First Online Bar Exam Marred by Tech Problems
Bar exam takers in Michigan couldn't access the second module of the exam temporarily when the website that distributes passwords crashed. The Michigan Supreme Court said the issue was quickly resolved.
July 28, 2020 at 12:28 PM
4 minute read
The first-ever online bar exam got off to a rocky start Tuesday, as some people taking Michigan's test were unable to log into a portion of the test. Panicked and frustrated test takers took to Twitter around 10 a.m. Eastern time to say that they couldn't log into the second of five test modules.
"The online #MichiganBarExam is currently malfunctioning," tweeted recent University of Michigan law graduate Kerry Martin. "The website where they post passwords for each of the modules has crashed. Only finished 1 module. I'm taking the test near 3 other people having the exact same problem. IT hotline won't answer."
John Nevin, a spokesman for the Michigan Supreme Court, confirmed that after the first module was complete, the site technology vendor ExamSoft uses to distribute passwords to test takers went down, meaning they couldn't access the second exam module.
"The vendor support line and Board of Law Examiners office were giving out the password and around 200 people were testing within 10 minutes," he said. "ExamSoft pushed out an email with the password and everyone was able to get in to the second module and start testing shortly thereafter. As a result of this delay, test takers were notified via email that the testing day will be adjusted to allow additional time and account for those who got in late."
ExamSoft planned to email passwords to test takers for the remaining modules, Nevin added. Within the hour, ExamSoft has also posted a universal password on its website to allow candidates to access the second test module. In a statement Tuesday, ExamSoft said that some Michigan test takers experienced a 30-minute delay in accessing the second module. Impacted test takers were given extra time to make up for the time they lost to the delay, the company said. But the delayed start left some candidates rattled.
"Really frustrating," wrote one Michigan test taker on Twitter. "Especially after we expressed concerns about whether examsoft could handle the #mibarexam and were repeatedly told there was nothing to worry about. Phones are busy. Still nothing."
Many jurisdictions have decided to give the bar exam online due to COVID-19, and many are watching to see how early adopters fare. Michigan, Indiana and Nevada were to be the pioneers Tuesday, but Indiana and Nevada both postponed their online exams July 24 after their software vendor, ILG Technologies, ran an update that caused glitches in the exam. Hence, Michigan is the only jurisdiction giving an online exam this week. Florida is scheduled to administer an online exam in August. Many other states plan to give an abbreviated online bar exam in October, including New York, California, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Illinois and Ohio.
But Michigan's software vendor ExamSoft has years of experience administering the bar exam—albeit with in-person tests. It's also no stranger to problems. Many people across numerous states who took the July 2014 bar exam ran into problems uploading their answers, in what the internet dubbed "Barmageddon." The company eventually agreed to pay $2.1 million to bar takers under a class action settlement and said it would improve its technology.
Michigan in May announced that it would forgo the traditional two-day in person bar exam in favor of a one-day online exam—making it the second jurisdiction in the country to commit to a remote exam. The tests consists of five separate modules of Michigan essay questions. It does not include the Multistate Bar Exam—the multiple-choice question portion of the exam.
Nevin said 733 people are taking the Michigan exam Tuesday.
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
- 1Elaine Darr Brings Transformation and Value to DHL's Business
- 2How Marsh McLennan's Small But Mighty Legal Innovation Team Builds Solutions That Bring Joy
- 3When Police Destroy Property, Is It a 'Taking'? Maybe So, Say Sotomayor, Gorsuch
- 4New York Top Court Says Clickwrap Assent Binds Plaintiff's Personal-Injury Claim to Arbitration in Uber Case
- 5'You Can’t Do a First Draft of Common Sense': Microsoft GC Jon Palmer Talks AI, Litigation, and Leadership
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