(1894). “Because the powers of the three branches of
government inevitably overlap, this court has consis-
tently held that the doctrine of the separation of pow-
ers cannot be applied rigidly . . . and has refused to find
constitutional impropriety in a statute simply because
it affects the judicial function . . . .” (Citations omitted;
internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Campbell,
224 Conn. 168, 177, 617 A.2d 889 (1992), cert. denied,
508 U.S. 919, 113 S. Ct. 2365, 124 L. Ed. 2d 271 (1993).
“[I]n deciding whether one branch’s actions violate
the constitutional mandate of the separation of powers
doctrine, the court will consider if the actions constitute:
(1) an assumption of power that lies exclusively under the
control of another branch; or (2) a significant interfer-
ence with the orderly conduct of the essential functions
of another branch.” Massameno v. Statewide Grievance
Committee, supra, 234 Conn. 552–53; see also, e.g., Uni-
versity of Connecticut Chapter, AAUP v. Governor, 200
Conn. 386, 394–95, 512 A.2d 152 (1986). “The control
of the judiciary over standards for admission to the bar
is a matter of long tradition; it reflects and is justified
by the unique status of attorneys as commissioners of
the Superior Court and the special role they play in the
administration of justice.” Persels & Associates, LLC v.
Banking Commissioner, supra, 318 Conn. 671. “Fixing
the qualifications for, as well as admitting persons to,
the practice of law in this state has ever been an exercise
of judicial power.” Heiberger v. Clark, 148 Conn. 177,
185, 169 A.2d 652 (1961). “The power to admit persons
to practice in this state has been exercised with the help
and assistance of committees of the bar, pursuant to
rules having the sanction of the judges of the Superior
Court. . . . The reasons for this principle and practice
have been fully discussed in our cases. It suffices to say
that attorneys are officers of the court appointed to assist
the court in the administration of justice and that the
property, liberty and often the lives of their clients are
in their hands, so that a very high degree of intelligence,
knowledge, academic and legal training, judgment and,
State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch v. Commission on Human Rights &
Opportunities, Office of Public Hearings