Louisiana Is the First State to Cancel Planned Online Bar Exam
Louisiana had planned to give a one-day bar exam both in person and online July 27, but announced the cancellation of both tests with just 12 days' notice.
July 15, 2020 at 04:16 PM
3 minute read
Louisiana on Wednesday canceled its July bar exam, which was scheduled to be administered in less than two weeks. Florida, Texas, Tennessee and Kentucky have pulled the plug on exams that were to be given in person this month, when COVID-19 cases are growing in many states.
But Louisiana has now become the first jurisdiction to cancel a planned online bar exam. The Louisiana Supreme Court and the court's Committee on Bar Admissions in early June announced that bar takers would have the option to take exams scheduled for July and October in person or online. The court had already reduced the length of the exam from the traditional three days down to one.
The high court on Wednesday cited rising COVID-19 rates in Louisiana in pulling the plug on the July exam but offered no explanation as to why the online version was also canceled beyond the need to "protect the integrity of the examination." Asked for comment, Louisiana Supreme Court spokeswoman Trina Vincent said that the process of creating the bar exam is time consuming and arduous for the committee of volunteers who put it together.
"While the remote option was put in place, only approximately 13% of registered applicants selected the option," she said. "Therefore, the decision was made to preserve the examination for possible administration to all applicants at a later date."
The court's July 15 announcement states that the decision to hold both tests on July 27 was made at a time when COVID-19 infections were trending down and restrictions were being lifter.
"Substantial time, effort and energy were expended to change the examination format and to ensure the safety of both those taking the examination and those administering the examination," it reads. "Unfortunately the rate of infection has increased substantially, with each of the test sites chosen being in areas which have seen some of the highest rates of infection."
That decision hasn't gone over well with some test takers who have been hunkered down studying, expecting to sit for the all-important licensing exam in mere days.
"So glad I put health/safety, family/friends, and my own sanity at risk to study for the modified Louisiana bar exam only to be blindsided 12 days before the test with news of indefinite postponement. … But yeah, let's do this all again soon some time," wrote one examinee on Twitter.
Jurisdictions are increasingly turning to online bar exams as a way to license new lawyers while also protecting the health and safety of examinees and proctors. Indiana, Michigan and Nevada are planning to give their own online bar exams later this month, and Florida plans to do the same in August. Meanwhile, a growing number of jurisdictions have jettisoned planned in-person exams in July and September in favor of a two-day online exam designed by the National Conference of Bar Examiners and given Oct. 5 and 6. Among them are Massachusetts, Maryland, Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania and Kentucky. Additionally, Texas, Arizona, Oregon are giving examinees the option to take the bar in person or online in October.
Louisiana's high court said it will meet soon to determine the next steps with the bar exam.
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
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
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