Texas Moves Forward With July Bar Exam, Adds September Option
In an order Wednesday, the Texas Supreme Court said the July bar exam will take place as scheduled, under guidance of public health authorities.
April 29, 2020 at 03:08 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Texas Lawyer
The July Bar Examination in Texas will go forward as scheduled, but test-takers may also choose to take the exam in September or at a later date for no additional fee, the Texas Supreme Court ordered Wednesday.
The capacity for the July exam will be decided after the Texas Board of Law Examiners consults with public health authorities "regarding best practices for administering the examination safely," the court wrote in its Thirteenth Emergency Order Regarding the COVID-19 State of Disaster.
The order also updates the rules to allow unlicensed law students and law school graduates to practice under supervision. The new rules are effective May 18, according to the order, but may be changed following public comment "and as rapidly changing circumstances warrant."
"We are very pleased that under the guidance of public health authorities, we will be able to put on the July exam as scheduled, but we have this system in place so they can begin their practice under supervision while they wait to take the bar," said Justice Brett Busby, the court's liaison to the Texas Board of Law Examiners.
The court wrote in the order that "disruptions to personal and professional lives caused by the pandemic," may result in some applicants not having time to prepare for the July bar, or that some may no longer want to take the July exam for personal health reasons.
If the board cannot accommodate all who registered for the July exam, the board will prioritize based on registration date, and automatically register the extras for the September exam.
Susan Henricks, executive director of the Texas Board of Law Examiners, said she expects about 2,000 people will register to take the test in July or September, and the board should be able to accommodate all of them between the two dates.
She said plans call for about 1,000 test-takers on each date. "We are going to have people spread out, six feet apart. We've ordered 5,000 surgical masks," she said.
Scores from the September exam are likely to be released in a quick turnaround of about three weeks after results from the July exam are made public.
Busby said Texas has allowed supervised practice for many decades. Unlicensed law graduates generally have 14 months from graduation to practice under supervision. But the court has now relaxed the rule, so graduates who are clerking and may have graduated a year or two ago still have a 14-month period from now. Busby said the previous rule only allowed for one attempt at the exam, and now allows for two attempts.
"There are two pressures right here," Busby said. "We want to make sure the graduates can take the bar exam so they can get started with their practice, but we also want to make sure they can do it safely," he said.
Michael F. Barry, dean of South Texas College of Law Houston, said Texas law school deans were pleased that the Texas Supreme Court and the board included them in discussions about scheduling the exam in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis.
"The board did a nice job of recognizing that some students really do want to take the July bar exam—they have been preparing for it and a delay is a financial and an emotional challenge for them—but also acknowledging that some people have been affected by the pandemic," Barry said.
Read More
Officials Ponder Potential Delay in July Bar Exam Because of COVID-19
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 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 AllThe Path in the Multiverse: Rethinking Client Engagement Through Gamification
6 minute readFrom ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute read‘What’s Up With Morgan & Morgan?’ Law, Advertising and a Calculated Rise
10 minute readChicago Midsize Firm Will Combine With Miami Boutique To Form Antitrust Powerhouse
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Squire Patton Boggs Associate Among Those Killed in String of Methanol Poisonings
- 2Womans Suit Alleging Negligence to Sex Trafficking by Hotel Tossed by Federal Judge
- 3More Big Law Firms Rush to Match Associate Bonuses, While Some Offer Potential for Even More
- 4OpenAI, NYTimes Counsel Quarrel Over Erased OpenAI Training Data
- 5Saying Your Goodbyes—Ethical Obligations When Transitioning to a New Firm
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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