Opinion ID: 663929
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Objection Review Policy

Text: 21 Appellant claims the exam objection review process gives less process than is constitutionally due. He claims a license to practice law is an interest to which due process applies; that a kind of review process was provided to Appellant and others like him; that the process provided was begun without any formal petition, was secret and without opportunity to present evidence, a record, or even meaningful arguments by those in Appellant's position; and that applicants might suffer meaningful loss if error in the process occurs. Appellant claims Richardson v. McFadden, 540 F.2d at 752, rev'd, 563 F.2d at 1130, requires some process of review of exam results. Appellant also claims that any process given must meet due process minimums, citing Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56, 77 (1972). 22 Appellees argue that failure to provide any procedure for review of a failing grade does not constitute a denial of due process when the applicant can retake the bar. Tyler, 517 F.2d at 1103-05; Whitfield v. Illinois Bd. of Law Exam., 504 F.2d 474, 477-78 (7th Cir.1974); see Chaney v. State Bar of California, 386 F.2d 962, 966-67 (9th Cir.1967) (dicta), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1011 (1968). The premise of these cases is that a review process is no more effective in correcting inadequate grading than is an applicant's retaking the bar. Tyler, 517 F.2d at 1104-05; Whitfield, 504 F.2d at 478. Appellees contrast failing to pass the bar with a determination of an applicant's moral unfitness, regarding which a hearing is required on request. 23 Though neither party notes it, this court later adopted as its holding the proposition espoused in the Chaney dicta. Sutton v. Lionel, 585 F.2d 400, 403 (9th Cir.1978); see also Giannini v. Real, 911 F.2d 354, 357 (9th Cir.) (citing Sutton and Whitfield approvingly), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1012 (1990). Sutton, therefore, controls. Hawaii has given Appellant all that due process requires. The language from Lindsey v. Normet cited by Appellant, 405 U.S. at 77, applies only to equal protection analysis and is of no use to Appellant, who makes no equal protection argument here.