Ditching the Bar Exam Puts Public at Risk, Says Test Maker
The National Conference of Bar Examiners has warned that allowing law graduates to skip the test because of the coronavirus could lead to numerous problems.
April 13, 2020 at 01:10 PM
7 minute read
Allowing this year's law graduates to skip the bar exam amid the coronavirus pandemic risks unleashing unqualified new lawyers on the public and hobbling law school accreditation efforts, according to the group that designs the test.
The National Conference of Bar Examiners is pushing back against calls for emergency diploma privileges in a white paper released April 9 to courts and state bar examiners, arguing that the licensing exam ensures new lawyers meet a minimum standard of competence and should not be elbowed aside because of the virus outbreak.
Jurisdictions across the country are grappling with the July bar exam and whether it will be possible to administer the test safely. Licensing exams for doctors and nurses are not being waived due to COVID-19, the national conference's paper notes, although those exams are being delayed or delivered in alternative ways.
"There are good reasons the jurisdictions have relied upon the bar exam for decades as a fair, objective, valid, and efficient method for making licensing decisions, rather than relying upon diploma privilege," reads the white paper, which is titled "Bar Admissions During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evaluating Options For the Class of 2020." "Those reasons are still compelling in the face of the current crisis."
It's not surprising that the NCBE is against eliminating the test for admission. Developing the exam is the core function of the organization, which has nearly 100 employees and reported $26.6 million in revenue in 2018, according to tax filings. Still, its white paper lays out the protections to the public that would be compromised without requiring the test for would-be lawyers.
A growing number of jurisdictions have announced that they are postponing the July bar into the fall or to an unspecified date, including New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. And more jurisdictions have said they are extending the supervised practice programs that allow law students to represent clients in clinics and under the watch of a licensed attorney until upcoming law graduates have the chance to sit for the bar.
But only one jurisdiction—Utah—has thus far indicated that it plans to move forward with an emergency diploma privilege that would allow recent graduates to be admitted to the bar without sitting for the licensing exam.
The Utah Supreme Court last week issued a proposed order under which certain 2020 law graduates could skip the bar exam. To qualify, they must graduate from a law school with a first-time pass rate on the July 2019 bar exam of 86% or higher; they must have been registered for the July exam in Utah by April 1; and they must complete 360 hours of supervised practice under the observation of a Utah-licensed attorney by the end of 2020. If they meet all those criteria, they can be fully admitted to practice in the state.
The Utah proposal, which may be officially adopted this week, could pave the way for other jurisdictions to adopt such diploma privilege—a program Wisconsin has had for decades that allows graduates of the state's two American Bar Association-accredited to skip the bar exam.
Graduating law students in many jurisdictions have also have banded together to lobby courts and attorney licensing entities to allow them to bypass the exam this year, arguing that it may not be safe to take the test for many months and that licensing delays will be a major financial and psychological blow. The flow of new lawyers into practice is also key to addressing access to justice issues and the legal needs of those impacted by the coronavirus, the students have argued in letters and petitions.
But the National Conference of Bar Examiners' paper lays out numerous arguments against diploma privilege, most notably that requiring lawyers to pass the exam serves an important consumer protection function and ensures new lawyers have a minimum level of competence.
Elizabeth Kronk Warner, dean of the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law, said in an interview Monday that she thinks concerns over lawyer competency and public protection are misguided. Warner and Brigham Young University J. Reuben Clark Law School Dean Gordon Smith are backing the Utah Supreme Court's emergency diploma privilege proposal. Wisconsin has a lower rate of lawyer complaints than Utah, Warner said, despite the fact that it has diploma privilege and Utah—up to this point—has required law graduates to take the bar exam. The proposal's requirement that graduates complete 360 hours of supervised work before they are admitted is another safeguard that could produce more ethically sound lawyers than the bar exam alone, she added.
"I'm confident that, first off, our students are competent upon graduation," Warner said. "That, combined with the fact that they are going to be doing 360 supervised hours with licensed attorneys, means that the public will be well protected."
Ditching the bar exam amid the pandemic would potentially create other problems, according to the national conference's white paper. Bar exam pass rates are a key component in the ABA's oversight of law schools, it notes. One way the ABA determines whether a school is meeting its accreditation standards for a quality program is if at least 75% of its graduates pass the bar exam within two years. Without that standardized bar pass rate metric, it becomes more difficult to determine the quality of the education law schools are offering, according to the paper.
Diploma privileges also limit the mobility of new lawyers, since they are licensed only in that specific jurisdiction. By contrast, new lawyers who take the Uniform Bar Exam can transfer those scores to any of the 36 jurisdictions that used the UBE, the paper notes.
Instead of adopting diploma privileges, jurisdictions should look to temporary supervised practice provisions that allow law graduates to practice until they can take the test, the paper argues. The ABA's Board of Governors has also endorsed the expansion of supervised practice provisions as an interim step. The national conference has said it will make a decision in early May about whether there is enough demand to offer the July bar. It has also committed to offering two additional bar exam dates in the fall—Sept. 9 and 10, and Sept. 30 and Oct. 1.
In the meantime, the national conference wrote that it is exploring the feasibility of delivering the bar exam remotely, and has exam security and technology experts exploring that option. But it cautioned that it will not rush into a decision about remote testing without ensuring that the exam can been given securely.
"We understand the urgency of the situation and the plight of 2020 law school graduates," the white paper reads. "NCBE is actively exploring additional opportunities for them to become licensed in 2020."
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 AllUniversity of Chicago Accused of Evicting Student for Attending Gaza-Israel Protest
3 minute readSanctioned Penn Law Professor Amy Wax Sues University, Alleging Discrimination
5 minute readThe Met Hires GC of Elite University as Next Legal Chief
Trending Stories
- 15th Circuit Considers Challenge to Louisiana's Ten Commandments Law
- 2Crocs Accused of Padding Revenue With Channel-Stuffing HEYDUDE Shoes
- 3E-discovery Practitioners Are Racing to Adapt to Social Media’s Evolving Landscape
- 4The Law Firm Disrupted: For Office Policies, Big Law Has Its Ear to the Market, Not to Trump
- 5FTC Finalizes Child Online Privacy Rule Updates, But Ferguson Eyes Further Changes
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