Kelly v. Utah State Bar, 2017 UT 6

Background

James J. Kelly graduated from the University of Toronto Faculty of Law (LL.B., 2000), a Canadian school not ABA‑approved but highly ranked and accredited by the Law Society of Upper Canada.
Kelly passed the Massachusetts bar (2001) and practiced in Massachusetts for over a decade in complex federal securities and private fund work before moving to Utah in 2013.
Utah Rule 14‑704(c)(5) requires foreign‑educated applicants to complete 24 semester hours at an ABA‑approved law school (including specified core subjects) within 24 consecutive months to be eligible to sit for the Utah bar exam.
The Utah State Bar denied Kelly’s application for failure to meet 14‑704(c)(5); Kelly petitioned the Utah Supreme Court for a waiver of that rule so he may sit for the exam.
The Court framed and applied a waiver standard: waivers are available only in extraordinary cases where the applicant proves by clear and convincing evidence that the rule’s purpose has been satisfied and that the applicant’s overall competence justifies departure from the rule.
The Court concluded Kelly’s Toronto education combined with his U.S. bar admission and more than ten years of recent, complex U.S. practice met that standard and granted a waiver allowing him to sit for the Utah bar (waiver does not guarantee admission pending character and fitness review).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court should adopt a standard for waiving admission rules	Kelly: Court should permit waiver when foreign education is functionally equivalent to ABA education and applicant has sufficient exposure to U.S. law	Bar: Waiver inappropriate; rule must be enforced and unauthorized practice cited as concern	Court adopts a high standard: waivers only in extraordinary cases shown by clear and convincing evidence that the rule’s purpose is satisfied; applied to grant Kelly a waiver
Whether Toronto law school education is functionally equivalent to an ABA‑approved JD	Kelly: Toronto courses covered required core subjects and included U.S. law materials; grades B or better	Bar: Foreign school is not ABA‑evaluated; record insufficient to establish equivalence	Court: Record inadequate to establish functional equivalence alone; cannot conclude equivalence on that basis
Whether Kelly’s exposure to U.S. law satisfies rule purpose	Kelly: Passed MA bar and practiced in MA for >10 years in complex federal securities practice	Bar: Pointed to unauthorized practice in Utah and enforcement of rule	Court: Kelly’s U.S. practice and bar admission provide clear and convincing evidence of satisfying the rule’s purpose
Whether totality of circumstances justifies waiver (extraordinary case)	Kelly: His school reputation plus long recent U.S. practice distinguish him from typical applicants	Bar: Enforcement of rules and public protection justify denial	Court: Kelly’s combination of foreign legal education and substantial recent U.S. practice makes his case extraordinary; waiver granted to permit bar examination

Key Cases Cited

In re Anthony, 225 P.3d 198 (Utah 2010) (Court previously granted an admissions waiver where long, competent practice demonstrated fitness)
Spencer v. Utah State Bar, 293 P.3d 360 (Utah 2012) (rules provide predictable, objective standards for admission)
In re Gobelman, 31 P.3d 535 (Utah 2001) (Court’s constitutional duty to regulate admissions and consider entire record)
In re Fox, 89 P.3d 127 (Utah 2004) (graduation from an ABA‑approved school is an efficient preliminary competence screen)
In re Brown, 708 N.W.2d 251 (Neb. 2006) (two‑factor test: functional equivalence of foreign education and extent of exposure to U.S. law)