Dr. Perry Spann has escalated his legal challenge against the National Conference of Bar Examiners to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filing an appeal that names more than a dozen individual defendants alongside the organization itself.
The appeal, filed Feb. 12 under case number 24-2083, stems from a district court case in New Mexico and represents a broad challenge to the NCBE, the organization responsible for developing and administering bar examinations used by most U.S. jurisdictions to license attorneys.
Spann's appeal targets not only the NCBE as an institution but also its Board of Trustees and Officers as a collective entity. Individual defendants include the organization's top leadership, with President and CEO Judith Gundersen named alongside current Chair Suzanne K. Richards and Chair-Elect Timothy Y. Wong.
The lengthy defendant list reflects the hierarchical structure of the NCBE's governance. Immediate Past Chair Hulett H. Askew, Secretary John J. McAlary, and General Counsel Brad Gilbert are named individually and in their official capacities. Additional officers and trustees named include Scott Bales, Arlene Y. Coleman, Solomon Oliver Jr., Augustin Rivera Jr., Darin B. Scheer, Anthony R. Simon, Ann A. Scott Timmer, and Marilyn J. Wellington.
The case also names the New Mexico Board of Bar Examiners and Sophie Martin, identified as Director of Communications, Education, and Outreach. This inclusion of state-level bar examining authorities alongside the national organization suggests Spann's challenge may address both national policies and their local implementation.
The NCBE plays a central role in legal education and attorney licensing across the United States. The organization develops the Multistate Bar Examination, the Multistate Essay Examination, and the Multistate Performance Test, which are used by jurisdictions nationwide as components of their bar admission requirements.
The organization also provides character and fitness investigation services and maintains databases used in the attorney admission process. Its policies and procedures directly affect thousands of law school graduates seeking admission to practice law each year.
While the specific claims in Spann's case are not detailed in the available court filings, the broad scope of defendants suggests the challenge may address systemic issues within the bar examination process. The inclusion of both institutional defendants and individual officers indicates potential claims that require personal accountability alongside organizational reform.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming, and portions of Montana and North Dakota, will now review the district court's handling of the case. The court's jurisdiction over New Mexico explains the appeal's path to this particular circuit.
Cases challenging bar examination procedures have historically faced significant legal hurdles. Courts have generally recognized the states' broad authority to regulate attorney admission and have deferred to bar examining authorities' professional judgment in setting standards and procedures.
However, successful challenges have occurred when plaintiffs demonstrated violations of due process, equal protection, or disability accommodation requirements. The Americans with Disabilities Act has been invoked in several bar examination cases, particularly regarding testing accommodations and accessibility.
The timing of this appeal comes as the legal profession continues to examine bar examination requirements and their effectiveness in measuring attorney competence. Some jurisdictions have modified their bar admission requirements in recent years, with a few adopting alternative pathways to licensure.
The NCBE has faced various criticisms over the years, including questions about examination security, accommodation procedures, and the relationship between bar exam performance and actual practice competence. The organization has also dealt with challenges related to examination administration, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic when many jurisdictions modified their testing procedures.
Spann's case will now proceed through the federal appellate process, with briefing schedules and oral argument dates to be determined by the Tenth Circuit. The court will review the district court's decision and determine whether any legal errors occurred in the lower court's handling of the case.
The outcome could have implications beyond Spann's individual case, particularly if the appellate court addresses broader questions about bar examination procedures or the NCBE's role in attorney licensing. Given the organization's national influence, any significant legal precedent emerging from this case could affect bar admission processes across multiple jurisdictions.
The case represents one of the more comprehensive challenges to the NCBE's operations in recent years, with its extensive defendant list suggesting an attempt to address multiple aspects of the organization's governance and operations.