Mich. R. Bd. Law Examiners 5

As amended through September 25, 2024

Rule 5 - Admission Without Examination

(A) Definitions. For purposes of this rule, the following definitions apply.

(a) "Full-time" is 21 or more hours per week.

(b) "Instructor" includes a clinical instructor. A clinical instructor is someone whose responsibilities include teaching and supervising law students in a clinic organized by an accredited law school.

(B) An applicant for admission without examination must

(1) qualify under Rules 1 and 2(B);

(2) be licensed to practice law in the United States, its territories, or the District of Columbia;

(3) be a member in good standing of the Bar where admitted;

(4) intend to practice law in Michigan, or to be a full-time instructor in a reputable and qualified Michigan law school; and

(5) have, after being licensed and for 3 of the 5 years preceding the application,

(a) actively practiced law as a principal business or occupation in a jurisdiction where admitted (the practice of law under a special certificate pursuant to Rule 5[F] or as a special legal consultant pursuant to Rule 5[G] does not qualify as the practice of law required by this rule);

(b) been employed as a full-time instructor in a reputable and qualified law school in the United States, its districts, or its territories; or

(c) been on active duty (other than for training or reserve duty) in the United States armed forces as a judge advocate, legal specialist, or legal officer. The judge advocate general (or a comparable officer) or delegate must certify the assignment and the inclusive dates.

The Board may, for good cause, increase the 5-year period. Active duty in the United States armed forces not satisfying Rule 5(B)(5)(c) may be excluded when computing the 5-year period.

(6) Complete any Michigan Law Component requirement set out in Rule 3a.

(C) An applicant must submit the National Conference of Bar Examiners' Request for Preparation of a Character Report along with other material required by the Board and payment of the fees.

(D) An applicant not satisfying Rule 5(B) will be notified and given an opportunity to appear before the Board. The applicant may use the Board's subpoena power.

(E) An applicant for whom a certificate of admission is issued must take the oath and become a member of the State Bar of Michigan within three years of the date the certificate is issued. Otherwise, the applicant must reapply.

(F) An attorney

(1) ineligible for admission without examination because of the inability to satisfy Rule 5(B)(5); and

(2) practicing law in an institutional setting, e.g., counsel to a corporation or instructor in a law school, may apply to the Board for a special certificate of qualification to practice law. The applicant must satisfy Rule 5(B)(1)-(3), and comply with Rule 5(C). The Board may then issue the special certificate, which will entitle the attorney to continue current employment if the attorney becomes an active member of the State Bar. If the attorney leaves the current employment, the special certificate automatically expires; if the attorney's new employment is also institutional, the attorney may reapply for another special certificate.

(G) Special Legal Consultants.

(a) To qualify for admission without examination to practice as a special legal consultant one must:

(1) be admitted to practice in a foreign country and have actually practiced, and be in good standing, as an attorney or counselor at law or the equivalent in such foreign country for at least 3 of the 5 years immediately preceding the application; and

(2) possess the good moral character and general fitness requisite for a member of the bar of this state; and

(3) fulfill the requirements of MCL 600.934 and 600.937; and

(4) be a resident of this or another state of the United States, its territories or the District of Columbia and maintain an office in this state for the practice of law; and

(5) be over 18 years of age.

(b) In considering whether to license an applicant to practice pursuant to Rule 5(G), the Board may in its discretion take into account whether a member of the bar of this state would have a reasonable and practical opportunity to establish an office for the giving of legal advice to clients in the applicant's country of admission (as referred to in Rule 5[G][a][1]), if there is pending with the Board a request to take this factor into account from a member of the bar of this state actively seeking to establish such an office in that country which raises a serious question as to the adequacy of the opportunity for such a member to establish such an office.

(c) An applicant for a license as a special legal consultant shall submit to the Board:

(1) a certificate from the authority in such foreign country having final jurisdiction over professional discipline, certifying as to the applicant's admission to practice and the date thereof and as to the good standing of such attorney or counselor at law or the equivalent, together with a duly authenticated English translation of such certificate if it is not in English; and

(2) a letter of recommendation from one of the judges of the highest law court or intermediate appellate court of such foreign country, together with a duly authenticated English translation of such letter if it is not in English; and

(3) the National Conference of Bar Examiners questionnaire and affidavit along with the payment of the requisite fee and such other evidence of the applicant's educational and professional qualifications, good moral character and general fitness, and compliance with the requirements of Rule 5(G)(a)(1)-(5) as the Board may require; and

(4) shall execute and file with the Executive Director of the State Board of Law Examiners, in such form and manner as the Board may prescribe,

(i) a duly acknowledged instrument in writing setting forth the special legal consultant's address in the state of Michigan and designating the Executive Director of the State Board of Law Examiners an agent upon whom process may be served, with like effect as if served personally upon the special legal consultant, in any action or proceeding thereafter brought against the special legal consultant and arising out of or based upon any legal services rendered or offered to be rendered by the special legal consultant within or to residents of the state of Michigan whenever after due diligence service cannot be made upon the special legal consultant at such address or at such new address in the state of Michigan as the special legal consultant shall have filed in the office of the Executive Director of the State Board of Law Examiners by means of a duly acknowledged supplemental instrument in writing; and

(ii) the special legal consultant's commitment to notify the Executive Director of the State Board of Law Examiners of any resignation or revocation of the special legal consultant's admission to practice in the foreign country of admission, or of any censure, suspension or expulsion in respect of such admission.

Service of process on the Executive Director of the State Board of Law Examiners shall be made by personally delivering to and leaving with the Executive Director, or with a deputy or assistant authorized by the Assistant Secretary to receive such service, at the Executive Director's office, duplicate copies of such process together with a fee of $10.00. Service of process shall be complete when the Executive Director has been so served. The Executive Director shall promptly send one of such copies to the special legal consultant to whom the process is directed, by certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to such special legal consultant at the address specified by the special legal consultant as aforesaid.

(d) A person licensed to practice as a special legal consultant must maintain active membership in the State Bar of Michigan and must discharge the responsibilities of state bar membership and is authorized to render professional legal advice:

(1) on the law of the foreign country where the legal consultant is admitted to practice;

(2) may use the title "special legal consultant" either singly or in connection with the authorized title or firm name in the foreign country of the legal consultant's admission to practice, provided that in each case the name of such foreign country be identified.

Mich. R. Bd. Law Examiners 5

The Rules for the Board of Law Examiners were amended effective 8/1/2016; amended October 13, 2021, effective 3/1/2022; amended December 15, 2021, effective 8/1/2022; amended March 22, 2023, effective 5/1/2023; amended May 3, 2023, effective 5/3/2023.

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.

Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2021-40): The amendment of Rule 5 adds a new subrule (A) that defines the terms "full-time" and "instructor" to clarify that clinical instructors may be admitted to the bar without examination.

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