Title: Clifford R. Spott v. Board of Bar Examiners

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2000 WI 10 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
99-1375-BA 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of the Bar Admission of: 
 
Clifford R. Spott,  
 
Petitioner, 
 
v. 
Board of Bar Examiners,  
 
Respondent.  
 
 
BAR ADMISSION OF SPOTT 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
February 15, 2000 
Submitted on Briefs: 
January 7, 2000 
Oral Argument: 
      
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
      
 
Dissented: 
      
 
Not Participating:       
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
For the petitioner, there was a brief by Clifford 
R. Spott, Milwaukee. 
 
 
For the respondent, the cause was submitted on 
the brief of Karen E. Timberlake, assistant attorney general, and 
James E. Doyle, attorney general. 
 
 2000 WI 10 
  
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 99-1375-BA 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of the Bar Admission of: 
 
Clifford R. Spott,  
 
          Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
 
Board of Bar Examiners,  
 
          Respondent.  
FILED 
 
FEB 15, 2000 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Acting Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
Review 
of 
Board 
of 
Bar 
Examiners 
determination.  Determination affirmed.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM   This is a review, pursuant to SCR 
40.08(5),1 of the adverse determination of the Board of Bar 
Examiners (Board) that Clifford R. Spott failed to satisfy the 
legal competence requirement for bar admission by examination.  
That determination was based on Mr. Spott's failure to achieve a 
passing score on the February 1999 Wisconsin bar examination.  
In addition to that determination, Mr. Spott sought review of 
the Board's denial of his request that it waive the requirement 
                     
1  SCR 40.08(5) provides: 
(5) A petition to the supreme court for review of an 
adverse determination of the board under this rule shall be 
filed with the clerk within 30 days of the date on which written 
notice thereof was mailed to the applicant.  
No. 
99-1375-BA 
 
2 
that an applicant for bar admission on examination establish 
legal competence by receiving a passing score on the bar 
examination.  The Board had determined that Mr. Spott did not 
establish that his was an exceptional case or show good cause 
that failure to waive the requirement in his case would be 
unjust.2 
¶2 
We affirm the determinations of the Board.  There is 
no merit to Mr. Spott's argument that the Board impermissibly 
established a separate passing score for each of the two 
discrete portions of the bar examination.  Likewise meritless is 
his contention that the Board abused its discretion in failing 
to find that he established grounds for waiver of the passing 
examination score requirement for bar admission.   
¶3 
The facts in this matter are not in dispute.  For the 
February 1999 bar examination, the Board established the score 
of 127 on the essay portion and the combined score of 254 on the 
essay portion and the Multistate Bar Examination as requirements 
for certification of satisfaction of the legal competence 
requirement for bar admission.  While Mr. Spott achieved a 
combined score of 259 on that examination, his score on the 
essay portion was 123 -- 4 points below the passing score for 
that portion. 
                     
2  Supreme Court Rule 40.10 authorizes the Board to waive 
certain bar admission requirements "in exceptional cases and for 
good cause if failure to waive the requirement would be unjust." 
  
No. 
99-1375-BA 
 
3 
¶4 
When informed by letter of April 2, 1999, that he 
failed to obtain a passing score on the examination, Mr. Spott 
asked the Board to waive the requirement that he receive a score 
of 127 on the essay portion, contending that the rule, SCR 
40.04(7),3 specifies that the Board is to establish the passing 
score for the bar examination and that the passing score for the 
February 1999 examination was 254, regardless of the score 
obtained on the essay portion of the examination.  As grounds 
for his waiver request, he asserted that he had successfully 
written bar examinations in three jurisdictions and has been 
admitted to practice law and is in good standing in two of them 
and would have been in the third but for his failure to take the 
attorney's oath and pay applicable fees.  He stated further that 
he graduated from law school almost 25 years ago and achieved 
his scores on the Wisconsin examination "without substantial 
study and without a bar review course."  Finally, he noted that 
he is the sole support of 8 children and that after many years 
out of the country, where he was engaged in study and foreign 
law practice, he recently moved his family to Wisconsin.   
¶5 
The Board informed Mr. Spott by letter of May 13, 
1999, that it denied his request for waiver, as he did not show 
that he represented an exceptional case or show good cause that 
                     
3 SCR 40.04(7) provides: 
(7) The board shall establish the passing score for the 
bar examination in advance of each examination and shall 
advise each applicant of the score so established. 
No. 
99-1375-BA 
 
4 
failure to waive the bar examination requirement would be 
unjust.  Mr. Spott then commenced this review. 
¶6 
Mr. Spott first argued that the unambiguous language 
of SCR 40.04(7) does not authorize the Board to establish more 
than one passing score for the bar examination.  He acknowledged 
that, pursuant to the rule, the Board established the "overall" 
score of 254 and the essay score of 127 prior to administering 
the February 1999 examination, but he contended that the essay 
portion is merely one component of the total bar examination and 
that the Board had no authority to establish a "passing score" 
for that or, presumably, the other portion of the examination --
the Multistate Bar Examination.  To the contrary, the Board 
asserted that establishing separate passing scores for the 
discrete portions of the bar examination is consistent with the 
purpose of each of those portions, as each covers different 
areas of the law.  One is a nationally-prepared multiple choice 
examination; the other is an essay examination on Wisconsin law. 
 Accordingly, the Board contended, as an examinee's success on 
the Multistate Bar Examination portion does not demonstrate 
knowledge and ability in respect to Wisconsin law, the Board 
properly attempts to evaluate the success of a bar admission 
applicant on each portion of the examination separately.  
¶7 
We agree.  Mr. Spott's reliance on the use of the 
singular "passing score" in SCR 40.04(7) for the proposition 
No. 
99-1375-BA 
 
5 
that the Board lacks authority to establish separate passing 
scores for separate portions of the examination it administers 
is unjustified.  Such a narrow reading of the rule would unduly 
impede the Board in carrying out its responsibility to assess 
the legal competence of those seeking to be licensed by this 
court to practice law in this state and represent Wisconsin 
citizens.   
¶8 
On 
the 
issue 
of 
waiver 
of 
the 
passing 
score 
requirement for bar admission on examination, the Board properly 
exercised its discretion in determining that Mr. Spott failed to 
demonstrate that his was an exceptional case, that there was 
good cause for a waiver, or that failure to grant waiver would 
be unjust.  There was nothing in his individual circumstances 
that set him apart from any other person who failed to achieve 
the requisite score on the bar examination.  Moreover, as the 
Board pointed out, Mr. Spott has another avenue of bar admission 
available to him:  he may apply for admission on the basis of 
his legal practice in other jurisdictions where he has been 
admitted to the practice of law, subject to the requirements set 
forth in SCR 40.05. 
¶9 
It 
is 
unnecessary 
that 
we 
address 
the 
two 
constitutional arguments Mr. Spott set forth in his brief, based 
on his right to travel and his right to equal protection in 
respect to persons eligible for bar admission on the diploma 
No. 
99-1375-BA 
 
6 
privilege under SCR 40.03.  He neither developed nor supported 
with relevant case law either of those arguments.   
¶10 Having determined that the Board had the authority to 
establish a separate passing score for the essay portion of the 
Wisconsin bar examination in addition to the overall passing 
score for the entire examination and properly exercised its 
discretion in denying Mr. Spott's request for a waiver of the 
passing score requirement for admission on bar examination, we 
affirm the Board's determinations.  
¶11 IT IS ORDERED that the determination of the Board of 
Bar Examiners that Clifford R. Spott failed to satisfy the legal 
competence requirement for bar admission on examination is 
affirmed.  
 
 
1