Opinion ID: 2539394
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: extraordinary relief is appropriate in this case because mr. anthony lacks an adequate alternative remedy

Text: ¶ 9 Mr. Anthony's claim for extraordinary relief is brought pursuant to rule 19(a) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, which sets out the procedure for obtaining, from an appellate court, the extraordinary relief provided for in rule 65B of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. [5] Rule 65B authorizes a person, in certain defined circumstances, to petition a court for extraordinary relief when no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy is available. [6] In this case, the Bar argues that Mr. Anthony is not entitled to extraordinary relief because the appeals process set forth in rule 14-709 of the rules governing admission constitutes a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy that Mr. Anthony is first required to pursue. ¶ 10 Mr. Anthony responds by arguing that the appeals process is not an adequate remedy because it is futile given the Bar's admitted inability to waive the ABA accreditation requirement. Because Mr. Anthony does not dispute that rule 14-704(a)(3) prohibits him from sitting for the Bar exam, but instead simply seeks a waiver of the requirement that the rules governing admission do not authorize the Bar to grant, he contends he should not have to pursue a burdensome and unnecessary appeal. ¶ 11 We agree with Mr. Anthony. The Utah Constitution imposes on this court the duty, and grants it the concomitant authority, to govern the practice of law within the state of Utah. [7] Thus, as a matter of constitutional law, authority over admissions in this state remains with this court unless it has been delegated away. And our own rules make clear that we have not yet delegated the right to waive admissions requirements. [8] ¶ 12 Because the authority to waive one of our admissions rules rests solely with this court, the Bar's appeals process is clearly futile for an applicant seeking only the waiver of a rule. Our standard for obtaining extraordinary relief does not require a petitioner to pursue a futile appeals process solely as a matter of form. We hold that Mr. Anthony is entitled to seek a waiver from this court even though he did not complete the appeals process normally required by the rules. [9] Accordingly, we now turn to the merits of Mr. Anthony's request for waiver.