Pennsylvania and Kentucky Bar Exams Replaced by October Online Test
The Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners has thus far resisted calls from recent law graduates to extend an emergency diploma privilege.
July 09, 2020 at 01:16 PM
5 minute read
Pennsylvania has canceled its plans for an in-person bar exam in September, citing the intensifying COVID-19 pandemic.
The Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners informed test takers Wednesday that it has switched to an online exam given Oct. 5 to 7. A day later, the Kentucky Supreme Court followed suit, announcing that in-person exams scheduled for both July and September were cancelled, replaced by an online October test. Pennsylvania and Kentucky become the sixth and seventh jurisdictions, respectively, to scrap plans for an in-person test in either July or September, as bar examiners scramble to find alternative ways to deliver the licensing test safely.
"As you know, we moved the in-person bar exam from the end of this month to the beginning of September with hopes that the course of the COVID-19 pandemic would allow us to administer an in-person exam safely at that later time," wrote Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners chairman David Fine in a letter to examinees. "The best information from health authorities now compels us to conclude that it is unlikely we could do so."
Pennsylvania will use the abbreviated online version of the bar exam being offered by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, administered Oct. 5 and 6. Pennsylvania's exam will include essay questions given Oct. 5 and 7, with 100 Multistate Bar Exam questions—which are multiple choice—given Oct. 6. (The remote proctoring technology Pennsylvania plans to use requires more frequent testing breaks, hence the essay questions are being split over two days instead of the typical one.)
Danielle Conway, dean of the Penn State Dickinson Law, said Thursday that a remotely delivered exam is better than an in-person one at a time when COVID-19 shows no sign of abating. But she said that an emergency diploma privilege that would allow graduates to be licensed without taking the bar is the best option right now. Law graduates in Pennsylvania have joined together to lobby bar examiners to extend a diploma privilege, thus far without success.
"This is an important step for Pennsylvania, because the Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners recognized the need to protect the health and safety of our graduates, but it really is a compromise position," she said. "The compromise will not consider the disadvantages being shouldered by a segment of the test taking community."
Any bar exam, including an online one, will disadvantage test takers who are struggling to care for children or ill family members, or those who don't have reliable internet access, Conway noted. And the stress and anxiety of the pandemic itself has made it more difficult for law grads to study for the exam.
Kentucky had planned to administer in-person bar exams on both July 28 and 29, and Sept. 30 and Oct. 1, but examinees registered for either date will now be automatically enrolled in the October online test, according to the Kentucky Office of Bar Admissions.
The National Conference of Bar Examiners unveiled plans for a shorter online October bar exam in June after coming under increasing pressure to offer an alternative to gathering hundreds or thousands of test takers in one place for multiple days. Conference president Judith Gundersen at the time said it would likely prove a last resort for jurisdictions—in part because scores earned on the online test are not transferable throughout the 35 Uniform Bar Exam jurisdictions and because jurisdictions will have to score the online exams themselves. But the online option has proven to be more attractive to bar examiners in recent weeks as COVID-19 cases climb.
Thus far, Washington D.C., Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky have said they will use that online exam exclusively. Texas, Arizona and Oregon are also planning to give the online October bar in addition to an in-person exam option for either July or September. Florida canceled its in-person July bar exam at the start of the month, and is developing its own online test, to be given in August. Indiana, Michigan, Nevada and Louisiana are also creating their own online exams.
"[The National Conference of Bar Examiners] realizes that the limited emergency option, which allows for local admission only, will not meet the needs of everyone who hopes to be licensed in 2020," the conference said in a prepared statement Thursday. "Recognizing that COVID-19 could continue to impact testing in the future, [the conference] is actively developing solutions for 2021, including exploring whether the [Uniform Bar Exam] could be conducted remotely or online in a way that ensures reliable and valid scores and is accessible to examinees in terms of having the necessary technology and a quiet environment in which to test."
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 AllUniversity of Chicago Accused of Evicting Student for Attending Gaza-Israel Protest
3 minute readSanctioned Penn Law Professor Amy Wax Sues University, Alleging Discrimination
5 minute readThe Met Hires GC of Elite University as Next Legal Chief
Trending Stories
- 1Paul Hastings, Recruiting From Davis Polk, Continues Finance Practice Build
- 2Chancery: Common Stock Worthless in 'Jacobson v. Akademos' and Transaction Was Entirely Fair
- 3'We Neither Like Nor Dislike the Fifth Circuit'
- 4Local Boutique Expands Significantly, Hiring Litigator Who Won $63M Verdict Against City of Miami Commissioner
- 5Senior Associates' Billing Rates See The Biggest Jump
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