Portability of a Score Across Two Jurisdictions
Andre took the UBE in State P and scored 262. State Q requires 260; State R requires 270. Andre wants to be licensed in State R because his employer is there, but his score is below R's cut. He is already admitted in State Q based on the 262. State R offers admission on motion to attorneys admitted in another state for at least three years, provided the attorney's home-state admission was based on a UBE score that meets or exceeds State R's cut score. Andre has been admitted in State Q for only one year. He asks whether he can 'port' his State Q license into State R now, or whether he must retake the exam.
1. Can Andre use his State Q admission to gain admission on motion in State R right now?
Read the worked answer
No, on two independent grounds. First, State R requires three years of admission in the home state; Andre has only one, so he fails the duration requirement regardless of the score. Second, State R's rule requires that the home-state admission be based on a UBE score meeting or exceeding State R's cut (270); Andre's score was 262, below 270. So even after three years, the score-based condition would still fail. The exam point: admission on motion can have both a practice-duration predicate and a score-quality predicate, and Andre must satisfy both; his State Q license does not launder a sub-270 score into State R eligibility.
2. What are Andre's realistic options to become licensed in State R, and what is the trade-off of each?
Read the worked answer
Options: (1) Retake the UBE and score at least 270, then transfer the score to State R (subject to R's age-of-score and direct-transfer rules). This is the surest route but costs time and risk. (2) Wait three years in State Q and then seek admission on motion - but this only works if State R's score predicate can be satisfied; since his 262 is below 270, waiting alone does not cure the score defect unless R's rule is interpreted to look only at the fact of home-state admission rather than the score. He should confirm R's exact wording. (3) Check whether State R has a reciprocity route with State Q that does not import the 270 cut. The trade-off: retaking is costly but decisive; waiting is cheap but may never satisfy the score predicate; reciprocity may not exist. The judgment call is to read R's rule precisely rather than assume 'three years' is the only hurdle.
3. If State R's rule were amended to drop the score predicate and require only three years of admission, how would Andre's timeline change?
Read the worked answer
Then Andre's only obstacle would be the three-year duration, so he could apply roughly two years from now (he has one year; he needs three). He should calendar the earliest eligible filing date and confirm State R measures the three years as of the application date rather than admission date. He should also keep his State Q license active and in good standing, since admission-on-motion rules typically require continuous active practice and good standing; a lapse or inactive status could reset or disqualify the period. The exam point: once the score predicate is removed, the case turns entirely on the duration clock and maintaining clean standing.