Rules Governing the Utah State Bar – Admissions – Comment Period Closed December 19, 2024

There is no legitimate reason for allowing people who are unable to pass the bar exam to become an attorney via an “alternate path.”

Practicing law is a cognitively demanding occupation. If a person does not have the ability to pass the bar exam, then that person does not have the cognitive capacity to be an attorney.

First time test takers in Utah have an 83% pass rate. This is the sixth highest pass rate in the nation. It is clear from this statistic that Utah’s bar exam does not set an unreasonably high standard for bar admission.

Eliminating the bar examination requirement will simply increase the number of incompetent attorneys practicing in the state. If Utah moves forward with this misguided program, attorneys should be required to disclose whether they were admitted to the bar under this “alternate path” so that potential clients can evaluate their credentials.

USB14-703A. Alternate Path. Requirements. New. – I am highly in favor of creating an alternative path for attorneys to become qualified in Utah, and I think the proposed rule creates an effective way of ensuring that Utah bar applicants are truly qualified rather than subjecting them to the arbitrary and ineffective bar exam. I think the Alternate Path includes the right mix of core classes and practical experience. Law students will be able to focus on classes important to their chosen area of interest rather than trying to tailor their law school career to the bar exam. Law students–and their employers–will also save significant time and money. Instead of paying thousands of dollars to bar prep companies and spending two solid months studying for the bar after graduation, new lawyers will be ready to join the workforce (under supervision) almost as soon as they graduate. I think this plan for an Alternate Path is long overdue, and it will put Utah at the forefront of a much needed change int he legal profession. If it passes, I am looking forward to becoming Qualified Supervising Attorney. Thank you to the committee for working tirelessly on this effort over the past two years!

The proposed alternative path to bar admittance is something I am in favor of. Instead of basing admittance on passing a test, it bases admittance on real-world experience and practical application. This allows for potential lawyers to prove they have the knowledge, skills, and abiliites to do the job prior to being allowed to practice. The bar exam has historically served as the rigid, final barrier law school graduates must overcome prior to admittance. However, it has never included any type of practicum or able demonstration wherein the aforementioned graduates showcase their talents and prowess in the field of law. By allowing future attorneys the opportunity to “earn their keep” through actual work and proven showcase, this alternative path will, in my belief, produce better educated and more competent lawyers.

I am not completely in favor of the alternative path to bar admittance. I suggest keeping at least the written portion of the bar exam. The written portion of the exam allows a person to demonstrate not just knowledge of the law, but also writing skills, which is an integral part of the practice of law.
Any apprenticeship should be at least one year to be of any value.

I oppose the alternative pathway. I recognize that some who are able to graduate from law school may have test taking problems but that is a very small group of people who are probably not fit for the rigors and challenges of practicing law. I had two or three classmates from my law school class who had to sit for the Bar exam multiple times before they passed. The point is that they passed eventually. That is the way it should be. We do not need lawyers who cannot pass the exam despite the admitted fact that there are many good lawyers who are horrible test takers. I suppose I might consider an alternative pathway for someone who sat for the Bar exam and failed to pass the Bar exam after at least 4 attempts. They can work in the trenches as paralegals and gain experience but there has to be a gatekeeper of some sort.

I am opposed to the proposed Rule 14-703A, which would offer a “skills-based” pathway to legal licensure as an alternative to the traditional bar exam. While the goal of providing more flexible licensure options may seem appealing, this proposal introduces significant concerns that could compromise the integrity of the legal profession.
The bar exam has been a reliable, objective measure of a candidate’s legal knowledge for decades. It ensures a standardized evaluation of whether all candidates meet a baseline competency in the law. The proposed rule, which replaces the bar exam with a combination of supervised practice, law school coursework, and performance evaluations, risks introducing subjectivity into the licensure process. Supervised practice depends on the quality of mentorship and can vary greatly from one candidate to another, potentially creating inconsistent standards for licensure. Unlike the bar exam, which presentes a uniform testing basis, this system would lack the standardization needed to ensure all candidates are equally prepared to practice law.

The inclusion of pro bono work and a well-being component, while important in their own right, is unrelated to the core competencies required for legal practice. These elements may distract from the primary goal of licensure, which should be to assess legal knowledge and practical legal skills. By shifting focus to these non-legal requirements, the proposed rule risks diluting the rigor and uniformity that the bar exam provides.

