Utah Joins List of States Seeking to Offer Alternative Path for Licensing Law School Graduates
Utah wants to join the list of states permitting law school graduates to obtain their licenses to practice law without taking the dreaded bar exam, possibly signaling a shift in how states view attorney licensing methods.
The Utah Supreme Court recently disclosed a plan to allow graduates of accredited law schools to practice law in their respective states after completing 240 hours of supervised legal practice. This supervision must come from a licensed attorney. The bar exam is not going anywhere, though. Law school graduates can still opt to take the test if they choose to and become licensed the traditional way.
Public Feedback
The Utah Supreme Court's plan is not yet final. The court is receiving public feedback on the proposal until December 19, 2024. Utah's proposal comes when other states are also considering or offering alternative licensing methods. The movement started gaining steam during and after the pandemic.
During COVID-19, many law schools granted law graduates temporary diploma privileges, which allowed graduates to practice law without taking and passing the bar exam, for a time. The Utah Supreme Court's proposal, however, would be permanent.
The National Conference of Bar Examiners, the nonprofit organization that develops the bar exam and provides testing services for state bars, has not yet commented on the matter.
Oregon's Bar Exam Reform
Utah is not alone in reconsidering legal licensing requirements. In 2023, the state bar of Oregon began allowing its law graduates to become licensed via an apprenticeship model, followed by the state of Washington, which adopted a similar strategy.
Arizona is also considering an alternative path to licensure for law graduates who do not pass the bar exam. This program would entail practical skills, among other requirements.
Not Unanimous Among States
Some states are rejecting such proposals. For example, in October 2024, the California Supreme Court rejected a similar plan. It would have required California law school graduates to work for a licensed attorney for six months and to submit a portfolio of their legal work for review and judgment.
Some states see California's rejection as a blow to the movement of alternative licensure because it is one of the largest states in the country. The California Court cited ethics and practical concerns when it rejected the initiative.
Other states assert that the bar exam may not be optimal for assessing an attorney's competency.
Practicing attorneys rarely use much of the material on the bar exam in their day-to-day work. When practicing law, research skills offer a better path to success than memorizing key areas of the law. Proponents of alternative paths to licensure believe that the bar exam does not test the essential aspects of being an attorney.
Concerns About Fairness
Lastly, proponents of alternative paths to licensure raised essential concerns about disparities in bar exam test scores between white and minority candidates.
For example, the bar exam has historically presented challenges for international students, who do not receive the same education as American students nor have the time to prepare for the exam or purchase a study course for thousands of dollars.
Under Utah's proposed plan, graduates would have to complete 240 hours of practice under a licensed attorney, fulfill additional coursework during law school, and pass a performance test, which is currently part of most bar exams.
While the future of legal licensing is uncertain, the trend shows some states are moving toward allowing their law graduates to become licensed in more than one way.
Related Resources:
- Six-Figure Salaries or Six-Figure Debt? New Data Questions if Law School is Worth It (FindLaw's Practice of Law)
- California Introduces a Competitor to the NCBE: Kaplan (FindLaw's Practice of Law)
- Arizona Tackles Attorney Shortage by Making Bar Passage Easier (FindLaw's Practice of Law)
