Utah Waives Admission Requirements To Welcome Working Mother

The Utah Supreme Court granted admission to an applicant who had not graduated from an ABA accedited law school in an opinion authored by Chief Justice Durrant

In Kelly v. Utah State Bar, we established the standard for evaluating petitions for waiver of the rules that govern admission to the practice of law in Utah. We held in that case that “waiver of our rules is appropriate only in extraordinary cases where the applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the purpose of the rule for which waiver is sought has been satisfied.” Petitioner Linzi Labrum now asks us to waive rules 14-704(c)(2) and 14-704(c)(3) of the Utah Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice, which require graduates of law schools that are not accredited by the American Bar Association to practice law in another state for ten years before becoming eligible to take the Utah bar exam. We hold that Labrum has satisfied the burden of proof that Kelly places upon her and grant her petition for waiver.

The applicant's story

In 2013, Petitioner Linzi Labrum wanted to go to law school. This wasn’t a new desire; after earning her bachelor’s degree from the University of Utah in 2000, she took the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) and was accepted by two law schools. But there were obstacles that prevented her from going to law school in 2000, and so too were there obstacles in her path thirteen years later.

In 2013, Labrum lived in Roosevelt, Utah, with her spouse and four minor children. The nearest law schools to her—at Brigham Young University and the University of Utah—were each more than a two-hour drive away. A daily four-hour commute would have conflicted with Labrum’s responsibilities as the main caregiver for her family. Nor was it feasible for Labrum to pick up and move to Provo or Salt Lake City, because her husband’s work commitments kept the family in Roosevelt.

After some contemplation, Labrum took what she considered to be the only option available to her at the time: she enrolled in an online juris doctor (J.D.) program at Concord Law School at Purdue University Global (Concord). This program had two advantages. First, it was entirely online, which meant that Labrum could complete her coursework without leaving Roosevelt. Second, it was a part-time program that traded a lighter courseload in exchange for adding a fourth year onto the traditional three-year law school education.

She graduated in 2017 but was denied a waiver to sit for the Utah Bar

Labrum did not pursue a rule change but continued to pursue her goal of becoming a lawyer. Still living in Roosevelt, she worked as a law clerk and began training as a mediator. After she completed her training, she became a court rostered mediator and started her own mediation business. Labrum also studied for the California bar exam, the only bar exam that her degree entitled her to take. She passed that bar exam in 2020. Upon being admitted as an attorney in California in 2021, Labrum asked the Utah State Bar if she was now eligible as an attorney applicant under rule 14 704(c). The Bar informed her that she was not. In so doing, the Bar relied upon rule 14-704(c)(3), which requires attorneys who graduated from law schools unaccredited by the ABA to practice law in another jurisdiction for ten years before they are eligible to take the Utah bar exam.

Once again, Labrum did not take this rejection sitting down. Now that she was admitted as an attorney in California, our rules allowed her to represent clients in Utah as a supervised pro bono attorney. Labrum began working in that capacity with the guidance of a Utah Legal Services attorney, and she represented several clients in the Roosevelt area in domestic matters. She also began working as a law clerk and mediator for the law firm Scalley Reading Bates Hansen & Rasmussen.

By 2023, two things had changed. First, Labrum now had almost three years of Utah legal experience under her belt. Second, the national attitude toward online law schools had evolved.

Denied again, nevertheless she persisted and prevailed

In describing the standard for granting waivers in Kelly, we “emphasize[d] that it is a high bar” and that waivers would only be granted “when a case is truly extraordinary.” We reaffirm that standard today and grant Labrum’s petition for waiver because she is one of the rare applicants who can satisfy Kelly’s demands. She has shown by clear and convincing evidence that her legal education and experience satisfy the purposes of the rules for which she seeks waiver and that those same factors have prepared her to provide competent and ethical representation to Utah’s citizens. The circumstances and choices that shaped her education and experience are distinct and now, because of changed standards for online law schools, unlikely to be replicated. We therefore grant Labrum waiver of rules 14-704(c)(2) and (c)(3) of the Utah Supreme Court Rules of Professional Practice.

Dissent of Justice Hagan

Our rules of admission to practice law in Utah “stand as important gatekeepers that, in the majority of cases, accurately gauge an applicant’s competence to practice law in this jurisdiction.” Kelly v. Utah State Bar, 2017 UT 6, ¶ 12, 391 P.3d 210. They establish qualifications for people seeking to be admitted to the practice of law that can be fairly and consistently applied to all applicants. And they provide notice of what is required to be admitted to practice in our jurisdiction, allowing applicants to make informed choices. We have previously put applicants on notice that “we will not open the courthouse doors to grant waivers as a more convenient alternative to compliance with the rules.” Id.

Here, Labrum was on notice of our rules and made choices regarding her legal education that she knew would foreclose her admission to practice law in Utah State Bar absent a change to our rules. We invited her to petition this court to change its rules seven years ago, yet she never acted on that invitation.

While we are sympathetic to the challenges Labrum faces, we respectfully disagree with the majority’s decision to grant her a waiver of not one but two of our rules of admission. We are especially reluctant where the two rules at issue work together to ensure that an attorney applicant is competent to practice law through a combination of legal education and experience. Labrum cannot establish by clear and convincing evidence that she has satisfied the purpose of each rule because both her education and experience fall far short of our rules’ requirements.

Options

As we indicated the first time she requested a waiver, she could petition this court to amend its rules—an option that would benefit all similarly situated applicants and would allow us to incorporate feedback from various stakeholders and community members. She could also attend an Approved Law School. As the majority notes, there are now ABA accredited online law school programs, and obtaining a three-year law degree from an accredited institution would be quicker path to licensure than satisfying our ten-year practice requirement. Or she could gain the necessary experience practicing law in California and then seek a waiver of only the Unapproved Law School rule. But at this point, Labrum is not close to satisfying either the letter or the spirit of our rules. Under these circumstances, we would deny the petition.

(Mike Frisch)