Opinion ID: 2366205
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: although moot, we address the issues mr. mcbride raises under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine

Text: ¶ 13 Although neither party has filed a suggestion of mootness, we exercise our discretion to address mootness sua sponte. [1] Ordinarily we will not adjudicate issues when the underlying case is moot. Ellis v. Swensen, 2000 UT 101, ¶ 25, 16 P.3d 1233. An issue is moot `when the requested judicial relief cannot affect the rights of the litigants.' Id. (quoting Burkett v. Schwendiman, 773 P.2d 42, 44 (Utah 1989)). We will on occasion, however, exercise our discretion and address a moot issue if we find that it falls within the `public interest exception' to the mootness doctrine. Id. A matter falls within the public interest exception when the case presents an issue that affects the public interest, is likely to recur, and because of the brief time that any one litigant is affected, is capable of evading review. Burkett, 773 P.2d at 44. ¶ 14 The issues Mr. McBride presents are moot. Mr. McBride has retaken and passed the Exam. Additionally, he has been admitted to the Bar. Because any determination we make will not affect Mr. McBride's admittance to the Bar, his request that we order his admittance to the Bar is moot. ¶ 15 We nevertheless address the issues raised by Mr. McBride under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine because they are matters of public importance that are capable of repetition and otherwise likely to evade review. First, because this court is constitutionally obligated to oversee the Bar's admissions process, the constitutionality and reasonableness of these procedures are matters of public importance. See Utah Const. art. VIII, § 4; see also Ellis, 2000 UT 101, ¶ 27, 16 P.3d 1233 (noting that courts frequently retain jurisdiction under the public interest exception in cases involving class actions, questions of constitutional interpretation, issues as to the validity or construction of a statute, or the propriety of administrative rulings. (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted)). Second, the issues are capable of repetition every time the Exam is administered. Finally, the issues are likely to evade review. The Exam is offered every six months. Because it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, that a claim such as this could be litigated from start to finish in a six month period of time, an aggrieved applicant could retake the Exam and be admitted to the Bar before the issue could be litigated. We therefore exercise our discretion to address the issues raised by Mr. McBride.