## Facts

- Nevada Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 51(3) required bar applicants to hold a J.D. from an ABA-accredited law school.
- Graduates of the Nevada School of Law (NSL), a non-ABA-accredited institution, sought eligibility for Nevada bar admission.
- In an earlier proceeding, the Nevada Supreme Court denied a blanket waiver of SCR 51(3) but allowed NSL graduates to sit for the bar under added coursework and a deferred-admission plan tied to NSL obtaining ABA provisional accreditation by August 31, 1988.
- NSL applied for ABA provisional accreditation in September 1986; the ABA denied the application, citing faculty retention and long-term financial stability concerns.
- NSL attempted to transfer its operations to the University of Nevada in May 1987; the effort failed and NSL closed, making compliance with the accreditation condition impossible.
- Petitioners (NSL graduates from 1985–1987) had generally passed the Nevada bar examination and claimed they reasonably relied on the court’s prior admission framework.
- The State Bar of Nevada did not oppose the requested waiver.

## Issues

1. Whether the Nevada Supreme Court should waive SCR 51(3)’s ABA-accreditation requirement for specified NSL graduates who passed the Nevada bar examination and satisfied court-imposed conditions, despite NSL never obtaining ABA provisional accreditation.

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court granted the petition.
- The court waived SCR 51(3) as applied to the petitioners.
- The court directed admission of petitioners who had passed the Nevada bar examination and otherwise met all requirements for membership in the State Bar of Nevada.
- The court characterized the relief as limited to the specific group of applicants and facts presented, not a general abandonment of SCR 51(3).

## Legal Principles

- A state supreme court retains inherent authority over bar admissions and may modify or waive its own admission rules when justice requires.
- ABA accreditation may serve as a reliable indicator of minimum legal education standards, but it is not the sole permissible measure of competence for bar admission.
- Where a court has previously structured a conditional path to eligibility and applicants reasonably relied on that framework, equity may support case-specific relief when later events beyond applicants’ control prevent technical compliance.
- Passage of the state bar examination and satisfaction of additional court-imposed educational requirements can support a finding that admission will not compromise the public-protection purpose of educational prerequisites.

## Conclusion

The Nevada Supreme Court waived its ABA-accreditation requirement for certain Nevada School of Law graduates who passed the bar and complied with court-imposed conditions, holding that the court’s admission authority and equitable considerations justified a narrow, applicant-specific waiver despite the school’s closure and failure to obtain provisional accreditation.


Bennett v. State Bar of Nev., 746 P.2d 143 (Nev. 1987)