In a First, Indiana Will Hold 1-Day, Online Bar Exam in July
Indiana is now the first state to say it's customizing the bar exam to address the health and safety issues posed by COVID-19.
May 08, 2020 at 12:01 PM
4 minute read
|
Indiana is the latest jurisdiction to get creative with the bar exam amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Indiana Supreme Court announced May 7 that the exam will take place in late July, but it will be shortened to one day—down from the usual two—and it will be delivered online. That makes Indiana the first jurisdiction to commit to an online July exam, and the first to say it is creating its own coronavirus version of the licensing test. (Both Massachusetts and California have said their bar exams might be online, but each have postponed the July test until September.)
"As a result of the circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, it is unclear whether the State Board of Law Examiners will be able to safely administer a two-day, in-person Indiana bar examination on July 28-29, 2020 as scheduled or at any later date in calendar year 2020," reads the court's order.
Jurisdictions have been struggling for weeks with what to do about the upcoming bar exam. Some, including Florida and Texas, are moving ahead with plans to administer the traditional two-day test on July 28 and 29, with some health and safety measures such as requiring test takers to wear masks and increasing the space between tables and examinees. Others, including New York, California, and Illinois, have pushed the exam back to early September—one of two alternative fall dates offered by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, which designs the bar exam.
Utah is the only jurisdiction thus far to adopt an emergency diploma privilege. That will allow qualifying recent graduates from American Bar Association-accredited law schools to be admitted to the bar without taking the licensing exam, provided they complete 360 hours of supervised legal work before the end of 2020.
Half of Indiana's modified, one-day exam will consist of Indiana-specific essay questions, while the other half will be short-answer questions based on topics that are tested on the Multistate Bar Exam. The MBE is the 200-question, multiple-choice portion of the traditional bar exam.
Austen Parrish, dean of the Indiana University Maurer School of Law-Bloomington, said Friday law schools don't yet have many details, but it appears that the Indiana Board of Law Examiners is creating the abbreviated test. (The state board prepares the Indiana law essay questions in normal circumstances, but typically uses the Multistate Bar Exam and the Multistate Performance Test from the National Conference of Bar Examiners. Indiana has not adopted the Uniform Bar Exam.) Test takers should have more information about how the exam will be administered and proctored by May 28, according to the court's order.
Student reaction to the decision has been very positive, Parrish said.
"From my perspective, the decision balances the need for ensuring minimum competency in a reasonable way, while understanding the significant costs and worry that a delayed exam would impose on soon-to-be graduates," he said. "It also recognizes that even a September exam could face difficulties in administration. I hope other states will consider and follow this approach."
Bar authorities in many jurisdictions have appeared reluctant to stray too far from the traditional test, even amid the coronavirus outbreak. The National Conference of Bar Examiners issued a paper in April warning that allowing law graduates to skip the bar exam altogether poses a risk to the public of unqualified lawyers joining the profession. The five largest exam jurisdictions have all said they will administer the test.
Like Utah, Indiana is a relatively small exam jurisdiction. Just 457 sat for the July bar in 2019, compared with nearly 10,000 in New York and 8,000 in California.
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
© 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 All'Everything From A to Z': University GCs Tested by Legal, Financial, Societal Challenges
6 minute read'A Horrible Reputation for Bad Verdicts': Plaintiffs Attorney Breaks Down $129M Wrongful-Death Verdict From Conservative Venue
How Uncertainty in College Athletics Compensation Could Drive Lawsuits in 2025
'Basic Arithmetic': Court Rules in Favor of LA Charter School Denied Funding by California Education Department
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 2Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 3Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
- 4'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
- 5Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
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