Skip to content
A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

The Grade Is Incomplete

The full Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a single justice’s denial of an applicant’s petition to sit for the Bar examination

The single justice observed that persons desiring admission to the bar of the Commonwealth are subject to the requirements of S.J.C. Rule 3:01 and that Murray’s filing did not comply with the rule.

The issue

Among other things, an applicant to the bar is required to file a “Petition for Admission accompanied by the recommendation of a member of the bar”; “Petitioner’s Statement”; “Authorization Form”; “Law School Certificate”; “Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination Score Report that sets forth a passing scaled score that meets or exceeds the Massachusetts required score”; “Two (2) Letters of Recommendation for Admission”; and “Current Certificate(s) of Admission and Good Standing from the highest judicial court of each state, district, territory or foreign country to which the petitioner is admitted, if applicable.” S.J.C. Rule 3:01, § 1.1. Because Murray’s filing did not include all the materials required by the rule, his present application is incomplete.

Possible waiver

We recognize that the court has authority to waive particular requirements of S.J.C. Rule 3:01 and that it has exercised that authority in appropriate circumstances. See, e.g., Novak v. Board of Bar Examiners, 397 Mass. 270, 274 (1986). In the county court, Murray’s “declaration” expressly sought a waiver of the provisions of S.J.C. Rule 3:01, § 3.3, which concerns the requirement that a petitioner successfully complete the Massachusetts bar examination. He also suggested that he is qualified to receive an honorary law degree. Murray did not, however, seek a waiver of other requirements of S.J.C. Rule 3:01. In the circumstances, there was no error in the single justice’s determination that Murray’s filing did not comply with the rule. See Novak, 397 Mass. at 271. We decline to consider for the first time on appeal whether, as Murray now argues, the rule’s requirements should be broadly waived. 

(Mike Frisch)