Summary
The D.C. Circuit affirmed the Tax Court’s denial of Paul Merritt Christiansen’s application for admission to practice as a non-attorney and his related petition for declaratory relief. The court held that Christiansen had not shown a clerical scoring error or an unfair examination process, that due process did not require admission based on the MPRE or a hearing, and that the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested declaratory relief.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Tax Court was required to admit Christiansen despite his failure to pass its non-attorney examination because other test-takers allegedly used unauthorized materials.
- Whether due process required the Tax Court to conduct a hearing regarding a possible clerical error in scoring the examination.
- Whether the Tax Court violated due process by allegedly misleading Christiansen about preservation or destruction of his examination records.
- Whether due process required the Tax Court to accept Christiansen's passing MPRE score in place of the ethics portion of its own examination.
- Whether the Tax Court had jurisdiction to entertain Christiansen's petition for declaratory relief.
Holdings
- The Tax Court properly denied Christiansen's application for admission because he failed the required examination and did not demonstrate a clerical error in the scoring of his own test.
- Due process did not require the Tax Court to hold a hearing because it offered Christiansen access to the examination, his answers, and the score for each answer, enabling him to identify and challenge any clerical scoring error.
- Christiansen was not denied due process by the Tax Court's handling of the examination records because the records were preserved and made available for review, and he failed to show prejudice.
- The Tax Court was not required to accept Christiansen's passing MPRE score as a substitute for the ethics portion of its own examination.
- The Tax Court correctly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain Christiansen's petition for declaratory relief.
Key quotations
“But Christiansen has presented no evidence, beyond his own representations, that the test was administered unfairly.” (*2)
“The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and it may grant declaratory relief in only limited circumstances.” (*3)
Factual background
Christiansen applied in November 2008 for admission to practice before the Tax Court as a non-attorney and failed the required written examination. He alleged that other test-takers had used unauthorized materials, but he never alleged or demonstrated a clerical error in the scoring of his own examination. He also sought to substitute a passing Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination score for the ethics portion of the Tax Court examination and filed a petition for declaratory relief.
Procedural history
Christiansen failed the Tax Court's required non-attorney examination. After the Tax Court declined to reconsider the result because he had not alleged a clerical scoring error, he petitioned for declaratory relief and sought admission based principally on allegations that other examinees had used unauthorized materials. The Tax Court denied relief, concluding that Christiansen had not shown a scoring error and that it lacked jurisdiction over the declaratory-relief petition. The D.C. Circuit affirmed.