Indiana and Nevada Postpone Bar Exams, Raising Questions About Feasibility of Online Tests
Both states pushed back their planned online bar exams just four days before they were slated to take place. The delays are intended to allow time to fix software glitches.
July 27, 2020 at 11:45 AM
5 minute read
Law graduates taking the bar exam in Nevada and Indiana expected to begin their tests on Tuesday from their homes or whatever relatively quiet location that they could find with a strong internet connection.
But they learned Friday—four days before the test was scheduled to take place—that the online exams designed by each of the two states would be delayed due to software problems associated with an outside vendor facilitating both tests. Indiana rescheduled its one-day exam for a week later, Aug.. 4. Nevada's two-day test has been postponed for two weeks, until Aug. 11 and 12.
The last-minute changes have riled and unnerved test-takers and are raising more questions about the feasibility of delivering the bar exam online under rushed conditions. A growing number of states in the last month have abandoned their plans to give the bar exam in person due to the intensifying COVID-19 pandemic. Fifteen states now plan to administer an abbreviated online bar exam being prepared by the National Conference of Bar Examiners on Oct. 5 and 6, including New York, California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Ohio. Another four states plan to give that test in addition to an in-person bar exam.
"Bar regulators should put themselves in the shoes of bar takers when considering next steps," said Aaron Taylor, the executive director of the AccessLex Center for Legal Education Excellence. "The mental and financial impact of the delays and the lack of clarity regarding the exam cannot be overstated, particularly in the context of the ongoing pandemic. If both in-person and online exams are infeasible, then other alternatives, such as diploma privilege, should be given serious consideration."
Indiana and Nevada fall into a different category than the many states planning for the October online exam. Like Florida and Michigan, they designed their own tests and are not using material developed by the National Conference of Bar Examiners. (Michigan's online exam, which consists only of essay questions, was still scheduled to be given on July 28 as of Monday morning. Florida's one-day online exam is scheduled for Aug. 19.) Taylor said Nevada and Indiana deserve credit for making early decisions to move their exams online, but added that "in chaotic situations, the best laid plans often fall flat." Indiana was the first state to announce it would give the bar exam online. Nevada followed three weeks later.
In an announcement Friday, the Indiana Supreme Court said that "unforeseen complications" arose when vendor ILG Technology ran an update on the software used to deliver the exam. The problem became apparent last week during practice exams, and the additional week will provide time to update the software the court said.
"Earlier this week applicants started to experience delays when typing during practice tests," said Brad Skolnik, executive director of the court's office of admissions. "We know this added unnecessary anxiety to the applicants and impacted their ability to study in this critical week."
Nevada is also using ILG to deliver its open-book online exam, and delayed the test for two weeks at the requests of the Nevada Board of Bar Examiners mere hours after Indiana took similar action.
"We have been pre-testing the software used to administer the bar exam remotely. The pre-testing revealed a problem the vendor is correcting this weekend," said Brian Kunzi, director of admissions for the State Bar of Nevada in an announcement of the change. "With the exam scheduled to start Tuesday, this does not leave time for a final pre-test of the software. Rather than risk problems during the exam, the decision was made to postpone the exam."
Law graduates in both states are harnessing the last-minute delays to renew their pushes for an emergency diploma privilege that would allow them to skip the bar exam altogether. Graduates of the William S. Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas began circulating a petition asking for a diploma privilege soon after the court's decision to delay the exam.
"The most important thing is NOT to take the bar exam: the most important thing is the physical and mental health of the dedicated graduates of Boyd Law who have gone above and beyond to prepare to enter our careers," their petition reads. "The most important thing is to trust in the education created for this state's law school to produce amazing future lawyers who need the opportunity to help people and work sooner rather than later."
Similarly, law graduates slated to take the Indiana test are also requesting a diploma privilege, arguing that this latest change leaves examinees scrambling to make new arrangements for child care and a suitable testing space. They also are skeptical that a week is enough time to remedy the flaws in the testing software
"The exam is no longer going forward as planned, and there is no evidence to suggest that the ILG Exam360 software will ever be capable of successfully supporting an online bar exam administration for hundreds of applicants," reads a July 27 letter to the Indiana Supreme Court. "The postponement is wreaking havoc on the lives of the bar applicants."
Some legal academics agree that the Indiana and Nevada delays should serve as a warning sign to other jurisdictions that are planning to hold online bar exams.
"I don't begrudge those state bars which decided on online bar exam to replace in-person debacle," Tweeted Dan Rodriguez, a professor and former dean of Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law. "Many were working to do something meaningful for grads. Now we know this is a mess, and the courageous thing is to reconsider."
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 AllPennsylvania Law Schools Are Seeing Double-Digit Boosts in 2025 Applications
5 minute readWhat’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
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
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