In re Murray

I agree that Murray has met her burden of proving she is entitled to a waiver of the education requirement under Rule 4A(3) of the Rules for Admission to the Bar, and therefore I join that portion of the majority opinion. But Murray has failed to establish she is entitled to a waiver of the requirement that she pass the Minnesota bar exam. Specifically, our precedent provides that Murray demonstrate hardship or that her case is exceptional. Because Murray has merely shown inconvenience, she should be treated like any other applicant and be required to pass the bar exam as a condition to her…