Can Utah courts admit a bar applicant who failed the examination? Durbano v. Utah State Bar Explained

In Durbano v. Utah State Bar, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether it would exercise extraordinary relief to admit a bar applicant who failed the examination. The case provides important guidance on bar admission requirements and the limits of judicial intervention in the bar examination process.

Background and Facts

Dallin Mark Durbano, diagnosed with ADHD in law school, initially sought testing accommodations for the Utah bar examination. However, he withdrew his accommodation request after experiencing difficulty obtaining required documentation, including standardized test scores from over 15 years prior and a physician’s evaluation from his California-based doctor. Durbano took the July 2018 exam without accommodations and scored 264, six points below the required 270 passing score. He failed to complete the essay section, consistent with his prediction of how he would perform without accommodations.

Key Legal Issues

Durbano petitioned for extraordinary relief under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 65B, requesting the court to: (1) waive the 270 minimum passing score requirement; (2) waive the requirement to pass the bar examination; (3) waive testing accommodation rules; or (4) admit him based on the court’s constitutional authority over bar admission.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court denied the petition, applying the principle that extraordinary relief requires no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Regarding the accommodation request, the court found Durbano had an adequate administrative remedy—he could have submitted an incomplete accommodation request and appealed any denial through the established review process. The Bar’s admissions administrator had indicated flexibility in documentation requirements and willingness to work with applicants facing difficulties.

For the remaining claims seeking waiver of examination requirements, the court emphasized that maintaining objective standards for bar admission serves important purposes. Drawing parallels to Spencer v. Utah State Bar, the court warned that departing from predictable standards would lead to inconsistent results and unfairness concerns.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that courts will not circumvent established bar examination requirements through extraordinary relief. The case highlights the importance of fully pursuing administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention. The court also suggested improvements to the Bar’s accommodation process, recommending greater transparency about documentation flexibility and clearer guidance that incomplete accommodation requests won’t jeopardize entire applications. For practitioners, the case underscores the need to thoroughly explore all administrative options and maintain detailed records of efforts to obtain required documentation when advising clients on bar admission matters.