The subjective nature of this alternative route could also undermine the fairness of the process. The bar exam offers a level playing field for all candidates, ensuring that everyone is held to the same standard. Without it, the licensure process could become biased or uneven, depending on factors like access to quality supervision or resources for completing pro bono work. This could disproportionately favor candidates from well-resourced backgrounds, leaving those with fewer opportunities at a disadvantage. Additionally, the variability in the quality of supervised practice might lead to disparities in the overall competence of new lawyers.

Replacing the bar exam with a skills-based licensure route would weaken the overall integrity of the legal profession. The bar exam is a crucial tool for ensuring that all lawyers meet a consistent and rigorous standard, regardless of their background or resources. The proposed rule’s subjective nature, focus on non-legal components, and potential for unequal access to licensure could harm both the legal profession and the public trust. Instead of replacing the bar exam, efforts should focus on enhancing legal education and reforming licensure to better support aspiring lawyers while maintaining rigorous, standardized evaluations of their legal knowledge and competency.

I think it is a good idea to require hundreds of supervised practice hours. But the bar exam is so much like real life where a client comes in and has a very serious problem that requires dozens of hours of intense study and work to help the client. That 3 days is not only a culmination of 3 hard years. But it prepares its takers for real life scenarios. It’s a process to become a competent lawyer. You would do a disfavor to new applicants by removing that very important step. Upon successful completion of the bar exam your confidence and qualifications are self-evident. I agree with what another attorney wrote herein . . . how reciprocity may become an issue in other states and other courts. I am licensed in Utah, Washington State, Washington D.C. the Supreme Court and the Veterans court of appeals. Each one required specific additional steps, not fewer steps. If anything requiring more testing not less testing. Lastly, as AI becomes more prominent so should the training and testing requirements. Thanks

I am opposed to an alternative path to become a lawyer without passing the bar.
I strongly oppose any artificial and arbitrary barriers to entry into fields, however, I believe this test and similar tests for both lawyers and doctors of having a rigours evaluation to show they have learned and know important core useful information and can convey that information is an appropriate and necessry minimum standard. I am and have worked with many lawyers in many areas for dozens of years and I have been impressed with most of them but have also ecountered some who are representing and serving people and the community well. If anything the requirements or “the bar” should be raised not lowered. I know people who did not pass the bar and pursued other fields sucessfully, and in a fulfiling way and I do not think society or even the person directed into another field would be well served by putting them into a legal practice they were not well suited for. There is not a shortage of attorneys, and if there were the solution to make more “attorneys” by designating an alternate way to get a license without demonstrating the abitlity to learn and know core information. Lawyers, like other professionals, if they are not capable, cause serious harm to the justice system, to the clients they try to serve, to judges and other lawyers, and to the reputation and respect people hold or do not hold for our legal system.

As a member of the 2020 group that benefited from the diploma privilege, I want to share my experience and express concerns regarding alternative licensure pathways like the one proposed under Rule 14-703A. While I understand the intent to increase flexibility, I would advise against alternative pathways as currently framed.

It is important to remember that the decision to grant diploma privilege in 2020 was made somewhat at the 11th hour, and most students were already deeply engaged in preparing for the bar exam. As a result, the 2020 group can be viewed as a test group that benefitted from the foundational knowledge gained through intensive bar preparation, even though many of us ultimately did not sit for the exam. Unless the alternative pathway also requires students to study for the bar exam with similar intensity and intent to pass, it is unlikely to replicate the level of readiness and competency demonstrated by the 2020 cohort.

Additionally, the supervised practice hours requirement, which for me spanned several months, proved insufficient. Rather than being a meaningful learning experience, it created opportunities for my labor to be exploited as unpaid work. Unpaid work is inherently problematic, as it lacks safeguards against inefficiency and misuse of time. Tasks often included work that would not typically be assigned to a paid lawyer, leading to a misalignment of expectations and value.

If the Court is determined to implement an alternative pathway, I urge you to make it more substantial and only available to candidates who have attempted the bar exam and achieved a minimum score indicating a reasonable level of legal literacy. This foundational knowledge could then be built upon with practical experience. A more robust model might include a two-year provisional license under supervised practice, coupled with requirements for satisfactory, independent evaluations of actual pro bono work product. This would better ensure that candidates have developed essential skills while contributing meaningfully to underserved communities.

Whatever decision is made, it is crucial to preserve the credibility of our profession by ensuring that pathways to licensure uphold the highest standards and do not enable incompetent individuals to be licensed.

