First-Ever Open Book, Online Bar Exam Set for July
Amid the coronavirus pandemic, Nevada will permit test takers to use outside reference material on its two-day, online bar exam.
May 26, 2020 at 11:46 AM
3 minute read
|
A third jurisdiction has moved its July bar exam online.
The Supreme Court of Nevada has ordered a reformatting of the state's attorney licensing exam and called for it to be delivered remotely. It joins Indiana and Michigan in the move to an online test. But Nevada is taking a different tack by making its online test open book—a concession to the fact that it's difficult to police test takers when they are in their own homes. It's also keeping the test at two days, whereas Michigan and Indiana has reduced it down to one day.
"The [Nevada Board of Bar Examiners'] proposal adequately balances a number of important issues," reads the court's order May 20. "First, proceeding with a modified examination in July 2020 provides stability to applicants in uncertain times. Second, the proposal protects applicants and examination administrators by following COVID-19 social distancing requirements."
Many jurisdictions have struggled with how to handle the July bar exam amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Bar examiners are weighing the public health concerns of gathering hundreds of test takers for in-person exams, as well as the worries of law graduates who can't begin jobs until they take the bar. Though the National Conference of Bar Examiners is offering two alternative bar exam dates in September, some fear that those tests could also be canceled if the virus flares up.
Nevada's decision to proceed with an online bar exam was not unexpected. The state's high court put the proposal out for public comment earlier this month, and later said it received "extensive" feedback. The court also considered postponing the bar exam until September—as many other jurisdictions have done—or extending a diploma privilege that would allow law graduates to be admitted to the bar without taking and passing the licensing exam.
But it ultimately rejected those alternatives, finding that a diploma privilege would not sufficiently protect the public from unqualified practitioners, and that the safe administration of the exam may not be possible in September. (Thus far, Utah is the only jurisdiction to adopt and emergency diploma privilege.)
Five of the seven justices signed the order, while two more dissented, writing that the exam should be postponed until September in hopes that it could be given in its traditional format.
Nevada will not use the Multistate Bar Exam—the 200 multiple-choice portion of the test that is given over one day. Instead, test takers will complete eight Nevada essay questions and a performance test. The state will use ILG Exam 360, which is a suite of software used by bar examiners and law schools to administer online tests. Nevada is also retaining a psychometrician to make certain that the grading of the essays ensures protection for the public, according to the court's order. Nevada is a relatively small bar exam jurisdiction. Just 313 people took its July exam in 2019.
The California Supreme Court has urged its bar exam to be delivered online when it is administered in early September, though officials have not yet announced that it will be offered remotely. And Massachusetts has committed to offering an online bar exam in September if it's unsafe to deliver an in-person test at that time.
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'What Is Certain Is Uncertainty': Patchwork Title IX Rules Face Expected Changes in Second Trump Administration
5 minute read'No Evidence'?: Big Law Firms Defend Academic Publishers in EDNY Antitrust Case
3 minute readLaw Firms Are Turning to Online Training Platforms as Apprenticeship Model Falters
'Substantive Deficiencies': Judge Grants Big Law Motion Dismissing Ivy League Price-Fixing Claims
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1ICC Issues Arrest Warrants for Israel's Prime Minister Over Alleged War Crimes in Gaza
- 2Attorney Responds to Outten & Golden Managing Partner's Letter on Dropped Client
- 3Attracted to Thompson Hine's Fee Flexibility, Morgan Lewis Litigator Switches Firms in Chicago
- 4Phila. Attorney Hit With 5-Year Suspension for Mismanaging Firm and Mishandling Cases
- 5Simpson Thacher Replenishes London Ranks With Latest Linklaters Defection
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