Opinion ID: 2366205
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Risk of Erroneous Deprivation and the Probable Value of Procedural Safeguards Is Relatively Low

Text: ¶ 24 When examining the second Mathews factor, courts have evaluated the adequacy of the grievance procedures in determining the presence of an erroneous deprivation. See In re Arnovick, 2002 UT 71, ¶ 16, 52 P.3d 1246. In Arnovick, we held that the second Mathews factor was met where petitioners [had] received the benefit of an extensive review process culminating in their appearance before this court. Id. There, the extensive review process included: (1) the filing of their complaint, (2) the review of their complaint by the Admissions Committee. . ., (3) the petitioners' written response to those findings and recommendations, (4) an oral hearing, and (5) a review and formal findings by the Executive Committee of the Bar. Id. ¶ 10. We reasoned that, [g]iven the extensive nature of this review process, the risk of error in the Bar's decision seems to us to be small and the probable value of additional procedural safeguards would be minimal. Id. ¶ 16. In Lucero, the Tenth Circuit similarly determined that there is a low risk of erroneous deprivation where there is no evidence that the procedures are unfair, e.g. that the graders engaged in insidious discrimination. Lucero, 718 F.2d at 358. ¶ 25 Here, there is a relatively low risk of erroneous deprivation since Mr. McBride has made use of the extensive grievance procedures available to him. Much like the petitioners in Arnovick, Mr. McBride has received the benefit of an extensive review process culminating in [his] appearance before this court. In re Arnovick, 2002 UT 71, ¶ 16, 52 P.3d 1246. This process has included (1) his initial discussion with the proctors at the Exam, (2) the filing of his request for review with the Bar, (3) the review of his request by the Admissions Committee of the Bar by a three-member panel, (4) the filing of his Supplemental Memorandum with the Committee, (5) the Committee's review and supplemental decision, and finally, (6) this appeal. As in Arnovick, the risk of error in the Bar's decision seems . . . to be small and the probable value of additional procedural safeguards would be minimal. Id. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the available procedures were unfair to Mr. McBride or that the Exam proctors engaged in insidious discrimination. Lucero, 718 F.2d at 358. The Exam proctors properly applied the standard test-taking procedures to Mr. McBride. Mr. McBride was not singled out or treated unfairly in comparison with other examinees. Mr. McBride simply failed to comply with the standard test-taking procedures. ¶ 26 Moreover, the Bar's use of the permissive verb may in its computer contract demonstrates that there are already reasonable procedures in place to prevent erroneous deprivation. If an examinee fails to upload his or her exam because of technical difficulties, rather than simple forgetfulness, the Bar allows the examinee to sit for the second day of the Exam while technicians determine if the examinee attempted to upload the answers the night before. This process ensures that an examinee who tries to follow the Exam procedures, but cannot upload his or her answers for a technical reason, is not unfairly disqualified from taking the second day of the Exam. Indeed, it would be curious logic to condemn the examiners for utilizing practices designed to recognize the inherent limitations of testing and for attempting to give the benefit of the doubt to applicants who may have been adversely affected by those limitations. Tyler, 517 F.2d at 1103. ¶ 27 In sum, the risk of erroneous deprivation and the probable value of additional safeguards is relatively low since there is an extensive review process, no unfair treatment, and the Bar's current procedures help prevent erroneous deprivation.