I feel like all too often the Bar, rather than representing the interests of its members, seeks to undermine them. And all too often it spends time searching for solutions where no problems exist. The bar exam is not hard, but it does require discipline, commitment, and some intelligence. It is the bare minimum standard we should be imposing for those entering our practice. We should be working to shore up competency, ethical standards and trust in our profession, not eroding those things that make the practice of law unique from other fields.

I am in favor of alternative paths to the practice of law. Law school and the bar exam provide a very limited preparation for legal practice. When inquiring without previous discussion, most attorneys will admit the same. I came to this realization within the first few days after swearing in as an attorney.

Please note, I am a firm believer in education. Sometimes, however, education is best provided by a mentor and practical experience rather than a formal classroom setting or examination.

Multiple jurisdictions already permit alternative tracks to the practice of law, it is about time Utah becomes one of them.

I OPPOSE the rule-change that would change the bar-admission licensing process to eliminate the bar exam. I’m sure there are well-meaning folks spearheading this, but my opposition stems from my belief that the current licensing process has worked very well in this State as well as the rest of the nation for 100 years or more. There are well-meaning people who seem to always have a problem with the status quo and, granted, sometimes the status quo is not what is best. However, in this instance, I think that the status quo is best. The proposed changes to the licensing process will create additional “bureaucracy” in the Bar for the administration and governance of the new rules — and it’s just not necessary. While the 1983 Summer Bar exam scared the hell out of me, it forced me to demonstrate my ability to read and mentally process the questions and to apply the law to the issues i could see raised in the questions. That is exactly what we do as lawyers. Apply the law to the facts. In the 1983 exam, there were no shortcuts to me demonstrating that to the bar examiners. To the contrary, I devoted myself full time for 3 months to bar-exam preparation and I KNOW that I became a good lawyer, in part, because of that process. I IMPLORE you to maintain the status quo! Is suspect that you won’t, but at least I have tried to help steer (what I fear is) a drifting boat in the right direction. Thank you for listening/reading.

The Bar Exam is hard, for various reasons. The practice of law is hard, for various reasons as well. As a Utah Bar member with over 20 years experience and as someone that didn’t pass the Bar Exam the first time, I now can look back and appreciate the lessons I learned from being super disappointed and having to put forth more effort to accomplish my goals. There is not just one type of person that passes the bar exam and there is not just one type of attorney, but they all had to set a goal and work toward that goal. That lesson, more so than any of the actual legal questions on the exam is what I believe truly matters. The law (and the practice thereof) is a cruel and harsh mistress. Better to know that at the beginning.

The provision in Rule 14-703A(a)(3) requiring that applicants for the Alternate Path must not have previously sat for a bar exam in Utah or any other U.S. jurisdiction should be either removed entirely or altered to allow both non-licensed law school graduates and individuals who have failed the Utah bar exam to apply for the program. Unaltered,Rule 14-703A(a)(3) unfairly excludes a group of potentially competent candidates and undermines the fundamental goals of the alternate pathway.

One potential revision could allow applicants who have previously sat for the Utah bar exam to pursue the alternate path, while continuing to exclude those who have only attempted the bar in other jurisdictions.

This approach would prevent an influx of out-of-state applicants who may have no genuine intention of practicing in Utah but see the alternate path as a way to gain licensure after failing elsewhere. At the same time, it would provide an equitable opportunity for Utah-based candidates who have already demonstrated a commitment to practicing in the state to take advantage of the pathway.

For example, Wisconsin’s diploma privilege requires applicants to graduate from an ABA-accredited law school based in Wisconsin. This approach ensures that those who benefit from the alternative pathway are tied to the state’s legal community and likely to practice there. Similarly, Utah could revise subsection (a)(3) to focus on applicants with a demonstrated connection to the state, such as those who have graduated from an ABA-accredited law school in Utah or previously sat for the Utah bar exam.

This approach would prioritize candidates invested in Utah’s legal system while preventing an influx of out-of-state applicants seeking licensure without genuine ties to the state.

Rule 14-703A(a)(3) is arbitrary, counterproductive, and inconsistent with the pathway’s stated purpose of providing an equitable and competency-based route to licensure. The core objective of the Alternate Path is to allow applicants to demonstrate competence through supervised practice and practical assessments. The mere act of sitting for the bar exam—whether passing or failing—has no bearing on their ability to succeed under the alternate path.

