Spencer v. Utah State Bar
2012 UT 92
| Utah | 2012Background
- Spencer, admitted in Idaho in 1983, actively practiced there until 1995 when he stopped due to anxiety and depression; resumed in 1997, stopped again in 2001; by 2004 he moved to Utah and stayed; SSA deemed him disabled by 2008; treated physician cleared return to work in 2009; Idaho status changed to active in 2009 and he claims to have resumed Idaho practice; March 2010 he applied to Utah Bar on motion under rule 14-705; rule required three of the five years’ active practice in Idaho prior to application; Bar denied for not meeting the three-year active practice requirement; Spencer sought waiver and review; Bar admissions committee denied waiver; Supreme Court denied waiver after analysis; decision discusses ADA and equal protection implications; court holds waiver not warranted and rule remains valid.
- The court treats admission on motion as not requiring a bar exam and thus the active practice requirement is the sole competency safeguard; Spencer had seventeen years of past practice but not current three of the five years preceding application; the mirror rule connected Utah and Idaho rules as of 2010; subsequent changes to rule 14-705 in 2012 removed the mirror rule.
- The court notes the procedural posture: discretionary appeal to Supreme Court; standard of review gives some deference to Bar but the court may independently decide.
- The court emphasizes that the Bar’s role is to protect the public and maintain competency; exceptions to waiver are rare and not justified here.
- Section concluding that Spencer could reapply in Idaho after accumulating sufficient current practice or take the Utah bar exam; ADA analysis concludes waiver not required as a reasonable accommodation; the uniform operation of laws and equal protection analysis upheld the rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the active practice requirement should be waived for Spencer | Spencer argues his substantial Idaho experience justifies waiver | Bar contends current competency requires active practice | Waiver denied |
| ADA entitlement to waiver as accommodation | ADA requires accommodations for qualified individuals with disabilities | ADA does not require waiving active practice in admission-on-motion | Waiver not required under ADA |
| Constitutional compliance of the active practice rule | Rule discriminates against disabled or others; violates equal protection/uniform operation of laws | There is a reasonable basis; rule protects public; no constitutional violation | Rule withstands equal protection and uniform operation review |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Gobelman, 2001 UT 72 (Utah 2001) (education and practice requirements not interchangeable with out-of-state practice)
- In re Anthony, 2010 UT 3 (Utah 2010) (waiver potential for certain admissions; standard not defined)
- McBride v. Utah State Bar, 2010 UT 60 (Utah 2010) (upholds focus on competency safeguards for admission)
- Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Utah v. State, 779 P.2d 634 (Utah 1989) (uniform operation of laws context and equal protection principles)
- Merrill v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 2009 UT 26 (Utah 2009) (equal protection considerations in administrative action)
- Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93 (U.S. 1979) (conceptual groundwork for equal protection analysis)