New Rule Allows Connecticut Law School Grads to Go to Court Without Supervision—Before Passing the Bar Exam
"We like this new rule because it enables graduates to get started on their professional careers before the bar exam," said Timothy Fisher, dean of the University of Connecticut School of Law.
May 14, 2020 at 01:56 PM
4 minute read
Faced with hundreds of Connecticut law school graduates not able to take the state bar examination in July due to COVID-19-related disruptions, the Rules Committee of Superior Court has approved recommendations to loosen guidelines to allow students to make court presentations—in some instances—without a supervising attorney present.
State law school deans and members of the Connecticut Bar Examining Committee, who made the recommendations that were adopted on Monday, said they realized it was essential to give graduating students a chance to practice law in the interim.
That, they said, would improve the graduates' chances of appealing to potential employers, who might be wary of hiring a candidate who hasn't had a chance to take the bar examination.
The rule is on a temporary and emergency basis.
The bar examination in Connecticut is now set for Sept. 30 and Oct. 1 in Hartford, but could be pushed back again if social-distancing protocols remain in place, making it unsafe to administer the tests in crowded areas.
"We like this new rule because it enables graduates to get started on their professional careers before the bar exam," said Timothy Fisher, dean of the University of Connecticut School of Law. "They can now do various kinds of client work and limited court appearances on their own, provided they have supervision from a more senior licensed attorney."
In the past, supervising attorneys were required to be present with law school graduates for various functions.
Now, the new adopted rule allows law school graduates to do the following without a supervising attorney present in civil cases: participate in short calendar calls and arguments; report and seek ratification from the court of a written agreement; conduct an unopposed foreclosure proceeding seeking judgment; take part in a pretrial conference or status conference; and participate in an uncontested dissolution of a marriage proceeding.
In addition, law school graduates can now also—with a supervising attorney present—make oral arguments before Connecticut's Appellate Court and Supreme Court.
The rule states only lawyers in good standing with the Connecticut bar who have no history of professional discipline, including administrative suspensions, can be supervising attorneys.
"I think everyone has … compassion for what the students are going through with this delay, and we made the best compromise we felt we could make," said Pullman & Comley member Anne Dranginis, chairwoman of the Connecticut Bar Examining Committee.
While Utah enacted diploma privileges for law school graduates because of COVID-19 and Wisconsin has, for a while, had diploma privileges for graduates of the University of Wisconsin Law School and Marquette University Law School, Dranginis said that route wasn't an option for Connecticut.
"It doesn't protect the public. Not testing minimal competence erodes confidence with the public," Dranginis said Thursday. "That was a nonstarter."
Brad Saxton, interim dean at Quinnipiac University School of Law, said getting attorneys to act as supervising attorneys could "be a challenge."
Saxton estimates between 350 and 500 graduates are planning to take the Connecticut bar examination later this year.
"We need to have lots of lawyers that are willing to work with a graduate student and be their supervisors," Saxton said. "We have been talking to the bar examining committee on what can be done about getting those attorney supervisors. We are looking to the Connecticut Bar Association for help and law schools are reaching out to alum. Many are already volunteering to be mentors, and maybe some of them would be willing under the new rules to supervise a recent graduate."
Related stories:
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 AllPike Fuels Agrees to Pay $2 Million Settlement to Resolve Alleged New Haven Environmental Violations
2 minute readHigh-Flying Genetics Testing Firm GeneDx Hires Ex-Zoetis GC as Legal Chief
2 minute readApple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
Ben & Jerry’s Accuses Corporate Parent of ‘Silencing’ Support for Palestinian Rights
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Read the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome', DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
- 2Voir Dire Voyeur: I Find Out What Kind of Juror I’d Be
- 3When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
- 4Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 5Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
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