Moreover, the rule disproportionately impacts underprivileged candidates who may have taken the bar exam without the benefit of expensive preparation courses or the financial means to devote months to studying. Many of these individuals could excel under a system that emphasizes practical experience and hands-on training, such as that provided by the alternate pathway. Excluding them perpetuates the inequities already present in the traditional bar exam system and directly contradicts the pathway’s goal of creating a more inclusive licensure process.

By barring such candidates, the rule risks excluding talented individuals who could make meaningful contributions to the profession, simply because they did not succeed under a model known for its shortcomings in measuring real-world legal competence.

There is no evidence to suggest that individuals who have previously sat for the bar exam are less capable of meeting the requirements of the alternate path. On the contrary, their decision to pursue an alternative route demonstrates resilience and a commitment to the legal profession. These qualities should be encouraged rather than penalized.

Getting things right in the law is really important, and taking the Bar Exam is one way to do that, to get our minds in shape, as it were, for the practice of law. Therefore, I am opposed to eliminating the exam. Everyone should have the opportunity–and it is an opportunity–to take the Bar Exam

I think this new pathway is a major step towards a more realistic pathway to getting a license. I concur with past comments that the restrictions surrounding those who have previously taken the bar exam should be modified.

I think that this is a well-intentioned proposal, but I have a variety of concerns and, at least in view of those, would ask that the Court reconsider moving forward with this proposal. One concern is that part of the burden for assuring basic competence of an aspiring attorney shifts from the Utah state bar (administrators of the exam) to the law firm that hires the candidate. I’m not sure that law firm attorneys would necessarily be willing/able to take on this additional burden. As well, insofar as supervision of the work of the candidate is non-billable, that work may not receive the priority from the supervisor that it should. This, in turn, may result in a delay in the candidate being admitted to the bar – whereas a bar exam passer is admitted to the bar relatively quickly and is not beholden to the efforts of others to move their admission forward.Further, until the candidate meets the requirements for admission, attorneys in the firm must be mindful of avoiding the unauthorized practice of law by the candidate. As well, while the bar exam is objective for all candidates, the proposed approach leaves the door open to subjective evaluations of candidates – a candidate at one firm or practice group may not be evaluated by a supervising attorney with the same rigor that another candidate is. Without a common, and well-understood, standard (bar exam) applicable to all candidates, disparate outcomes may occur for different candidates. Further, it is not clear to me that licensure under the proposed scheme would be recognized by the comity schemes of other states. Finally, whether fair or not, some clients may not be reassured by working with someone who hasn’t passed a bar exam. If the proposed approach were adopted in all states, which would be a paradigm shift, this approach may make sense. If only implemented by some states and not others however, I think it is problematic.

As an educator preparing students and researching the bar exam, I am 100% in favor of this proposal. The current bar exam does not measure attorney competence. Check out: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3759924

The concern of many in the comments is understandable. The public deserves attorneys who are competent and will not commit malpractice. However, most experts aren’t advocating for eliminating assessing competence. Experts advocate for assessing in a way that represents what happens in the actual practice of law, which in turn should protect the public better. Using standardized multiple-choice questions does not remotely resemble actual practice of law. Empircal research found no correlation between bar exam scores and attorney discipline, for example – https://jle.aals.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1714&context=home#:~:text=128,and%20a%20professional%20career.18

The current bar exam and the upcoming NextGen bar exam are fundamentally flawed assessments. A practice model rigorously assessing work-product will more accurately assess competence and protect the public. Further research to consider:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4966743

Don’t continue a tradition of incomplete assessment for the sake of continuing tradition. Utah, and all states, should strive to protect the public with accurate reflections of competence, and this pathway is one way to do it.

In line with the Association of Academic Support Educators (AASE) statement, I fully support alternative pathways to admission to the bar, and I have serious concerns about the NextGen bar exam. I support Utah’s well-researched effort to provide an improved pathway to licensure. The Utah plan will assess attorney competence by evaluating work product in the actual practice of law. The emphasis on practical skill development is enhanced by the requirement that examinees engage in creating and maintaining actual client relationships. Graduates obtain real-time case management experience through legal research and client interaction. The 240-hour breakdown, with specific emphasis on different practical areas, truly evaluates the skills necessary to practice law. This hands-on training better protects the public from mistakes new lawyers can make without adequate guidance and training. Supervised practice is a superior licensing method
because competence cannot be measured by written tests alone.

