Opinion ID: 2366205
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mr. McBride's Private Interest Is Low

Text: ¶ 21 While Mr. McBride's interest in taking the Exam may be great, it is not so great as to require that he be given a full hearing prior to disqualification from the Exam. A bar applicant may have an interest in taking the Exam, but an individual does not have an absolute right to practice law. See Schware v. Bd. of Bar Exam'rs, 353 U.S. 232, 238-39, 77 S.Ct. 752, 1 L.Ed.2d 796 (1957) (noting that while [a] State cannot exclude a person from the practice of law . . . for reasons that contravene the Due Process or Equal Protection Clause . . . [a] State can require high standards of qualification, such as good moral character or proficiency in its law). ¶ 22 In Arnovick, this court applied the Mathews factors in a challenge to a Bar decision denying admission to applicants who failed the Exam after a faulty torts question was thrown out of the grading scale. In re Arnovick, 2002 UT 71, ¶¶ 2-3, 16, 52 P.3d 1246. We determined the bar applicants' interest did not satisfy the first Mathews factor since the Bar's decision [did] not permanently deny [them] the ability to practice law in Utah; they [could] retake the examination until they pass[ed] it. Id. ¶ 16. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reached a similar conclusion in a bar challenge case, holding that [t]he interest of the unsuccessful bar examinee pales by comparison with the interest of the welfare recipient, or even the disability benefits recipient who was found not to deserve a pre-termination hearing in Mathews.  Lucero v. Ogden, 718 F.2d 355, 357 (10th Cir.1983). ¶ 23 Here too, Mr. McBride's interest is not so great that it required a full hearing prior to his disqualification from the Exam. Mr. McBride was not permanently denied the ability to practice law in Utah but could retake the Exam and follow the Exam procedures. And, as was the case in Lucero, Mr. McBride's interest in taking the Exam pales in comparison with the interests of a welfare recipient or a disability benefits recipient. Moreover, unlike the disability benefits recipient in Mathews, Mr. McBride has no pre-existing benefit to deny since he did not have a professional license to lose. See Lander v. Indus. Comm'n, 894 P.2d 552, 555 (Utah Ct.App.1995) (determining that an individual applying for workers' compensation claims did not have a private interest under Mathews since [t]hese are not benefits to which [the plaintiff] has already been deemed entitled, but ones he hopes to receive). Thus, Mr. McBride's interest is low and did not require a full hearing prior to his disqualification.