Push for Diploma Privilege in New York Intensifies as September Exam Looms
Hundreds of recent law graduates are requesting the chance to weigh in on plans for an in-person bar exam in September and the need for an emergency diploma privilege that will allow them to bypass the test.
July 13, 2020 at 12:21 PM
5 minute read
State lawmakers and recent law graduates are ratcheting up the pressure on the New York Court of Appeals to adopt an emergency diploma privilege that would allow examinees to skip the bar exam.
On Monday, United For Diploma Privilege New York—one of more than a dozen groups advocating for diploma privileges in jurisdictions across the United States—wrote to Chief Judge Janet DiFiore requesting a Zoom hearing where examinees can share comments on the court's plans to hold an in-person bar exam Sept. 9 and 10. The letter has more than 1,500 signatories, most of whom are slated to take the test.
Separately, 11 state lawmakers wrote to the court last week, urging it to either switch to an online bar exam format or offer an emergency diploma privilege. State Sen. Brad Hoylman and State Assemblywoman Jo Anne Simon have also introduced bills in their respective legislative chambers that would establish a temporary diploma privilege that would expire once the COVID-19 pandemic ended. But the letter from the assembly members asks the court to take action independently of the proposed legislation.
"As many of our colleagues know from their personal experience sitting for the bar, these conditions are already stressful enough, and it will be even more intensified with the fear and great danger the pandemic poses," reads the letter signed by the members of the New York Assembly, including Simon. "Packing thousands of test takers into a room creates a petri dish for increased transmission, creating a public health risk."
The letter adds that there is no way to guarantee that the many examinees traveling from out of state for the test will abide by New York's two-week quarantine requirement. At that moment, that mandatory quarantine covers 19 states, including California, Florida and Texas.
Court of Appeals spokesman Lucian Chalfan said Monday that the court has received both letters and is reviewing them. The court rejected earlier calls for an emergency diploma privilege and in April adopted a supervised practice program whereby law graduates can work under the supervision of a licensed attorney until they can sit for the bar exam.
The letter from United for Diploma Privilege New York seeks a Zoom hearing in which test takers can share the challenges they face in preparing for an in-person bar exam in September with the court, as well as the ability to submit written comment on the matter. California's Supreme Court and its state bar held a similar online hearing July 7, where many examinees pleaded for a diploma privilege. (California is also slated to hold its bar exam Sept. 9 and 10.) Utah, Oregon and Washington have adopted emergency diploma privileges in response to the pandemic, and Minnesota's high court has collected public comments on the matter.
"A letter cannot capture the number or severity of the challenges that COVID-19 has placed in our collective path to licensure," it reads. "As candidates eager to serve the people of New York, we ask that you give us the opportunity to tell you about the challenges ourselves. We hope to arrive at an outcome that allows us to join the New York legal profession in a safe and timely manner, so that we may provide outstanding service to our communities and promote a more just society."
Unclear communication from the New York Board of Law Examiners has exacerbated the problems for some examinees, the letter states. The board encouraged out-of-state test takers to sign up for the exam in other jurisdictions that, like New York, use the Uniform Bar Exam. New York has limited space for test takers this cycle, and the idea was for those who sit for the exam in other uniform jurisdictions to transfer their scores for admission in New York. However, in recent weeks a number of uniform jurisdictions, including Washington, D.C., and Maryland, have canceled their plans for an in-person September exam and are now offering abbreviated online tests in October. Scores earned online cannot be transferred to New York for admission, leaving test takers who planned to transfer scores to New York in a conundrum.
Rebecka Levitt, who graduated from Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University in May and who helped organize the graduates' letter, said it has been difficult to study for the September bar exam with so many unknowns looming. She's a 41-year-old single mother who lives in close proximity to elderly neighbors. In addition to worrying about potentially exposing others to COVID-19 if she has to take the bar exam in person, she's worried that exam officials will pull the plug on the September test with little notice and force everyone to wait until February for the next administration. Such a delay would be financially ruinous, she said. An online exam presents its own challenges, she added, including the ability of some test takers to find a quiet place to sit for the exam and the likelihood that technology problems will disrupt the two-day exam.
"We want to be able to talk to the court about the different alternatives and why they do or do not work out, and how people will be affected by it," Levitt said. "With the passion and intelligence behind this, I feel like we have a good chance."
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
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
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