Title: Applicant No. 26 to the 2000 Bar Examination v. Board of Examiners

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
APPLICANT NO. 26 to the 2000
§
Delaware Bar Examination,
§
No. 529, 2000
§
Applicant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
§
v.
§
§
BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS of the
§
Delaware Supreme Court,
§
§
Examiner Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Submitted: June 20, 2001
Decided: August 30, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE,
Justices, constituting the Court en Banc.
Upon appeal from decision of the Board of Bar Examiners.  REFUSED.
David A. Boswell, Esquire, of Schmittinger & Rodriguez, P.A., Rehoboth Beach,
Delaware, for Appellant.
Donald E. Reid, Esquire, of Wilmington, Delaware, for Appellee.
Per curiam:
2
In this appeal, we again consider whether an applicant who fails the Delaware
Bar Examination is entitled to challenge her grade, either by petitioning the Board
of Bar Examiners to regrade the exam or by proceedings in this Court.  Following
settled law, we hold that an unsuccessful applicant to the Delaware Bar has no right
to a hearing or other review of the Board’s decision absent a claim that the Board
acted in an arbitrary, fraudulent or unfair manner.  Applicant No. 26 has not made
any such allegations with respect to the administration or grading of her Bar
Examination.  Accordingly, Applicant No. 26's petition for discovery and regrading
is denied.
Factual and Procedural Background
Applicant No. 26 sat for the Delaware Bar Examination, for the second time,
in July 2000.  She was notified in October 2000 that she failed, with a total scaled
score of 142.86.  The minimum passing score was 145.  Applicant No. 26 thereafter
requested and received copies of her answers, the scores she received for each
answer, and two representative passing answers for each question.  Applicant No. 26
also requested her scoring sheets and information about the Board’s scoring
procedures.  She explained that she intended to ask that her exam be regraded if she
found any grading errors.  The Board did not provide the applicant’s scoring sheets
1Petition of Rubenstein, Del. Supr., 637 A.2d 1131, 1134 (1994).
3
and it advised her that, since the rule governing regrading was deleted in 1999, the
Board’s decision was final. 
Discussion
Applicant No. 26 argues that the Board’s procedures violated her federal
constitutional rights to Due Process and Equal Protection of the laws.  She says it is
manifestly unfair, arbitrary and capricious to be told that she failed the Bar
Examination without being given the information needed, or the opportunity, to
challenge that determination. Applicant No. 26 suggests that there could have been
a simple error in addition and that it will go uncorrected because the Board refuses
to review its grades.  Applicant No. 26 also points out that, under prior Board Rule
20, those who missed the passing score by a point or two sometimes gained the
needed points during the regrading process permitted under that rule.  Now that Rule
20 has been abolished, Applicant No. 26 complains that there is no mechanism to
review what may have been faulty grading.
It is settled law that “[t]his Court will not set aside the determination of the
Board as to an applicant’s professional competence unless the applicant demonstrates
fraud, coercion, arbitrariness, or manifest unfairness.”1 In addition, an aggrieved
2Supr. Ct. R. 52(f).
3In re Petition of Delaney, Del. Supr., 1994 WL 35489.
4Petition of Applicant No. 5, Del. Supr., 658 A.2d 609, 613 (1995). 
5In re Hudson, Del. Supr., 402 A.2d 369 (1979).
4
applicant may appeal to this Court only if the Board’s action affected “substantial
rights.”2 It is equally settled law that an applicant who may sit for the Bar
Examination again has not suffered a deprivation of “substantial rights.”3  Finally,
aggrieved applicants are not entitled to discovery absent a prima facie showing of
impropriety,4 and they are not entitled to a hearing to challenge their test scores.5
In short, Applicant No. 26's arguments about her due process rights, her right
to know the “reasons” for the Board’s decision that she failed the Bar Examination,
and her right to obtain discovery from the Board have been rejected by this Court
in the past and nothing in her arguments convinces us that our precedents should be
overturned.  Applicant No. 26's only remaining argument is that the elimination of
Board Rule 20 deprived her of Equal Protection under the 14th Amendment to the
United States Constitution.  She contends that, since bar applicants in prior years
were allowed to seek a regrading of their answers, she, too, must be given that
opportunity.
6Priest v. State, Del. Supr., 227 A.2d 576, 579 (1967).
5
Applicant No. 26's equal protection argument lacks merit.  The Equal
Protection clause does not “require identical treatment for all persons without
recognition of differences in relevant circumstances.”6   The Board of Bar
Examiners’ Rules changed in 1999; thereafter, no regrading was permitted.
Applicant No. 26 was treated the same as all other applicants for the 2000 Bar
Examination when her request for regrading was denied.  She has no constitutionally
protected right to be treated the same as applicants in prior years whose examinations
were governed by different rules.  Her rights are fully protected by the opportunity
to the take the Bar Examination again.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 52(f), Applicant
No. 26's petition is REFUSED.