Letter to the Editor: Florida Bar Examiners Ignore Mental Health of Test-Takers
Miami attorney Matthew Dietz critiques the Florida Bar of Board Examiners' decision to move ahead with a July bar exam with few allowances for the coronavirus pandemic.
May 06, 2020 at 03:29 PM
3 minute read
When I took the bar exam, I was seated next to a man with a nasal infection, and for the first 15 minutes of the exam each sniffle was like a jackhammer and each snort was like a bomb. The proctor moved me to the other side of the room. This was before the age of COVID-19, where a dry cough may pose a mortal threat.
The Florida Board of Bar Examiners decided to buck the trend of states with many prospective applicants to be lawyers and hold their bar exam in July, and promised to maintain social distancing and require masks. Many large states have postponed their bar exams until September; however, in Florida, we believe our livelihoods are worth risking our lives.
In making this decision, the bar examiners consulted with the Department of Health to ensure that the test-taking environment is safe but failed to make any consideration for the mental health or wellness of the test takers or any consideration for test takers with disabilities. With any high-stakes test, the level of test-taking anxiety shoots through the roof, both before and during the test. Extended stress, such as preparing for the bar exam, weakens the immune system and increases susceptibility to colds and viruses.
If an applicant has a little cough, cold or slight fever, an applicant will wait and hope that their temperature is low enough for admission to the test, but for each sniffle, sneeze or cough in the testing room, there will be a shudder that reverberates through the room.
For persons with disabilities, this test administration is more problematic. The deadline to request disability accommodations has passed, and persons who would not ordinarily request accommodations will now need them. Now, persons who are at-risk or immunocompromised, those with learning disabilities-such as ADHD and with severe anxiety will need private, disease- and distraction-free environments.
While there is no doubt that the bar examiners had in mind the interest and safety of the applicants to earn a livelihood, they failed to take into account the profession's interest in their mental health and wellness.
Matthew W. Dietz
Litigation director
Disability Independence Group Inc.
Miami
This content has been archived.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 AllAs a New Year Dawns, the Value of Florida’s Revised Mediation Laws Comes Into Greater Focus
4 minute readThese Law Firm Leaders Are Optimistic About 2025, Citing Deal Pipeline, International Business
6 minute readData Breaches, Increased Regulatory Risk and Florida’s New Digital Bill of Rights
7 minute read'So Many Firms' Have Yet to Announce Associate Bonuses, Underlining Big Law's Uneven Approach
5 minute readTrending Stories
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