For the State Bar, the alternative pathway is financially beneficial because it moves away from costly convention center-based testing. It builds on the established expertise and leadership of the Board of Bar Examiners, ensuring continuity and leveraging their extensive experience. The timing of the alternative pathway is well-suited for integrating supervised practice, providing a seamless transition from academic training to professional practice. Additionally, the plan is designed to reduce the financial burden on candidates by eliminating the need for prolonged bar prep months without working.

Not only is the alternative pathway advantageous in general, but the pathway is significantly better than the NextGen bar exam. The NCBE’s Testing Task Force, in their final report released in April 2021, recommended less emphasis on memorized material and greater focus on lawyering skills to reflect the practice of law. Utah’s plan achieves the NCBE’s recommendation by both decreasing rote memorization and evaluating actual work product during the supervised practice component. True assessments evaluate similar tasks that reflect what is attempted to be assessed. Utah’s licensing board and supervising attorneys could assess an individual’s ability to practice law by evaluating actual work product. The assessment would closely mirror the skill being assessed.

The Utah plan provides a more realistic assessment than the NextGen exam. Significant memorization will be required on the NextGen bar exam, which is clearly demonstrated in the NCBE’s most recent field test research brief. During field testing, recent graduates who had already studied for the bar exam outperformed current law students. The NCBE analyzed the amount of time each group spent answering the questions to determine whether recent graduates put forth more effort on the exam. The NCBE concluded the effort level of recent graduates and law students was similar. If the effort level was similar, the most logical conclusion for the outperformance is recent graduates studying for their actual bar exam either knew more material or practiced specific skills. NCBE’s own research still illustrates memorization will be advantageous on the NextGen bar, which is antithetical to the new exam’s purpose. An alternative pathway evaluating the actual practice of law promotes less memorization even better than the NextGen bar exam.

NextGen’s description of the material tested also contradicts its stated purpose. The NCBE’s NextGen outline displays topics in each subject with a star and some without one. The legend explaining the meaning of the star versus no star topics clearly shows that everything will need to be memorized. “Topics without a star symbol – Topics without a star symbol may be tested with or without provision of legal resources. When these topics are tested without legal resources, the examinee is expected to rely on recall knowledge and understanding that will enable the examinee to demonstrate a recognition that the topic is at issue in the fact scenario.” Even if examinees will not be required to recall nuanced rules to analyze facts, knowing the underlying law is required to spot relevant issues. For example, Contract formation under the UCC is not starred. The note after the sub-topic states the topic includes the UCC gap-filling provisions. If a student does not know or study the gap-filling provision for place of delivery, the student most likely will not recognize an issue in a contract that omits that provision. Students will end up memorizing the same amount of material because issue-spotting, one of the foundational skills in NextGen, requires knowing the law. In my expert opinion, the NextGen exam will not result in less memorization.

The NextGen exam is currently a moving target. The NCBE consistently releases additional and sometimes contradictory information every few months. Graduates will be preparing for an exam that is quite literally a moving target. The NCBE provided no information about how the “variety of multiple-choice question types will increase” since the exam will include a new multiple-choice question style; choose 2 out of 6 options. Graduates and law schools do not know what that variety looks like, how significant is the increase in variety, and how it will impact studying. A moving target with so few examples released in advance is inappropriate for a high stakes licensure exam. Graduates have the right to know the exact make-up and nature of the exam they will take and have access to ample practice questions produced by the licensing authority.

The recent field test research publication also demonstrated continued disparity among groups of test-takers. The NCBE glossed over differences, indicating the differences were not significant, but the data looks clear. Racial minorities are still disparately impacted by the NextGen exam. The NextGen exam does not alleviate disparity enough to justify continuing this type of testing. The NCBE’s window dressing of NextGen ignores one clear fact: NextGen is still a standardized test with disparate impact. While Utah has already announced plans to adopt NextGen, the Utah plan and its ability to run concurrently as an additional option overcomes this barrier with a true assessment of the ability to practice law.

The Utah planned pathway offers a valid and reliable measure of assessing new attorney competency by decreasing the need for rote memorization and providing a predictable format. I laud your considerable efforts and unconditionally support the adoption of this credible pathway to bar admission.

Response to Utah State Bar Association to eliminate the State Bar Examination for licensure.

Being a lawyer is a distinction in character, supporting the Constitution, and defending its laws, principles and public trust. In our society there are only 5% who are black or Hispanic and these students fail the Bar at a 22% level. The Bar discussion, how to include more lawyers.

