Minnesota High Court Mulls Letting Law Grads Bypass the Bar Exam
The court wants to public to weigh in on an emergency diploma privilege, which was requested by recent law grads who say sitting for the exam amid the COVID-19 pandemic is too risky.
June 25, 2020 at 05:40 PM
4 minute read
Minnesota could become the third jurisdiction to adopt an emergency diploma privilege that allows law graduates to skip the bar exam during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday issued an order establishing a public comment period on the diploma privilege idea, which was proposed in a petition submitted by three recent graduates of the University of Minnesota Law School. The public has until July 6 to weigh in.
"In light of the exceptional circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, the hyper-local impact of the George Floyd killing and subsequent unrest, and the uncertain, unsafe, and disparate impacts of proceeding with the proposed examination plan, Petitioners respectfully request that the Court waive the bar examination requirement of Minnesota's Rules for Admission to the Bar," reads the petition.
Utah in April became the first jurisdiction to grant an emergency diploma privilege to law graduates who meet a series of requirements, among which is completing 360 hours of legal work under the supervision of a licensed attorney by the end of 2020. Washington State followed suit June 12, issuing an order allowing any graduate of an American Bar Association-accredited law school who had registered for the July or September bar exams to skip the test without further requirements. The deans of Oregon's three law schools, as well as recent law graduates in the state, on June 15 sent letters to the Oregon Supreme Court requesting a diploma privilege, though the court has yet to announce any action on that front.
The Minnesota State Board of Law Examiners announced May 20 that it would administer an in-person bar exam on the originally scheduled date of July 28 and 29, while also giving a second exam Sept. 9 and 10.
But the June 22 petition—submitted by Minnesota law graduates Rebecca Hare, Colin Trundle and Jacob Gray—cites a resurgence of COVID-19 cases in Minnesota among the grounds for the adoption of an emergency diploma privilege. More than 5,000 new cases were reported in the state in the first half of June, it notes.
"[The COVID-19 pandemic] makes administering a July Bar Exam uncertain and unsafe," the petition reads. "The pandemic will likely have a disparate impact based upon the race, ethnicity, age, and health status of those asked to choose between their health or sitting for the exam required to practice law."
The local killing of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police and the subsequent riots and police and military response has put further strain on examinees, it adds.
The petitioners included impact statements from 14 upcoming bar examinees, highlighting their mental and health struggles, financial problems, the inability to study for the bar at home among family members, and the stress and anxiety from the police killing of George Floyd and its fallout.
Deans of the University of Minnesota Law School and Mitchell-Hamline School of Law were unavailable to comment Thursday on the high court's consideration of an emergency diploma privilege. However, leaders of all three of the state's law schools wrote to the Minnesota Board of Law Examiners in early April requesting a diploma privilege provision for this year's examinees. Minnesota law Dean Garry Jenkins informed the alumni petitioners that they have his support, a law school spokesman said Thursday.
But the Minnesota Board of Bar Examiners, which operates under the umbrella of the state Supreme Court, in May rejected those earlier calls for an emergency diploma privilege, citing consumer protection concerns.
"[The bar exam] provides the public with an assurance that the individual has met minimum competency standards," the board wrote in a May 20 announcement of a second in-person bar administration in September. "There is an assumption that if the lawyer is licensed, that the lawyer is competent. Successful passage of the bar provides assurances that people entering legal practice have shown that they possess a minimum level of legal knowledge and ability."
The Supreme Court of Washington had similarly rejected calls for an emergency diploma privilege before reversing course this month.
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
© 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 AllWhat’s at Stake in Supreme Court Case Over Religious Charter School?
University of New Hampshire Law School Launches Specialized Health, Life Sciences Program
Supreme Court Takes Up Case Over Approval of Religious Charter School
The Week in Data Jan. 24: A Look at Legal Industry Trends by the Numbers
Trending Stories
- 1Commentary: Tort Reform Is a Misleading Promise
- 2The Lawyers Waging the Legal Fight Against the Trump Administration
- 3McDermott's Onetime London Leader Headed to Pillsbury
- 4A&O Shearman To Lose Another Five Lawyers to EY
- 5Pearl Cohen Enters San Francisco Market Via Combination With IP Boutique
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