Remote Bar Exam Offered in October as Plan B Amid COVID-19
Nearly all jurisdictions are planning to hold in-person bar exams in July or September, but the entity that creates the bar exam has unveiled plans for a backup online test—one it hopes states don't have to use.
June 01, 2020 at 05:46 PM
4 minute read
The bar exam could be headed online this fall.
The National Conference of Bar Examiners—which designs the exam—announced Monday that it will offer a pared-down, remote bar exam Oct. 5 and 6 to any jurisdiction that cannot safely administer the in-person test in September. (More than a third of all jurisdictions have postponed the July bar exam to one of two alternative dates in September.) That's a sea change for a licensing exam that historically requires test takers to decamp to convention centers and other large venues for two days or more, and that emphasizes test security.
"[The national conference] understands the enormous challenges facing recent law graduates during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the uncertainty over whether they will be able to sit for the bar exam, which is why we have taken additional steps to facilitate licensure in 2020," said Judith Gundersen, president and CEO of the national conference.
Scores earned on the abbreviated October online exam won't be transferable to other jurisdictions—they will admit test takers only to the jurisdiction in which they took the exam. But news of an online option is likely to relieve some of the pressure on attorney licensing entities, which have struggled to find ways to administer the bar while also protecting the health and safety of examinees and proctors. Having an online option also offers a path forward for recent law graduates if subsequent waves of COVID-19 force the cancellation of the rescheduled September test dates.
Gundersen said in an interview Monday that bar examiners are working overtime to organize and implement in-person licensing tests in nearly every jurisdiction, and that the availability of an online exam is simply a backup.
"I believe that the vast majority of states are using this as a Plan B, and in some cases a Plan C because some states are going to give two in-person bar exams," Gundersen said. "But if something happens that prevents them from being able to do that, like a local or state health order, then they can go this route."
But the availability of an online test won't necessarily help jurisdictions that don't have enough seating capacity for everyone who wants to take their in-person exams, Gundersen said. New York, Connecticut, Washington, D.C., and Maine are among the jurisdictions that have warned that they might not be able to accommodate all exam applicants. But it would be difficult for jurisdictions to manage admitting new lawyers through two different testing scenarios, she said.
A handful of jurisdictions have already announced plans for their own state-designed online tests. Indiana and Michigan are giving one-day online tests in July, while Nevada's July online exam will be two days and open-book. But the availability of an online exam created by the national conference may well prompt more jurisdictions to go that route. Massachusetts had already said it would offer its own online bar exam if the September in-person test must be canceled, while the California Supreme Court has urged its state bar to offer an online version of the test.
Details about the online October exam were scant Monday. The national conference said it would supply jurisdictions with a "limited set" of questions from all three portions of the Uniform Bar Exam: the Multistate Bar Exam; the Multistate Essay Exam; and the Multistate Performance Test. But there will be fewer questions in each section, and the overall testing time will be shorter. Jurisdictions will have the ability to decide which sections to use. Each jurisdiction will also be responsible for scoring tests and "interpreting candidate performance." Under normal circumstances, the national conference scores the Multistate Bar Exam—which is the 200-question multiple choice portion of the bar—while individual jurisdictions score the remaining two sections. Jurisdictions will choose from three technology vendors with previous experience administering the bar exam, according to the national conference's announcement. Those vendors will handle exam security. But the national conference is establishing testing dates and times to ensure all online exams are given simultaneously.
The national conference warned that bar exam scores earned on a shortened, online test cannot be considered comparable to the traditional, in-person bar exam without further study, however.
"NCBE continues to strongly advocate that a full-length, standard, in-person administration of the bar exam/[uniform bar bar] is best for a number of reasons, including psychometric issues, exam security, and the testing environment of candidates, who may not have access to comparable testing conditions or equipment," Gundersen said in the announcement. "We recognize, however, that these are extraordinary times."
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
- 1Where Do Web-Tracking Class Actions Belong? 8th Circuit Weighs the Issue
- 2While Data Breaches May Lead to Years of Legal Battles, Cyberattacks Can be Prevented
- 3The Definition of Special Employment
- 4People in the News—Nov. 21, 2024—Willig Williams, Hangley Aronchick
- 5Rawle & Henderson Hires New Del. Managing Partner
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