The liberal states of Washington and Oregon have taken steps to eliminate the state Bar exam as a licensure standard. Other states are contemplating this action, Minnosota, Nevada, South Dekota and now Utah. If the BAR is the standard for becoming a Lawyer, what does the research say about why minorities do not pass the BAR? What are the steps to help minorities to pass the exam? Do they have mentors? Do they have a class on how to prepare for the test? Maybe the test is not the only way to determine competency?

Why are minorities not passing the BAR after finishing Law School? The answer stimulates several questions. Richard Sander researched Berkeley Law School Admission standards which revealed differences between minorities and whites of such magnitude that only race and achievement were acceptable causations. The school assigns each applicant a numerical score combining LSAT scores and college GPA. In 2002, 92% of the white applicants with a score of 250 or higher and only 5% of those with scores 235-239 range, were accepted. By contrast, 75% of black applicants in the lower range were admitted, and 65% the next year. No black students had a score of 250. What do these figures mean?

The results of this study showed that after one year 51% of the black students were at the bottom of the class, compared to 5% of white students. Only 45% of black students pass the BAR their first try, compared to 80% of white students. Blacks were 6 times more likely to fail after multiple attempts. The correlation of LSAT and performance in law school and passing the BAR was overwhelming. What scholastic behavior separates these groups?

The proposed adjustment to the NextGen Bar exam is to lower the passing score. This attitude, to reduce the standard competencies, has occurred in other states and other jobs. In states where the number of police officers has declined, such as Memphis, Alvin Davis LT. in charge of recruitment resigned in 2022 because the prior recruitment standards of college credits, military service, or former police experience were dismissed. Now the qualifying standards are to have a job, one can apply if they have a criminal record, and the physical requirements are gone too.

Where minority education majors have not been able to pass the New York state exam, the state eliminated the exam. Another example of competence is the story of Professor Maitland Jones, as an experimental chemist, who wrote a textbook on organic chemistry and taught at Princeton until he retired. Then he taught at New York University, recognized as one of the coolest professors. In his class students could share notes and study guides. No doubt a committed professor.

Then he noticed his students were not focused, although hoping to pursue medical careers. Students were misreading the questions, so he made them less difficult, student grades continued to fall. So, he paid for the videotaping of his 52 lectures. Students not coming to class complained that his tone was “condescending and demanding, they felt that with so many low grades, it does not make the students look bad, but the chemistry department.”

The department offered a withdrawal option—as he called, “coddling.” In 2020, 82 of the 350 students in his classes signed a petition saying, “We are very concerned about our scores, and find they are not an accurate reflection of the time and effort put into this class.” NYU’s response was to FIRE Dr. Jones.

Recently a UCLA professor Gordon Klein refused to be lenient in grading Black students, as was recommended by the school, which suspended him on 2/24.

It seems there is an element in higher education that is being run by students, not the university. This perception, highlighted by Heather MacDonald in her book, “ The Diversity Delusion“.

In some law schools in America, conservative students, whose beliefs are different from liberals, find their ideas or perceptions shouted down by their peers. Georgetown has such a reputation along with all Ivy League institutions that percolate the same ostracism. The atmosphere in our colleges is shown by the retirement ceremony for a law professor, one comment from a peer was, “He made me think that conservative students were human after all. “

What does the analysis of what works best to qualify for the legal profession? The question is whether the current exam tests what lawyers need to know and apply? If an exam tests what a competent attorney would do in a variety of circumstances- then there would be some value. Is there any research that says that lowering the standard increases the competence of lawyers? What is being done to increase the passing rate? The idea for an additional requirement for an internship, stems from the medical profession internship and residency requirement. In a practical standpoint having the variety of fields of law practice seems a good idea since it provides supervision, evaluation, and feedback on how to be successful.

It seems the reasons for evaluating whether the BAR standard is sufficient to produce competent lawyers needs evaluation. Would it be possible to have failing students take a re-exam in the area that was not passed, instead of taking the full exam? Determining competence, as in any profession, pilot, physician, electrician, plumber, needs examination to be equitable. If the standard is the BAR, what is being done to help minorities pass the test?

Let’s examine the Gonzaga law school in Washington State, where passing the BAR is being challenged. Let’s look at the input and outcome to their statistics compared to Utah. Examining the performance on the LSAT nationally, the average LSAT score in the US is 159/180. Gonzaga is 154, with 61% admittance. The average rate of passing their state BAR is 66%. What do these numbers reveal? What if law students had a mentor who would help them succeed? What if there were a class on how to take the BAR?

