“Full Faith, Full Bar”: Utah Supreme Court Re-affirms Mandatory Respect for Out-of-State Attorney Discipline and Tightens the Extraordinary-Waiver Standard – Commentary on Marin v. Utah State Bar, 2025 UT 18

Introduction

Marin v. Utah State Bar, 2025 UT 18, is the Utah Supreme Court’s latest pronouncement on two intertwined subjects:

  • the constitutional obligation to give Full Faith and Credit to sister-state judicial proceedings—in this case, an attorney’s disciplinary suspension issued by a New York court in 1998; and
  • the extremely high threshold an applicant must satisfy to obtain a prospective waiver of Utah’s bar-admission rules, particularly those requiring every applicant to be in good standing and free from pending discipline in all jurisdictions where they are admitted.

Attorney Melvin M. Marin, pro se, petitioned for extraordinary relief under Utah R. App. P. 19. He asked the Court to:

  1. declare the New York suspension void and refuse it full faith and credit; or, if that failed,
  2. prospectively waive Utah R. Pro. Prac. 14-704(a)(7)–(8) so that he could seek Utah admission notwithstanding the New York suspension.

In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Pohlman, the Court denied both requests, thereby reinforcing precedent on inter-state judgment recognition and clarifying the demanding “extraordinary” nature of waiver petitions.

Summary of the Judgment

1. The Court held that Utah must recognize and enforce the 1998 New York disciplinary order because:

  • the issuing court had subject-matter and personal jurisdiction; and
  • none of the narrow Full-Faith-and-Credit exceptions (lack of jurisdiction, fraud in obtaining judgment, etc.) applied.

2. Turning to waiver, the Court reiterated the “clear and convincing” standard of Kelly v. Utah State Bar (2017) and Labrum v. Utah State Bar (2024). Marin offered no evidence—let alone “clear and convincing” evidence—that the purposes of rules 14-704(a)(7) and (8) had been satisfied. His petition therefore fell far short of the “extraordinary case” requirement.

The petition for extraordinary relief was denied and dismissed.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

  1. Underwriters Nat’l Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life & Accident & Health Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 455 U.S. 691 (1982) – The leading U.S. Supreme Court case on Full Faith and Credit. Utah relied on it for the rule that a sister-state judgment “should have the same credit, validity, and effect” unless the rendering court lacked jurisdiction.
  2. Van Kleeck Creamery, Inc. v. Western Frozen Prod. Co., 465 P.2d 544 (Utah 1970) – Early Utah authority echoing the same jurisdictional caveat.
  3. Kelly v. Utah State Bar, 2017 UT 6 – Sets the modern “extraordinary waiver” standard: waiver only when the applicant proves, by clear and convincing evidence, that the rule’s purpose is otherwise satisfied.
  4. Labrum v. Utah State Bar, 2024 UT 24 – Re-emphasized the “high bar” for waivers and warned that Rule 14-704 protects Utah citizens from incompetent or unethical practice.
  5. Various New York and federal cases (In re Marin 250 A.D.2d 997 (1998); 158 A.D.3d 889 (2018); Comm. on Prof. Standards v. Marin, 2017 WL 5515854) showing Marin’s repeated—but unsuccessful—attempts to overturn his suspension.

Collectively, these authorities foreclosed Marin’s arguments: the Full Faith and Credit line of cases barred Utah from re-litigating the merits of the New York order; and the waiver precedents demanded an “extraordinary” factual showing Marin could not make.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. Full Faith and Credit Clause Application

  • Threshold Question – Jurisdiction: The Court accepted that it may “inquire into the jurisdictional basis” of the out-of-state judgment. But once the New York federal court immediately remanded Marin’s removal attempt, the New York Appellate Division plainly had subject-matter jurisdiction when it entered the suspension.
  • No Exception Triggered: Marin’s allegations of “fraud, unconscionability, and due-process violations” lacked factual support and, even if true, would not necessarily permit Utah to ignore the judgment under Art. IV §1.

2. Waiver of Admission Rules 14-704(a)(7) & (8)

  • The Court reaffirmed that these rules serve Utah’s core interest in ensuring that only attorneys with “a proven record of ethical, civil, and professional behavior” may practice.
  • To waive them, an applicant must demonstrate—by “clear and convincing evidence”—that the protective purpose has already been served through other means. Marin provided no evidence, instead arguing that New York “will never lift” his suspension. That, the Court said, is exactly why the rules exist.
  • Prospective waiver, before filing an application, is possible in theory but “especially disfavored” where the applicant’s underlying discipline remains in force.

C. Potential Impact

  1. National Reciprocity and Discipline: Utah sends a clear message that attorneys cannot escape active discipline by moving jurisdictions. Expect other states to cite Marin when faced with similar collateral attacks.
  2. Waiver Petitions Narrowed: The opinion tightens the practical availability of waiver. An applicant must now seriously weigh whether their record can meet the “high bar” before petitioning.
  3. Separation of Institutional Roles: By refusing to act as an appellate court over New York’s judiciary, Utah reinforces interstate comity and judicial economy.
  4. Guidance for Pro Se Litigants: The Court subtly instructs would-be petitioners to file proper Rule 23 motions for ancillary relief (e.g., sealing exhibits) and to separate those issues from the merits.

D. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Full Faith and Credit (FFC): A constitutional rule saying that every state must recognize and enforce the valid judgments of every other state as if they were its own.
  • Subject-Matter Jurisdiction: A court’s legal authority to hear the kind of case before it. If absent, the judgment is void and other states need not respect it.
  • Extraordinary Relief (Utah R. App. P. 19): A procedural mechanism—akin to a writ—used when no “plain, speedy, or adequate” remedy exists. The relief and the showing required are both “extraordinary.”
  • Clear and Convincing Evidence: A level of proof greater than a “preponderance” but less than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” It leaves the tribunal with a firm belief in the truth of the factual assertion.
  • Prospective Waiver: Asking the court to suspend or modify a rule before the normal application process begins. Essentially a “permission slip” to ignore a barrier that would otherwise doom the application.

Conclusion

Marin v. Utah State Bar cements two related directives:

  1. Utah will honor out-of-state attorney-discipline orders unless the foreign court plainly lacked jurisdiction; and
  2. The Court will not dilute the protective fabric of Rule 14-704 unless petitioners meet a stringent, evidence-based, extraordinary-case standard.

For practitioners, the case underscores that collateral attacks on decades-old disciplinary orders are unlikely to prevail, and that seeking admission in a new jurisdiction demands first curing—or at least forthrightly confronting—any outstanding disciplinary history. “Full faith” is not a mere courtesy; it is a constitutional command.