Online law grad has 'truly extraordinary' case meriting waiver of Utah admission rules, top state court says
A graduate of an unaccredited online law school may take the bar exam in Utah, even though she did not satisfy a requirement for 10 years of experience in another jurisdiction before admission, the Utah Supreme Court has ruled. (Image from Shutterstock)
Updated: A graduate of an unaccredited online law school may take the bar exam in Utah, even though she did not satisfy a requirement for 10 years of experience in another jurisdiction before admission, the Utah Supreme Court has ruled in a 3-2 decision.
Bar applicant Linzi Labrum is “one of the rare applicants” whose case for admission is “truly extraordinary,” the Utah Supreme Court said in a July 18 opinion noted by the Legal Profession Blog.
“The circumstances and choices that shaped her education and experience are distinct and now, because of changed standards for online law schools, unlikely to be replicated,” the state supreme court said in an opinion by Chief Justice Matthew B. Durrant.
Labrum is a graduate of Concord Law School at Purdue University Global, an online law school that does not have ABA accreditation. The school did not receive accreditation in its home state of California until after Labrum’s graduation.
Utah professional conduct rules require graduates of unaccredited law schools to practice law in another state for 10 years before becoming eligible to take the Utah bar exam.
The rules also set minimum standards for non-ABA-approved law schools whose graduates take the 10-year route to the bar exam. The schools must be accredited in their home-state jurisdiction, must provide a legal education substantially equivalent to accredited law schools, and must not grant degrees based on internet study.
Labrum wanted to go to law school ever since she graduated from the University of Utah in 2000, according to the opinion. In 2013, she enrolled in Concord Law School. She graduated from the four-year program in 2017.
Labrum chose Concord Law School because she lived with her spouse and four minor children in Roosevelt, Utah, which is more than a two-hour drive away from the nearest brick-and-mortar law school. Labrum was the main caregiver for her family, and a daily four-hour commute would have conflicted with her responsibilities, the Utah Supreme Court said.
After graduation, Labrum worked as a law clerk and started her a mediation business. In 2020, she passed the California bar exam, the only one available to those with her degree. The California bar admission allowed Labrum to represent clients in Utah as a supervised pro bono attorney. Working under the guidance of a legal services attorney, Labrum represented several clients in her area in domestic-relations matters.
The ABA has changed its accreditation rules for online legal programs since Labrum chose Concord Law School, the Utah Supreme Court said.
“When Labrum was searching for a law school in 2014, the ABA permitted law schools to administer only 15 credits worth of classes online,” the state supreme court said. “As graduation from a JD program usually requires approximately 90 credits, this meant that students needed to take classes on campus for the vast majority of their degree.”
The ABA has twice increased the number of permissible online credits. Under the latest rules, law students can study remotely for up to half the hours required for their degree, the Utah Supreme Court said. As it changed the rules, the ABA also granted permission to specific schools to offer hybrid or fully online JDs.
Concord has not received ABA accreditation, but it has been accredited by California since 2020.
The Utah Supreme Court noted Labrum’s work experience, the letters of recommendation from lawyers who supervised her work, and “her demonstrable commitment to working in an area of Utah that is legally underserved.”
Justice Diana Hagen dissented in an opinion joined by Justice Jill M. Pohlman. Labrum’s “education and experience fall far short of our rules’ requirements,” the dissent said.
“Our rules of admission are not secret, and law school applicants have a duty to understand the admission requirements of the jurisdiction in which they wish to practice,” Hagen wrote.
The dissent noted that the state supreme court invited Labrum to petition for a rule change seven years ago when she first sought a waiver of the rules blocking her admission. Pursuing that option “would benefit all similarly situated applicants and would allow us to incorporate feedback from various stakeholders and community members,” the dissent said.
Emily Adams, one of the lawyers who represented Labrum, gave a statement to the ABA Journal.
“We are thrilled for Ms. Labrum,” Adams said. “We thought the Utah Supreme Court carefully analyzed the law and Ms. Labrum’s circumstances, and the majority correctly concluded that she had met the high bar for receiving a waiver of the rules. … With the waiver, she can take the bar examination and seek admittance to the bar after she passes.”
See also:
Will the prestige of Purdue University help Concord Law?
Updated July 23 at 11:30 a.m. to add the comment from Emily Adams.
