NYSBA to Study if Move to Uniform Bar Exam Led to a Rise in Lawyers Unprepared to Practice
'To me, it is unfathomable that practitioners who plan to practice in New York would start their careers without the most basic knowledge of the rules that govern almost every aspect of practice in the New York State Courts,' said state Supreme Court Justice Barry Ostrager of the commercial division.
April 01, 2019 at 03:00 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
Responding to anecdotal evidence that new lawyers don't understand the rules for practicing in New York courts, the state bar association is announcing Monday that it's creating a task force to study whether the adoption of the Uniform Bar Exam is responsible.
Presiding Justice Alan Scheinkman of the Appellate Division, Second Department, and Eileen Millett, former co-chair of NYSBA's committee on legal education and admission to the bar, will chair the study group.
“We don't approach this from a point of a prejudgment,” Scheinkman said. ”We're not certain there is a problem. We're not certain there isn't a problem. We're trying to find out about it.”
What is clear is this: Nearly three years after the test debuted, some judges, lawyers and educators are bemoaning the impact. In meetings and lectures, judges are talking openly about the lack of knowledge possessed by lawyers appearing before them.
No one knows whether the perceived deficiencies are caused by the lack of rigor of the Uniform Bar Exam itself, deficiencies in the 50 multiple choice question open-book test on New York law that accompanies the multistate test, or the precipitous drop in the percentage of students studying New York practice.
At one time, 80 to 90 percent of students at some New York law schools would take a course in New York practice; some law schools say that number has declined to less than 20 percent.
Earlier this month during a lecture at Fordham School of Law, state Supreme Court Justice Barry Ostrager of the commercial division said he was shocked by the situation.
“To me, it is unfathomable that practitioners who plan to practice in New York would start their careers without the most basic knowledge of the rules that govern almost every aspect of practice in the New York state courts, he said.
“By contrast, courses on Federal Practice and Federal Jurisdiction are very popular in law school. But, a much higher percentage of the cases that New York practitioners handle are venued in New York Supreme Court, not federal court,” he said.
He said his law clerks receive half a dozen calls a day from lawyers asking for information that they should know or easily be able to find in the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules. These new lawyers don't know, for instance, not to serve both a bill of particulars and a set of interrogatories on their adversaries, he said.
“If students are no longer taking NY practice, then we really have lost something of value,” said Millett, who added that knowledge of New York law is necessary for the state courts to remain a pre-eminent destination for settling international commercial transactions.
Millett, a partner at Phillips Nizer, added that the changing economics of the profession is also having an impact on the lack of preparation judges are encountering. With more students going to law school, the competition has intensified and some can't find jobs in the kinds of firms that train beginning lawyers before sending them to court.
“We've had concerns right from the get-go,” said New York State Bar Association president Michael Miller. “The state bar had recommended that the UBE not be instituted as proposed and that there be a two-year study since it would be a historic departure.”
When the proposal to adopt the Uniform Bar Exam was made in 2014, the state bar expressed concern that the change might worsen the disparity between how students of different races performed. The association was also concerned right from the start about the impact of the switch on knowledge of New York law and professional practice.
“There are nuances in New York practice that are the difference between being ready and having to learn some pretty elementary things when you come out of law school,” he said.
St. John's University School of Law Dean Michael Simons said that changing what you test has had a significant impact on what law school students study.
“Students want to pass the bar exam and they are rational consumers and it's to be expected that students will arrange their academic program to best prepare themselves for the bar,” he said. “There's no question there's a relationship between what students will be asked to demonstrate on the licensing exam and what they're going put their energy into in law school.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllStatute of Limitations Shrivels $5M Jury Award to Less than $1M, 8th Circuit Rules
4 minute readRead the Document: DOJ Releases Ex-Special Counsel's Report Explaining Trump Prosecutions
3 minute readArizona Board Gives Thumbs Up to KPMG's Bid To Deliver Legal Services
Goodwin to Launch Brussels Office With Quinn Emanuel Antitrust Partner
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250