(concurring).
I concur in the majority’s conclusion that petitioner has not passed a state bar examination as required by AS 08.08.140 and Alaska Bar Rule 2, Section 2(f), both of which establish criteria for admission by reciprocity.1 The right to practice law in
*821Bar examinations are commonly used throughout the states as a test of one’s fitness to advise and represent clients in legal matters. When one fails to pass an appropriate and properly administered examination, it is not unreasonable to say that he has demonstrated his lack of proficiency in law so as to justify denying him the right to be admitted to the bar.
the State of Alaska is conditioned upon meeting the prescribed requirements of this jurisdiction. The mere fact that a lawyer is licensed to engage in the general practice of law in one state does not give him a vested right to freely exercise such license in this state or any other state.2 Study of the text of AS 08.08.140 and Alaska Bar Rule 2, Section 2(f) clearly indicates that the fact an applicant is licensed to practice law in another state was deemed insufficient in and of itself to provide the basis for admission to the Alaska Bar Association. In short, I agree that petitioner’s admission to the Montana Bar under the diploma privilege provisions of section 93-2002 of the Revised Codes of Montana cannot be equated with the passage of a bar examination, usually administered by a state bar association, required by AS 08.08.140 and Alaska Bar Rule 2, Section 2(f).3
On the other hand I find I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that AS 08.08.140(l)’s “has passed a state bar examination,” or AS 08.08.130(6) (A)’s “has passed a bar examination of another state are inherently confusing and inconsistent when compared to Alaska Bar Rule 2, Section 2(f) [l]’s “passed a state bar examination.” Nor can I agree with the majority’s view that a legislative standard, even if confusing and inconsistent with a standard previously established by this court, will be accepted if it adds substantively to the previously established judicial standard. In my view the position adopted by the majority is inconsistent with their own rule of decision in Application of Brewer,4 Application of Johnson,5 and Application of Hanson,6 In these cases the majority accepted a legislative standard which created confusion and inconsistency with the standard for admission which was promulgated by this court.7 By virtue of the decisions in these three cases, the majority adopted a legislative criterion which altered and significantly relaxed this court’s own standard by eliminating the requirement that an applicant have successfully passed a bar examination given by the Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association.
. AS 08.08.140 provides:
Out-of-state attorneys. An attorney in good standing in the bar of another state or territory or the District of Columbia which admits members of the Alaska Bar to the practice of law shall be admitted without examination and otherwise upon substantially the same terms and conditions as are fixed in the jurisdiction from which he has come for the admission of attorneys from this state. As a prerequisite to admission to the Alaska Bar the board shall require an attorney to take and pass an examination, unless the applicant (1) has passed a state bar examination, (2) has engaged in the active practice of law for at least five out of the previous six years before filing the application, excluding time spent in the military service of the United States, (3) is a graduate of a law school accredited by the American Bar Association, or is a graduate of any law school if he received his degree before 1950 and began his legal studies before 1940, or has been engaged in the active practice of the law for at least 10 years, and (4) meets the character requirements established by the board.
Alaska Bar R. 11, § 2(f) reads as follows :
If the attorney applicant has [1] passed a state bar examination, [2] engaged in *821the active practice of law for at least five out of the previous six years before filing the application, excluding time spent in the military service of the United States, [3] is a graduate of a law school accredited by the American Bar Association, or is a graduate of any accredited law school if he has been engaged in the active practice of law for at least ten years, and [4] meets the character requirements established by the Board, such applicant need not take an examination, provided he also satisfies the requirements of the foregoing subsections of this section.
.In re Avery’s Petition, 44 Haw. 597, 358 P.2d 709, 710 (1961) ; Baker v. Varser, 240 N.O. 260, 82 S.E.2d 90 (1954) ; State ex rel. Boynton v. Perkins, 138 Kan. 899, 28 P.2d 765 (1934).
. In Application of Brewer, 430 P.2d 150, 152 (Alaska 1967), this court said in part:
. 430 P.2d 150, 153 (Alaska 1967).
. (Supreme Ct.), Alaska L.J., Yol. 4, No. 6, pp. 87-88 (June 1966).
. (Supreme Ct.), Alaska L.J., Vol. 4, No. 6, p. 87 (June 1966).
. See SLA 1965, ch. 47, § 1(6).