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
© 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'Everything From A to Z': University GCs Tested by Legal, Financial, Societal Challenges
6 minute read'A Horrible Reputation for Bad Verdicts': Plaintiffs Attorney Breaks Down $129M Wrongful-Death Verdict From Conservative Venue
How Uncertainty in College Athletics Compensation Could Drive Lawsuits in 2025
'Basic Arithmetic': Court Rules in Favor of LA Charter School Denied Funding by California Education Department
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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