No Right To Regrade Failed Bar Exam

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of a regrading request of a bar applicant

The petitioner, Guy-Serge Semionov Douzan, appeals from a judgment of the county court denying relief from a report of non-qualification for admission to the Massachusetts bar. We affirm.

Douzan filed a petition for admission to the bar in December 2022. He sat for the bar examination in February 2023 and did not achieve a passing score. His score also did not entitle him to a “reread” of his written answers. The Board of Bar Examiners (board) accordingly filed a report of non-qualification. This court dismissed his petition for admission to the bar pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 3:01, § 5.3, as appearing in 478 Mass. 1301 (2018). Douzan filed a petition seeking relief from the report of non-qualification. He alleged that his answers to three essay questions had been graded incorrectly, that he was entitled to either full or partial credit as to each answer, and that if these answers had been graded correctly, he would have received a passing score on the examination. The dismissal of Douzan’s petition was stayed, and his request for relief was referred to the single justice. The single justice, after reviewing the materials submitted by Douzan and by the board, denied relief without a hearing. There was no error.

As an applicant for the Massachusetts bar, Douzan “is entitled to due process of law in the testing of his qualifications.” Mead, petitioner, 372 Mass. 253, 256, cert. denied, 434 U.S. 858 (1977). However, he is not entitled to a rereading or a regrading of his examination. Id. “Nor is [he] entitled, in an attempt to show that his examination was wrongly graded, to the due process provided by an adversary hearing with the right to introduce evidence before an impartial fact finder.” Id. “Courts have consistently refused to regrade examinations, usually on the premise that the right of reexamination is a sufficient guaranty of fairness.” Id. Douzan has an “unqualified right” to be reexamined. Id.

Accordingly, the single justice neither committed an error of law nor otherwise abused his discretion by denying relief.

(Mike Frisch)