Bar Admissions Rules

The following proposals address changes to the Bar admissions rules. The proposed changes are primarily a reorganization of the current rules to make them easier for applicants to understand. Redundant sections of the rules were deleted and consolidated. There also are numerous changes proposed for consistency, form and clarification. Substantive changes include a change in the definition of “Active Practice” in Rule 14-701, the consolidation of all review procedures under Rule 14-715, and changes to timing of motions for admissions, the ceremony and taking of the oath of attorney in Rules 14-707 and 14-716.
USB 14-0701. Definitions. Amend.
USB 14-0703. Qualifications for admission of Student and Foreign Law School Applicants. Amend.
USB 14-0704. Qualifications for admission of Attorney Applicants. Amend.
USB 14-0705. Admission by motion. Amend.
USB 14-0706. Test accommodations. Amend.
USB 14-0707. Application; deadlines; withdrawals; postponements and fees. Amend.
USB 14-0708. Character and fitness. Amend.
USB 14-0709. Application denial. Amend.
USB 14-0710. Administration of the Bar Exam. Amend.
USB 14-0711. Grading and passing of the Bar Exam. Amend.
USB 14-0712. Qualificatons for admission based on UBE. Amend.
USB 14-0715. Bar Examination appeals. Amend.
USB 14-0716. License fees; enrollment fees; oath and admission. Amend.
USB 14-0717. Readmission after resignation or disbarment of Utah attorneys. Amend.
USB 14-0718. Licensing of Foreign Legal Consultants. Amend.
USB 14-0719. Qualifications for admission of House Counsel Applicants. Amend.

Utah Courts

View more posts from this author
2 thoughts on “Bar Admissions Rules
  1. Leslie Slaugh

    Rule 14-708. The proposed change to 14-708(c)(4) should be placed in a separate rule. As currently proposed, it appears the rule on computation of time applies to the 45-day deadline in rule 14-708(c)(4), but it would not apply to any other provision, such as the 10-day deadline in rule 14-708(c)(2). Placing the computation of time rules in a sub-sub-paragraph implies that the rule governs only that sub-sub-paragraph.
    Rule 14-711(e). I understand this proposal is to eliminate the long-standing practice of regrading exams if the applicant is a few points below a passing grade. I think that practice should be retained. Some bar exam grading groups are more careful than others in calibrating the scoring, and none are perfect. The proposed rule assumes that a single grader will consistently grade the same as each other grader, and that assumption is not warranted.

  2. Joni Dickson Seko, Bar's Deputy General Counel for Admissions

    As to the comment on Rule 14-711(3), the policy to reappraise the essay answers of applicants who are close to passing is not changing. What will be eliminated is appeals filed after results are released – reappraisal occurs prior to the release of the results. The exam appeal rule should have been removed when we adopted the UBE because all UBE states are required to agree that they will not change exam scores once results have been released. The rules currently already state that we will not reread or reevaluate answers after the results have been released. This provision has long been part of the rules because without it every failing applicant would request that his answers be reevaluated. This would not only be an administrative burden, but re-grading so long after the original calibration process would seriously compromise the statistical validity of the grading process.
    Thank you for the explanation. That eliminates my concern.
    Leslie W. Slaugh