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
© 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 AllLaw 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 readClass Action Lawsuit Targets 40 Private Colleges and Universities Over Alleged Price-Fixing
3 minute readEx-St. Thomas Univ. Law Professor Sues School Over Firing, Alleging Defamation
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 4Greenberg Traurig Initiates String of Suits Following JPMorgan Chase's 'Infinite Money Glitch'
- 5It's Time Law Firms Were Upfront About Who Their Salaried Partners Are
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