McBride v. Utah State Bar
2010 UT 60, 242 P.3d 769 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state bar's administrative rules for a bar examination, such as a deadline for submitting typed answers, do not violate an applicant's constitutional rights to due process or equal protection if the rules are rationally related to a legitimate state interest, such as administrative efficiency and exam integrity.
Facts:
- Ryan McBride chose to use a laptop for the July 2009 Utah Bar Exam and signed an acknowledgment form agreeing to upload his answers by 10:00 p.m. on the day of the written portion.
- The acknowledgment form stated that failure to upload the answers by the deadline 'may result in the disqualification of my answers.'
- McBride received a total of seven separate written and oral notifications of the 10:00 p.m. upload deadline and the potential consequence of disqualification.
- The Bar established the 10:00 p.m. deadline because technical support for the exam software was only available until that time.
- The Bar did not provide on-site internet for uploading answers because it had determined it would be prohibitively expensive.
- After completing the essay portion of the exam on July 28, 2009, McBride went to a restaurant and then home, where he forgot to turn on his computer or upload his answers.
- The next morning, upon arriving for the second day of the exam, a proctor inquired about his upload, at which point McBride realized his failure to comply.
Procedural Posture:
- A proctor informed Ryan McBride on July 29, 2009, that he was disqualified from the bar exam and would not be allowed to take the second day.
- McBride filed a Request for Review with the Utah State Bar's Admissions Committee.
- The Admissions Committee denied McBride's request on September 18, 2009.
- McBride filed a Supplemental Request for Review, which the Committee also denied, upholding the disqualification on September 28, 2009.
- McBride filed a Petition for Review in the Supreme Court of Utah, the highest court in the state.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Utah State Bar's disqualification of an applicant from the bar exam for failing to upload his typed answers by a clearly communicated deadline violate the applicant's rights to procedural due process, substantive due process, or equal protection?
Opinions:
Majority - Parrish, Justice
No, the Utah State Bar's rule and its enforcement do not violate the applicant's constitutional rights. For procedural due process, Mr. McBride received adequate notice through seven separate warnings and a sufficient opportunity to be heard via the Bar's post-disqualification review process. Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge test, the court found McBride's private interest was low (as he could retake the exam), the risk of erroneous deprivation was minimal (the violation was a simple, undisputed fact), and the Bar's interest in administrative efficiency and integrity was high. For substantive due process, the 10:00 p.m. deadline is not arbitrary but is rationally related to the Bar's legitimate interests in the efficient administration of the exam, preventing cheating, and ensuring technical support availability. Finally, the rule does not violate equal protection because there is a rational basis for treating laptop users differently from handwritten examinees; namely, the high cost of providing on-site internet and the greater security risk of allowing handwritten bluebooks to leave the testing site.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant deference courts grant to state bar associations in administering bar examinations. It establishes that reasonable, clearly communicated procedural rules are constitutionally sound, even when they result in harsh consequences for an applicant's simple mistake. The case solidifies the principle that administrative efficiency, cost, and exam integrity are legitimate state interests that can justify rules with strict penalties. Future challengers to bar examination procedures will face a high burden to show that a rule is not rationally related to such interests or that the process was fundamentally unfair.
