Posted: November 1, 2018

Rules Governing the State Bar – Comment Period Closed December 16, 2018

USB14-0804. Certification for military legal assistance lawyers. Amend. Updates the standards for military lawyers who are allowed by military and federal law to assist certain persons who can receive military legal assistance.

USB14-0805. Admission for spouse of active military stationed in Utah. New. Allows spouses of servicemen and women who are stationed in Utah to serve as practicing lawyers under certain conditions.

This entry was posted in -Rules Governing the State Bar, -Rules Governing the State Bar, USB14-0804, USB14-0805.

Utah Courts

View more posts from this author
52 thoughts on “Rules Governing the State Bar – Comment Period Closed December 16, 2018”
  2. Marie Bradshaw Durrant

    I support USB14-0805. Admission for spouse of active military stationed in Utah. This is a great idea and seems to have adequate protections to make sure both the attorney and the Utah public are well served.

     
  5. Jascha Clark

    I fully support this rule. I think it is a laudable goal to help military families stay together and to minimize the adverse effects of military service on a spouse’s legal career. We should join the other thirty-two other states that have adopted similar rules.

     
  9. Bruce Olson

    I support this rule and believe that the careful thought and protective features built into it will help maintain the high standards that our Court has established for the practice of law in this State. As one who spent 30 years in the active and reserve military, I am aware of the sacrifices our troops and their families make in our behalf and believe that this new rule is one small but important way we can recognize their contribution. I

     
  11. John Carpenter

    The military offers programs to assist military spouses in paying for a law degree. The rules of practice should allow that same military spouse to utilize that degree, with appropriate support, in other locations. A rule like this ensures a military family that is already asked to endure separation during active deployments will not be asked to make further hard decisions here at home for the sake of practice requirements. I support this rule.

     
  15. John Hurst

    I support this rule. Involuntary moves make it difficult for spouses to maintain good jobs. This will assist lawyer spouses in their moves to Utah.

     
  20. Shelby Hughes

    I support this rule and ask for it to be adopted. This will help military families stay together and to minimize the adverse effects of military service on a spouse’s legal career. We should join the other thirty-two other states that have adopted similar rules.

     
  21. Richard A Yoder, Jr Col USAF Retired

    As a retired military member I am sure that there is a small population who would take advantage of this opportunity. Never the less, it is still the right thing to do.

     
  24. Stephen Kilroy

    Supporting military families by adopting this rule would be the right thing to do. I encourage the Utah Supreme Court to promulgate this rule.

     
  29. Michael Robert Johnson

    As an active attorney with 25 years in private practice I actively support this rule.

     
  31. James S. Jardine

    In my view, this is an appropriate accommodation for this circumstance, which the public would strongly support..

     
  39. Steven T. Waterman and Daniel A. Jensen, Co-Chairs Utah Bar Admissions Committee

    We fully support the proposed amendments to USB14-0804, which are consistent with the proposal of the Admissions Committee of the Bar.
    We fully support military families but believe that the proposed USB14-0805 goes too far and creates a lower standard of competence that is contrary to public protection. Those making comments may not be aware of the proposal made by the Admissions Committee of the Bar which balances benefits for military spouse lawyers with public protection.
    The proposal made by the Admissions Committee provides ample concessions that other classes of practitioners do not receive while insuring the same level of competence of bar members. The proposal of the Admissions Committee permits military spouses to be admitted at one-half of the fee and with that amount applied against dues – which means all other applicants and members of the Bar subsidize the admission of military spouses – and is not provided to any other class of practitioners. One-quarter of all Utah admissions are based on motion or a transferred UBE score. The proposal of the Admissions Committee permits military spouses to be admitted by motion, by UBE score, or if admitted in a state without reciprocity or not offering the UBE, then by use of a MBE score – a benefit not provided to any other class of practitioners. The proposed rule also permits practice under the military spouse rule to apply to full admission to the Bar, a privilege not granted to any other class of practitioners.
    Permitting a lower level of competence as set forth in USB14-0805 is not justifiable as it does not protect the public. Either there is a standard of competence to practice in Utah or there is not. Other states with military spouse rules have a consistent competence standard. For example, the Connecticut rule states:
    “(11) has not failed to achieve the Connecticut scaled score on the Uniform Bar Examination administered within any jurisdiction within the past five years.”
    Rules of the Superior Court Regulating Admission to the Bar, Section 2-13A (a)(11).
    Offering the remedy of mandatory malpractice insurance does not cure incompetence. Nor does the Supreme Court or Bar have a system to monitor the malpractice insurance requirement. Having a dual competence standard as proposed will invite challenges by other worthy special interest groups.
    It is possible to provide military spouse lawyers with benefits without sacrificing the competence requirement to protect the public.
    Steven T. Waterman
    Daniel A. Jensen
    Co-Chairs Utah Bar Admissions Committee

     
  40. Dominica Dela Cruz

    I strongly support this rule. I am a military spouse, I was lucky enough to be able to go to school in Utah and take the Utah State Bar. However, not all military spouses are as lucky. This rule will allow military families to stay together and let the attorney spouse be able to practice in their chosen field.

