Kelly v Utah State Bar

Kelly appealed the denial of his bar admissions application and petitioned for waiver of the requirement he take additional law courses. The Court granted his petition. It held that applicants that seek a waiver of an admissions rule must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the purposes of the rule to be waived have been satisfied. It held this approach is consistent with the constitutional duty to regulate bar admissions, the duty to protect the public and consistent with other rules of admission and precedent. It held waiver of rule 14-704(c)(5)’s requirement that Kelly, a University of Toronto law graduate, take a specified course of courses at an ABA accredited law school was not supported by the argument that Toronto is an equivalent to ABA accredited law school’s at it does not provide the same level of immersion in US law, but, Kelly’s 13 years as a practicing attorney in Massachusetts exposed Kelly to US law to an extent that the rule’s purpose is satisfied and that he demonstrated the skill, knowledge and ability to ethically represent clients in Utah and Utah already allows graduates form unaccredited US law schools to sit for the Utah bar exam after 10 years of practice and allowing Kelly to sit for the exam is consistent with that practice… The Court noted that only extraordinary cases will justify waiver of admissions rules and warned future applicants that the burden is heavy and success in a waiver petition is matter committed to the Court’s discretion.

Johnson v Office of Professional Conduct

Johnson appealed the district court order suspending form the practice of law. The Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction holding the order was a final judgment under Rules of Civil Procedure 54 and 58A as it was electronically signed by the district court and filed by the clerk and suspension orders are appealable under the rules of lawyer discipline and Johnson filed his petition for review after the 30-day deadline.