McBride v. Utah State Bar
2010 UT 60
| Utah | 2010Background
- McBride challenges the Utah State Bar's disqualification from the Bar Exam for failing to upload essay answers by the 10:00 p.m. deadline.
- The July 28–29, 2009 exam permitted laptop-takers to use SofTest to upload essays to the server; a late upload could lead to disqualification.
- McBride chose the laptop option, signed the participation acknowledgment, but did not upload his answers on the deadline day.
- He received seven separate notices about the upload deadline and possible disqualification, including written and oral warnings from Bar staff.
- After his disqualification, McBride sought relief but the case proceeded to the Utah Supreme Court; he later sat for and passed a subsequent exam and was admitted to the Bar.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural due process adequate notice | McBride argues notices were insufficient. | Bar asserts seven notices adequately informed him of consequences. | Not violated; seven notices sufficed. |
| Due process hearing requirement | McBride alleges a full hearing was required before disqualification. | Bar satisfied due process with extensive review procedures and no pre-deprivation hearing needed. | Bar's process satisfied due process; no full pre-deprivation hearing required. |
| Substantive due process rational relation | 10:00 p.m. deadline irrationally burdens fitness determination. | Deadline rationally advances efficient administration and prevents cheating. | Deadline rationally related to legitimate Bar objectives; no substantive due process violation. |
| Equal protection | Laptop examinees treated differently from handwritten exam takers as to submission timing. | Differences are rationally based on preventing alterations and logistical feasibility. | Differential treatment rational; no equal protection violation. |
| Application of RGB rules | Rule 14-715 should govern his review instead of 14-709. | Bar properly applied 14-709 to disqualification cases; 14-715 reserved for different relief. | Bar acted reasonably; correct rule application. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Arnovick, 52 P.3d 1246 (2002 UT 71) (extensive review supports low risk of error and procedural safeguards value)
- Lucero v. Ogden, 718 F.2d 355 (10th Cir. 1983) (low risk of erroneous deprivation when procedures are fair)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (due process notice must convey essential information)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (balancing test for due process: private interest, risk of error, government interest)
- Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232 (1957) (bar cannot disqualify for irrelevant past associations; focus on fitness)