GR 9 COVER SHEET

Suggested Amendments

ADMISSION AND PRACTICE RULES (APR)

Rule 3(c)

Submitted by the Washington State Bar Association

A.           Name of Proponent:

Washington State Bar Association

B.           Spokesperson:

Sunitha Anjilvel, Acting WSBA President

Terra Nevitt, Executive Director

WSBA Staff Contact:

Renata de Carvalho Garcia, Chief Regulatory Counsel

Washington State Bar Association

1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 600

Seattle, WA 98101-2539

renatag@wsba.org • (206) 733-5912

C.           Purpose:

The primary purpose of the suggested amendments to APR 3(c)(2) is to reduce barriers to admission to the practice of law for lawyer spouses of active United States military servicemembers. At its July 19, 2024 meeting, the WSBA Board of Governors voted (8 to 1) to recommend these suggested amendments to the Washington Supreme Court.

Lawyers who are spouses of active servicemembers in the United States military often need to relocate because their servicemember spouse is transferred to a new military station. Because of the relocation, the lawyer spouse or “military spouse” often needs to seek admission to practice law in multiple jurisdictions. Applying for admission to practice law is expensive both in terms of direct costs and in terms of lost income while awaiting admission. In 2019, to reduce the time and expense associated with applying for admission, the Washington Supreme Court adopted the “Military Spouse Admission by Motion” pathway for admission as a lawyer under APR 3(c)(2).

The military spouse admission by motion is similar to general admission by motion. However, unlike admission by motion, the WSBA Admissions Policies do not require the investigation and verification of the information to be done by the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE); instead, it is done in-house by WSBA staff resulting in a faster and less expensive process for military spouse applicants. The NCBE investigation takes approximately four to six months to complete and the NCBE collects an additional fee from the applicant which is currently $550. Therefore, military spouse applicants become licensed relatively quickly while at the same time saving the cost of the NCBE investigation fee.

In addition, to qualify for military spouse admission by motion, the applicant cannot qualify for general admission by motion nor admission by UBE score transfer. Essentially, that means the only people who can qualify for military spouse admission by motion are people who do not have a transferrable UBE score and who have less than three years of practice experience. With 41 jurisdictions administering the UBE, this significantly reduces the population who could qualify for military spouse admission. It could also apply to a small pool of people who have an old UBE score and have not been practicing recently.

Finally, the Washington Supreme Court is considering suggested amendments to APR 3(c)(1) that would reduce the active legal experience for general admission by motion to one year. That will further reduce the pool of applicants who could qualify for military spouse admission by motion because that will eliminate the military spouse option for anyone with more than one year of practice in the preceding three years.

The suggested amendments would remove the criteria that the military spouse applicant not qualify for admission by motion and not qualify for admission by UBE score transfer (APR 3(c)(2)(B) & (C). Removal of these barriers will result in more equitable access for military spouses to the practice of law by allowing all military spouses who would otherwise qualify under the rule to take advantage of this more affordable and faster pathway to admission.

D.           Hearing: A hearing is not requested.

E.           Expedited Consideration: Expedited consideration is not requested.

F.            Supporting Material: None.