Michigan Is the Latest to Move July Bar Exam Online
Michigan's pared down online test will consist only of state-specific essay questions.
May 19, 2020 at 01:12 PM
3 minute read
The Michigan Hall of Justice, also known as the Michigan Supreme Court Building in Lansing, Michigan. Photo: Shutterstock
Michigan has joined the small but growing list of jurisdictions that plan to administer the July bar exam online amid the coronavirus pandemic.
The Michigan Supreme Court on Monday ordered that the attorney licensing exam, which normally takes place in person over two days, will be reduced to one day and given remotely July 28. Indiana on May 7 became the first jurisdiction to commit to giving an online bar exam. The Nevada Supreme Court has asked for public comments on a similar plan—under which the test would be open book—and is expected to make a decision by May 22. Massachusetts and California have also said they might give an online bar exam in September, after postponing their July exams. And Utah has created a pathway for some recent graduates to skip the bar exam altogether.
The move demonstrates the extraordinary changes to bar licensing that states are implementing to deal with the unprecedented interruption brought on by the pandemic.
"The board conducted extensive research and consultations to make this decision, including outreach to Michigan public health officials and law school deans, while monitoring developments in the pandemic and approaches of other states," said Michigan Supreme Court Justice Brian Zahra, in an announcement of the decision. Zahra serves that the court's liaison to the Michigan Board of Law Examiners.
The Board of Law Examiners recommended moving the exam online because state health officials could not "predict with certainty that any in-person examination could be safely administered in 2020," according to the announcement. Additionally, predicting the lead-time necessary to secure testing facilities, proctors and safety equipment in the current conditions present significant challenges, the board said. Michigan is a midsize bar exam jurisdiction—641 people sat for the July exam in 2019.
The one-day exam will consist only of Michigan essay questions. It eliminates the Multistate Bar Exam, which is the 200-question multiple choice test that is given over one day. (Michigan is not a Uniform Bar Exam jurisdiction, meaning that the elimination of the Multistate Bar Exam won't compromise the ability of test takers to transfer their scores to other Uniform Bar Exam states since they cannot do so anyway.)
Indiana and Nevada also plan to eliminate the Multistate Bar Exam in their pared-down July exams, as does Louisiana, which is still giving its test in-person, but has reduced it to a single day.
"I am confident the Michigan essay examination will adequately test the applicants' legal knowledge and skill," Zahra said. "The public can be confident that those who pass this exam will have requisite knowledge of state law to become a member of the Michigan bar."
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 All
University of Chicago Accused of Evicting Student for Attending Gaza-Israel Protest
3 minute read
Sanctioned Penn Law Professor Amy Wax Sues University, Alleging Discrimination
5 minute read
The Met Hires GC of Elite University as Next Legal Chief
Trending Stories
- 1Avantia Publicly Announces Agentic AI Platform Ava
- 2Shifting Sands: May a Court Properly Order the Sale of the Marital Residence During a Divorce’s Pendency?
- 3Joint Custody Awards in New York – The Current Rule
- 4Paul Hastings, Recruiting From Davis Polk, Continues Finance Practice Build
- 5Chancery: Common Stock Worthless in 'Jacobson v. Akademos' and Transaction Was Entirely Fair
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
