ABA accredited law schools, especially those offering virtual learning
Graduates of any school accredited by the American Bar Association (ABA) can take the bar exam, or waive into the Bar, in any state. However, the ABA has long held that law schools such as Concord Law that offer virtual learning cannot be accredited (although the ABA has accredited several “hybrid” programs that combine virtual with on-campus learning).
Even so, while 29 states plus the District of Columbia allow graduates of non-ABA accredited schools to qualify for the bar exam, Texas does not. Texas clearly places little value on virtual education, while the rest of the real world embraces it.
Interestingly enough, the ABA selectively changed its position in May 2021 when it granted accreditation to a virtual learning program at St. Mary’s University School of Law in San Antonio. A pilot project featuring 25 students earning their J.D. with fully online education will begin in Fall 2022.
If the pilot program succeeds, St. Mary’s graduates – with their law degrees earned totally online – will potentially be allowed admission to the Texas Bar Exam. Despite an extensive track record of success and innovation in virtual learning, Concord graduates – including Nelson – will not.
Major roadblocks to admission to the Texas Bar
Locke currently lives in Plano, Texas. He has a successful law practice in California, but he has run into a stone wall when it comes to being licensed to practice in his home state of Texas.
In July of 2020, after practicing law for seven years in California, he sought admission from the Texas Board of Law Examiners (TBLE) to practice law in the state of Texas. He quickly ran into a series of obstacles, starting with Texas’s refusal to consider his original application. He then encountered a consistent lack of response from the TBLE and its nine members, violating due process.
Nelson finally got their attention in January of 2021 when he filed a discrimination suit against the TBLE, alleging a number of constitutional violations. The board relented and allowed him to complete his application for admission. They also emailed him with an invitation to a hearing on March 25, 2021, to discuss his request.
“The hearing was a sham”
In that same email, however, he was informed that while he would be allowed to complete the application process and discuss the waiver he was qualified for, there was no possibility of admission. The outcome was preordained. In fact, the TBLE went so far as to turn off Locke’s microphone during his presentation.
“The hearing was a sham,” Locke said. “Regardless of my strong arguments about constitutional violations during the process, they had made up their collective minds beforehand that I wasn’t going to be admitted, and the evidence supports this.”
Now he is taking another approach to the problem. Rather than filing for relief from the TBLE, Nelson has filed a new lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern Division of Texas against each individual member of the Texas Board of Law Examiners, asking for a fair hearing.
Denial of due process
Locke points specifically to ambiguity of Rule 13 of Rules Governing Admission to the Bar of Texas as an example of denial of due process. In addition to a prejudiced hearing, the suit alleges:
· Being denied the right to properly be heard in front of the board.
· Not having the opportunity to correct inaccuracies in a TBLE statement regarding Concord Law School’s approval in California.
· Inconsistencies in the application process, as well as the reasons for the denial.
“During the hearing, the TBLE cited one portion of Rule 13 to deny my admission to practice,” he said. “But the email that I received that confirmed the denial cited a different portion of the rule.”
This clearly shows the wording of the rule is ambiguous, he said, allowing board members to twist and choose which part best suited its purposes in denying his application.
He also has been unable to receive transcripts of the March 25, 2021 sham hearing. After being told that they would be made available once the minutes were approved by the members, he said, he received only a list of the persons who appeared at the meeting. Any actual transcript of what was said in the hearing has mysteriously disappeared.
“To me, the TBLE has acted in bad faith, and a violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act,” Nelson said. “I’m concerned about the possibility for negligent destruction or willful spoliation of the requested transcripts.”
Candidates from other countries
The suit also alleges that ambiguous language allows the TBLE to favor foreign licensed attorneys over American attorneys. For example, during the same March 25 hearing, a licensed attorney from Mexico requested the opportunity to take her eighth attempt at passing the Texas Bar Exam even though TBLE rules allow for a maximum of five attempts.
“No one questioned her education,” Nelson said. “In fact, the board was very engaged and sympathetic, and some might even say emotional. My legal education has been rigorous, and included passing the two most difficult bar exams in the nation. I also met all the Texas requirements for waiver. Still, I was instantly denied admission with no due process or actual review of my experience as a practicing attorney from another state. The TBLE solely focused on my virtual learning – despite it having been proven adequate by passing the California Bar Exam, obtaining other state and federal licensing, and an impressive list of accomplishments as a practicing attorney and expert in my field. “
That also results from the ambiguity of Rule 13, he said. One section outlines approval requirements for U.S. attorneys, but applies a different set of criteria for foreign attorneys.
“The regulations for foreign attorneys practicing in international jurisdictions are much more relaxed compared to the requirements for American attorneys practicing within the United States,” he added. “That’s a clear violation of constitutional rights under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.”
A common thread of vagueness and bias
Locke’s suit asks that portions of Rule 13 be declared unconstitutional and biased, and that they be considered unenforceable.
“Abraham Lincoln once said, ‘If you are resolutely determined to make a lawyer of yourself, the thing is more than half done already’,” Locke said. “I successfully completed the process in California. Now, I just want the same opportunity to practice law in Texas.”