In Utah: the University of Utah average LSAT score is 164 with the average state BAR passing rate is 94%. At BYU the average LSAT score is 168 and average passing rate is 96%.

What are the issues in Utah that prescribe another option for students to become lawyers?

What are the thoughts of those who have passed the BAR in Utah, as alternatives are explored? We are not in favor of abandoning the State BAR as a licensure option. It may also be appropriate for all law students to have an extended practicum in the area of law they want to pursue. Sincerely, Richard and RuthEllen Wood

I don’t see a good reason to prevent someone from pursuing the alternate path, just because he or she previously sat for a bar exam in Utah or some other jurisdiction. On the contrary, I would probably support a requirement that before pursuing the alternate path, an applicant must attempt the bar exam and must achieve some minimum score that is lower than the passing score. In other words, there could be two ways to qualify for a license: (1) pass the bar exam with the passing score that is currently required, or (2) achieve some lower score that meets the new minimum (to prevent applicants from not preparing or trying at all) and also satisfy the requirements for the alternate path to licensure.

I would imagine that this would incentivize everyone to try hard to pass the bar exam, to avoid the hassle of going through the additional alternate path steps. At the same time, for those who, for one reason or another, do not quite pass the bar exam but come reasonably close, it would provide a way for them to gain experience and show their competency another way.

Maybe the requirement could even be that they have taken the bar exam, and achieved the new minimum score, twice. This would require even more commitment and effort from applicants, together with a basic level of competency that could be supplemented by the alternate path requirements.

Another approach that other commenters have mentioned could be to allow those who do not pass to retake only the sections of the bar exam that they did poorly on, if that is even a practical possibility. For those who struggle with the test in its current format, this might help them learn and demonstrate competency in those areas of the law while avoiding the stress of having to do so again for all of the other areas of the law in which they already demonstrated their competency.

I realize that my suggestions have downsides and might seem ridiculous to some people, but I am grateful for the chance to voice my opinions, just to have additional options considered by those who will make the decisions.

I am very much in favor of this proposed alternative path. It has long been known that the bar exam is not a particularly effective measure of whether an individual is prepared to be an attorney. Its use has seemed to continue, not because the exam was good, but because no alternative had yet been identified and agreed upon. While this version may not be perfect, and may need to be fine tuned over time, it is better than the current model that it will be running alongside.

When the temporary iteration of this rule was proposed in 2020, there was a lot of hand wringing about it, with a whole parade of horribles laid out by those who opposed it. Is has been over 4 years, and as far as I am aware, none of the concerns have come to fruition. (The only possible exception may be reciprocity; I have not heard how that has worked out. Although that may negatively impact individuals who do not take the traditional exam, it does nothing to harm the profession in Utah.) I have known and worked with many attorneys barred through the 2020 emergency procedure. Although my experience obviously represents a limited sample, all those who utilized that path have been extremely competent, potentially more so than those who passed the exam. This proposed rule appears to not just replicate what was done in 2020, but adds additional requirements that do even more to mitigate potential concerns expressed when the 2020 version of the rule was proposed. I think it is far past time to move forward with something like this, and I hope it is approved.

I would suggest a few modifications to the “Educational course requirements” in the proposed rule. While most of the requirements make sense, the list in 14-703A(b)(3) seems unnecessarily narrow. One problem with the bar exam is that it is so broad as to be inapplicable to many attorneys, I think this list replicates that issue to an extent offering too narrow a selection of choices. I would suggest adding more options there to enable would-be attorneys to tailor their legal education in the direction they hope to go in their careers. Courses related to negotiation/arbitration/mediation, indian/international law, and advanced Constitutional law are a few areas that seem to be missing, and could be more relevant to many students than some of the options on this list.

I appreciate all the work that has been done by the Utah Supreme Court, the licensure working group, and others to make this a possibility.

This proposal is a cure looking for a disease. Trendiness is the only viable explanation for pushing this short sighted program. CBP became trendy during COVID as an alternative for teachers and nurses due to critical person-power shortages. This is a giant boondoggle pushed by bureaucracy insiders. There is no shortage of lawyers. I oppose this proposal.

I am not interest in non peer reviewed studies that appeared in 2024 and appear to be timed to push this disaster in waiting onto the public and the profession.

Imagine adopting this for doctors. What insanity.