     
  41. Krystaly Koch

    I fully support this rule. The families of our servicemen and women give up so much, including constantly moving from place to place. It is unrealistic to ask these spouses to take the bar in every place they move to. If this is one way we can support our military families, then we definitely should.

     
  43. Blake Johnson

    I 100% support these rules! This would help our military families so much. I can’t think of any reason we shouldn’t do this.

     
  44. Bryon Benevento

    As a former member of the US Navy, I support efforts to assist active duty military personnel. However, the current version of the rule for military spouses creates a slippery slope. There are a number of professions (such as medical) that serve rural areas of the country, and are required to move frequently. Should we allow their spouses to waive into the Utah Bar? Should we allow military spouses whose exam scores are lower than Utah’s requirements to waive into the Utah Bar? Is legal malpractice insurance truly sufficient to address unreported acts of malpractice committed by lawyers who have competency scores below Utah’s standards? I think the answer to these questions is No. I do not support this rule as currently drafted.

     
  45. D. Oberg

    While the overall concept behind this proposed rule is laudable, it raises client protection and equal treatment concerns in that it allows admission to the Bar for military spouses who have not satisfied minimum competency standards by earning a passing score on the bar examination (by Utah’s standards). When considering the welfare of legal clients in Utah, it is difficult to conceive of a reason that military spouses would not have to meet the same competency standards required of every other applicant to the Utah Bar. While the other allowances in this proposed rule are workable, this concession creates concerns about differential treatment and basic client protection. The competency standards were imposed for a reason–and that reason applies equally to all who apply to practice in Utah. Competency should be a requirement, not an option, for all bar members.

     
  46. Bret Bryce

    I support this rule 100%. It only makes sense to join the vast majority of other states in supporting family members of our military.

     
  48. M. Barnhill

    The goal of the proposed rule is commendable. We should support military families that are stationed in Utah, and Utah has already made it easier for lawyers from other jurisdictions to work in Utah. Each of those changes kept Utah’s competency standards intact. The proposed rule does not. The proposed rule permits the licensure of individuals who would have lower bar exam scores than the cutoff established by the Supreme Court; therefore, those individuals have not met the minimum competency standard set by the Supreme Court. Thus, the proposed rule would subject the public who, by Utah’s standards, are not minimally competent to practice law. The Supreme Court established minimum competency standards to ensure the public is served by counsel competent to serve their needs, and the proposed rule undercuts that requirement. Additionally, the comment above is correct regarding equal treatment. Utah’s competency standards should apply to all–a select few should not be exempt.

    The proposed rule that attorneys admitted under this rule carry malpractice insurance is ineffective to protect the public. Not all members of the public will be able to prosecute malpractice claims, and insurance cannot cure all harm–such as ineffective assistance of counsel in a criminal case when an individual is wrongfully convicted because that person’s counsel was not competent. The goal of the rule is a good one, and it is one we should work to realize. But we should not do so at the public’s expense. The rule can and should be revised to meet the goal of allowing military spouses to practice in Utah while also protecting the public.

     
  49. Neil Skousen

    I support this rule. Our military service members and military spouses sacrifice much. This rule accommodation makes sense as service members are transferred to new assignments.

     
  50. S.J. Quinney College of Law

    The University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law fully supports the proposed amendments to USB14-0804, which are common sense improvements clarifying the importance of military legal- assistance lawyers. We urge the Utah Supreme Court to adopt this rule.

    The College of Law acknowledges the important role of military families and welcomes this opportunity to lighten the administrative and financial burden placed on the attorney-spouses of our military members. However; we agree with the Admissions Committee of the Utah State Bar that the proposed USB14-0805 creates a lower standard of competence that is contrary to the best interests of the public. The Utah State Bar, in its role of protector of the public, has established that a minimally competent attorney should be capable of scoring a 270 on the UBE or the equivalent on the MBE. The vast majority of licensed-attorney military spouses will satisfy this requirement. Permitting a lower level of competence as set forth in USB14-0805 creates a risk to clients as determined by the Utah State Bar in the lengthy discussions culminating in the choice of 270 as the UBE cut-off. The reduced fees and simplified administrative regime described in USB14-805 are examples of the steps our community can, and should, take to welcome those who sacrifice so much in support of their servicemember spouses. However; we urge the Court to seek a version of the rule which reduces the administrative and financial burdens on military spouses while also maintaining basic fairness among all applicants to the bar and not undermining the public’s confidence in the competence of the Utah Bar.