Opinion ID: 2539394
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: we waive the aba accreditation requirement in mr. anthony's case

Text: ¶ 13 Mr. Anthony contends that we should grant him a waiver of the ABA accreditation requirement because it would be unfair to apply our amended rule to him retroactively and because it is irrational, given his extensive experience as a practicing attorney, to judge his fitness to practice law solely on the basis of where he graduated from law school. Although he acknowledges the relevance of an attorney's law school education to admission decisions generally, he argues that, at some point in an attorney's career, the law school experience fade[s] into insignificance and become[s] irrelevant in determining an individual's competency to practice law. And in his case, Mr. Anthony asserts that we should consider his long record of zealous and competent representation rather than making the decision solely based on his educational qualifications. ¶ 14 The Bar argues that rule 14-704(a)(3) is not being applied retroactively because Mr. Anthony is, in fact, a new applicant, not an old applicant whose approval was placed in abeyance in the event he decided to apply again at an unspecified future date. In addition, the Bar responds to Mr. Anthony's claim that his special circumstances justify waiver by pointing to our prior case law denying waivers of admission requirements including the ABA accreditation requirementin the past. [10] The Bar contends that, if we grant a waiver to Mr. Anthony based on his unique circumstances, we would encourage a deluge of petitions for waiver, forcing this court into a burdensome case-by-case evaluation of the merits of numerous unsuccessful applicants. ¶ 15 This court has no desire to encourage a flood of individualized waiver petitions. But as we have noted in the past, the purpose of our admission requirements is to protect the citizens of Utah by ensuring, to the best of our ability, that the people of this state may rely on admitted attorneys for competent and ethical representation. [11] While the rules governing admission stand as important safeguards against incompetent and unethical representation, strict adherence to the rules in every case may undermine, rather than further, these goals. And where the goal of ensuring competent representation would not be advanced by a strict application of the rules governing admission, we have contemplated that rules may be waived in appropriate cases. This is evidenced by the language concerning waiver of the admissions rules found in rule 14-702(f). [12] ¶ 16 Accordingly, we now make clear that a waiver of the Bar's ABA accreditation requirement may be obtained in an appropriate case. While we decline to set out any specific standard for evaluating petitions for waiver, we find that where an attorney has actively practiced law, without blemish, for nearly thirty years and comes highly recommended by judges, clients, and fellow attorneys, waiver of the ABA accreditation requirement is appropriate. We therefore grant Mr. Anthony's petition for waiver of rule 14-704(a)(3). ¶ 17 We recognize the validity of the Bar's concerns regarding the potential administrative burdens resulting from case-by-case analysis of requests for waiver. Nevertheless, we are confident that these burdens can be sufficiently mitigated by the revision of our rules to provide for the judicious delegation of authority and development of standards and procedures that provide guidance to both applicants and the Bar. Accordingly, we take this opportunity to refer to the Bar and our rules committee the issue of waiver of the rules governing admission and instruct them to begin the process of proposing changes to the rules governing admission under which the Bar would be given authority to waive the ABA accreditation requirement subject to discretionary review by this court.