Utah Supreme Court
Can disabled applicants exceed Utah's six-attempt bar exam limit? Long v. Utah State Bar Explained
Summary
Jennifer Long, who has ADHD and was born without a right hand, failed the bar exam twelve times across three jurisdictions and sought permission to exceed Utah’s six-attempt limit. The Utah State Bar denied her request after granting her two additional accommodated attempts beyond the normal limit. The Court affirmed, finding that Long had already received six accommodated attempts and failed to demonstrate good cause for further attempts.
Analysis
Background and Facts
Jennifer Long, born without a right hand and diagnosed with ADHD, attempted the bar examination twelve times across Utah, Missouri, and Kansas over nearly two decades. She did not receive accommodations for her first six attempts, with Utah and Missouri denying her requests. Long later received accommodations for three attempts in Kansas, then returned to Utah seeking permission to exceed the state’s six-attempt limit established by Supreme Court Rule of Professional Practice 14-711(f).
Key Legal Issues
The case presented two primary issues: first, what constitutes good cause to exceed Utah’s six-attempt bar exam limit, and second, what standard of review applies when the Utah Supreme Court reviews State Bar admission decisions. Long argued she deserved six accommodated attempts to achieve parity with non-disabled applicants.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court clarified its review standard for Bar decisions, explaining that while it generally defers to the Bar’s findings and judgments, it retains independent judgment when circumstances warrant. The Court noted that some Bar decisions require specialized knowledge and high-volume review unsuited to judicial examination. However, a material intervening event—Long’s undisclosed February 2025 Missouri bar attempt (her sixth accommodated attempt)—eliminated the factual basis for her argument. The Court found that having already received six accommodated attempts, Long failed to demonstrate good cause for additional opportunities.
Practice Implications
This decision establishes important precedent regarding Utah’s bar exam attempt limits and the Court’s review of Bar admission decisions. Practitioners should note that the Court will exercise independent judgment when material facts change between the Bar’s decision and appellate review. The opinion emphasizes the importance of full disclosure during proceedings, as Long’s failure to timely reveal her Missouri attempt significantly undermined her position. The decision also confirms that receiving requested accommodations does not automatically establish good cause for exceeding attempt limits.
Case Details
Case Name
Long v. Utah State Bar
Citation
2025 UT 29
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20240737
Date Decided
August 7, 2025
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
An applicant who has already received six accommodated bar exam attempts has not demonstrated good cause to exceed the six-attempt limit merely because she seeks different accommodations.
Standard of Review
Independent judgment with some deference to Bar’s findings and judgments unless petitioner demonstrates unfair, unreasonable or arbitrary treatment
Practice Tip
When challenging Utah State Bar admission decisions, ensure all material facts are disclosed promptly to avoid having arguments undermined by subsequently discovered information.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the 10 Circuit.
Related Cases
-
Can property owners sue cities for failing to remove homeless camps?
Utah’s public duty doctrine shields government entities from liability for failing to perform duties owed to the general public unless a special relationship exists with specific individuals.
-
Does Utah governmental immunity protect EMS from routine 911 call negligence claims?
The Utah Supreme Court clarified that governmental immunity for emergency medical assistance applies only to responses to catastrophic emergencies, not routine EMS calls.
-
Can a case become moot when a new city is incorporated during litigation?
This case establishes that jurisdictional changes affecting the subject matter of litigation can render cases moot even when plaintiffs could theoretically obtain their requested relief.