McBride v. Utah State Bar, 2010 UT 60

McBride was disqualified from the Utah Bar Exam for failing to upload typed essay answers by the 10:00 p.m. deadline, despite using a laptop.
Bar Exam in July 2009 allowed laptop uploads via SofTest with a hard deadline due to on-site wireless constraints.
McBride received seven notices warning that failure to upload could result in disqualification.
He signed an acknowledgment agreeing to upload by the deadline, but did not upload and left the testing site.
On review, the Bar applied RGB rule 14-715, ultimately disqualifying him; McBride later passed the exam and was admitted, rendering relief moot.
The Supreme Court of Utah addressed the mootness via the public interest exception, upholding the Bar’s procedures as constitutional.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bar procedures violated procedural due process	McBride argues he lacked adequate notice and hearing	Bar asserts seven notices plus hearings satisfied due process	No; procedures satisfied due process
Whether Bar procedures violated substantive due process	10:00 p.m. deadline irrationally related to fitness to practice	Deadline rationally related to efficient exam administration	No; deadline rational and not arbitrary
Whether Bar violated equal protection by different handling of laptop vs handwritten exams	Laptop examinees unfairly penalized	Reasonable basis to prevent cheating and manage administration	No; rational basis for differential treatment
Whether Bar properly applied RGB rule 14-709 vs 14-715	Rule 14-715 should apply to exam failure due to irregularity	Rule 14-709 applies to disqualification for non-failing reasons	Yes; Bar acted within permissible interpretation of rules
Whether Bar’s procedures were reasonable in administration	Alternative uploading methods and notice were lacking	Procedures balanced fairness with administrative efficiency	Yes; no clear unfair, unreasonable, or arbitrary conduct

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (due process requires adequate notice to convey essential information)
In re Arnovick, 2002 UT 71 (Utah 2002) (extensive review process yields low risk of erroneous deprivation)
Lucero v. Ogden, 718 F.2d 355 (10th Cir. 1983) (low risk of error when procedures are not unfair or discriminatory)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (three-factor test for procedural due process weigh private interest, risk of error, government interest)
Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232 (U.S. 1957) (fitness/character tied to legitimate objectives; past membership cannot justify disqualification)