Mich. R. Bd. Law Examiners 4

As amended through September 25, 2024

Rule 4 - Post-Examination Procedures; Appeal; Application for Re-Examination

(A) Except where a mathematical or clerical error has been made, scores determined in accordance with these rules shall be final. In the unlikely event of a mathematical or clerical error, the Board shall issue a corrected score.

(B) The Executive Director will release examination results at the Board's direction. Any blue books will be kept for 3 months after results are released.

(C) An applicant who has failed and seeks to retake the UBE in Michigan shall file an Application for Reexamination. An applicant for re-examination may obtain an application from the Executive Director. The application must be filed at least sixty (60) days before the examination. If the applicant's character and fitness clearance is more than three (3) years old, the applicant must be approved by the State Bar Committee on Character and Fitness.

(D) A passing bar examination score is valid for three years.

Mich. R. Bd. Law Examiners 4

The Rules for the Board of Law Examiners were amended effective August 1, 2016; amended January 20, 2021, effective 5/1/2021; amended October 13, 2021, effective 3/1/2022; amended December 15, 2021, effective 8/1/2022.

Staff comment: The amendments implement a Uniform Bar Examination in Michigan with implementation set for the February 2023 administration of the bar examination. The original implementation target date was the July 2022 bar examination. However, that target date was predicated on two things: enactment of accompanying legislation and implementation of a Michigan law component in the examination itself. Neither of those things have occurred, thus, requiring a deferment in the implementation of the UBE in Michigan.

The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of an amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.

CAVANAGH, J. (concurring). I concur in the Court's order adopting amendments to Rule 2, Rule 3, Rule 4, Rule 5, Rule 6, and Rule 7 and adding Rule 3a and Rule 4a to the Rules for the Board of Law Examiners. As a result, Michigan now joins the ranks of 38 other jurisdictions who utilize the Uniform Bar Examination. This change seeks to ensure a standard level of competency for lawyers across the country, allows for score portability, and makes the practice of law more accessible to law school graduates facing employment challenges and rising debt. I write to briefly address the concerns expressed by my dissenting colleague. First, while I appreciate the reservation in regard to whether the practical-skills-oriented Multistate Performance Test (MPT) portion of the Uniform Bar Examination is adequate to assess an applicant's ability to practice law in the real world, the same concerns are certainly present in any standardized test that operates under artificial time constraints. While not a perfect measure of competence, the MPT is the best tool we possess at present to gauge practical lawyering skills beyond the ability to memorize and apply principles of law. Second, I emphasize that today's rule change neither prohibits nor discourages the Board of Law Examiners (BLE) from adopting a Michigan-specific component to administer in addition to the Uniform Bar Examination. As Rule 3a provides, an applicant to the State Bar of Michigan will be required to take any Michigan law component required by the BLE in order to be admitted to practice in this state. In keeping with the concerns expressed by my colleague, I urge the BLE to ensure that the bar examination will continue to serve the interests of new attorneys as well as their future Michigan clientele.

BERNSTEIN, J. (dissenting). I do not support the implementation of the Uniform Bar Examination in Michigan for two reasons. First, although I understand the purpose behind a practical-skills-oriented performance test, I struggle to understand how testing those skills under the artificial time constraints set by a standardized test would allow the Board of Law Examiners to meaningfully assess an applicant's ability to practice. Second, it is yet unclear whether the Board of Law Examiners will adopt a Michigan-specific component to an otherwise multistate test. I strongly believe that the Michigan-specific essay component of our current bar examination promotes a comprehensive introduction to Michigan law. Any changes we make to the bar examination should keep in mind the best interests of both new attorneys and the public they will be serving; I believe both groups stand to lose if we fail to focus on Michigan law in the Michigan bar examination.