I have been involved in bar admissions for thirty years and continue to serve on a national committee. Here are my thoughts:
1. Current Admissions – The Utah Supreme Court is responsible for admission to the practice of law in Utah. Utah Bar admissions operates by delegation from the Utah Supreme Court under the Rules of Integration and Management from the Utah Supreme Court. Neither the Supreme Court, nor the State of Utah provides any funding for the admissions process. The Utah Bar pays all costs of admissions. Fees collected by the Utah Bar from applicants are intended to cover the operations of admissions although they have in some years been insufficient resulting in funding by the Utah Bar ergo Bar membership. Essentially, Utah admissions is to operate as a zero-sum operation based on application fees. The Admissions Committee and the related committees are operated based on the grace of Bar members who donate their time, skills and expertise.
2. Why an alternate path – Replacement of the current bar exam because “I thought it was a hazing” or I failed it and should not have or “the bar exam has nothing to do with the practice of law.” The purpose of the bar exam is to determine whether a person possesses minimum competence to serve the interests of clients/entities. Many argue that experience is a better teacher of minimum competence. In older times, law schools taught the law but not the practice of law. There have been great improvements in law schools teaching more about the practice of law. The English common law system has long-used “articling” as the basis for assuring minimum competence requiring years of service prior to final admission to practice. I have contended that the bar exam has false negatives as well as false positives, but it has a history of the best measure of minimum competence available. I do not oppose all alternative paths – but the alternative path needs to be structured correctly. This alternate path is primarily driven by academics who are removed from the actual practice of law.
3. Current Bar Exam – The bar exam has changed over the years and some old-timers (myself included) took a much different bar exam from the much improved current exam. Utah currently administers the UBE, along with 39 other jurisdictions. The UBE is prepared by the NCBE with psychometric expertise and validation, and years of experience. Previously, Utah practitioners wrote essay questions that were not properly written or sufficiently vetted. The UBE has also developed a new exam (currently referenced as NextGen) that will replace the UBE. The skill, expertise and funding of the NCBE provides great assistance to Utah admissions concerning best practices, especially because Utah is a small jurisdiction without governmental funding.
4. Alternate Path Exam – the rule is absent on how this exam will be prepared or administered or funded. Will this be a psychometrically valid exam? How will this exam be statistically equated from year to year to assure the same level of competence is being examined? How will the preparation of the exam be funded? How will it be administered. There are many administrative challenges not addressed by this proposed rule change.
5. Supervised Practice – First, 240 hours is two very easy working months – or perhaps one extremely hard month – six 40-hour work weeks. Is approximately six weeks of work sufficient to gauge competence? Based upon my experience, it is not. We have difficulty gauging competence of summer law clerks or even new associates. It takes time especially to determine the professionalism and depth of knowledge of a young attorney. Second, it is inappropriate to have an employer (a party with an economic interest in the success of an applicant) provide the determination as to quality of work. It also provides an odd employment environment that could be subject to abuse. Third, there is no uniformity in the standard of competence among the supervising attorney group. One may be more rigorous than another. We already see this dynamic inn the new lawyer training program. Fourth, there are no safeguards when the employer (supervising attorney) determines that the standards have been satisfied. Fifth, why would anyone undertake the responsibility of a supervising attorney. Those supervising attorneys will be co-defendants in the malpractice actions filed against the attorney they supervised. There is no immunity provided to the supervising attorneys.
6. Oregon Alternate Path – Oregon has already adopted and is commencing its alternate path. Oregon requires 675 hours of supervised work (about three times the Utah proposed number). Oregon also requires the submission of the applicant’s work product for review by a panel of bar examiners – both the original draft and the final draft after supervising attorney edits. Oregon’s system removes the employer economic incentive and provides for a more uniform standard of analysis of applicants’ work. We should follow more of the Oregon program that is tied to those who practice law. And we should learn from the Oregon experience.
7. Loss of Portability and Reciprocity – We live in an increasingly mobile society in the US, yet admission to the bar is determined by each jurisdiction. In prior years there was no reciprocity available. Adoption of the UBE has provided portability of scores to assist applicants and younger attorneys be more mobile. Changes in rules, including in Utah, have permitted admission on motion provided you have passed a bar examination. Applicants need to understand admission by an alternate path will not provide them with portability and may also prohibit admission on motion. The benefits of a portable score even though an applicant might believe the applicant will not leave Utah. Life happens and circumstances change and portability has been a major benefit for younger lawyers and admission of motion based upon having taken a bar examination benefits those admitted 5 or more years.