In re Robert Grundstein

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the Board of Bar Examiners’ determination that Robert Grundstein failed to establish eligibility for admission to the Vermont bar based on his 2019 application. The Court held that the rules in effect when he applied governed, rejected his statutory, procedural, equitable, and takings arguments, and declined to reach speculative constitutional challenges to the five-year UBE requirement.

Holdings

1. Absent an express provision to the contrary, a bar-admission application is evaluated under the Rules in effect when the application was submitted. Grundstein's 2019 application was therefore governed by the 2019 Rules.
2. The Board correctly determined that Grundstein's 2016 non-UBE score could not satisfy the 2019 requirement for admission by examination and that his 2018 Washington, D.C., UBE score of 266 was insufficient for transferred-score admission.
3. The requirement that an applicant achieve a score of 270 on the UBE to apply for admission by examination is rationally related to Vermont's responsibility to ensure the competence of attorneys admitted to its bar.
4. The Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to consider petitioner's constitutional challenges to the five-year limitation because he had not requested permission to sit for the UBE and therefore presented no actual controversy regarding application of that limitation.
5. The Court declined to apply the ordinary administrative preservation requirement to petitioner's constitutional arguments because the Board is an arm of the Court and the Supreme Court is the original forum for disputes concerning admission to the Vermont bar.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Board properly applied the Vermont Rules of Admission to the Bar in effect when Grundstein submitted his 2019 application.
2. Whether the Rules were unenforceable because petitioner found no record that they had been submitted to or reviewed by the Legislative Committee on Judicial Rules.
3. Whether the 2019 application was a continuation of the 2015 application and therefore governed by the earlier rules.
4. Whether res judicata barred petitioner's claim that the Board was required to evaluate his character and fitness before permitting him to take the bar examination.
5. Whether petitioner's 2016 non-UBE score established Minimum Professional Competence under the current Rules.
6. Whether laches, lenity, or estoppel required application of the earlier rules.
7. Whether petitioner had a constitutionally protected property interest in the continued validity of his 2016 bar score under the Takings Clause.
8. Whether petitioner's constitutional challenges to the five-year UBE limitation presented an actual controversy within the Court's jurisdiction.
9. Whether preservation requirements applied to constitutional arguments raised in an original-jurisdiction bar-admission proceeding.

Disposition

affirmed