Open Book Essays, Camera Requirement Highlight Georgia Online Bar Exam Details
Bar admissions Director Heidi Faenza said allowed materials for the Georgia essay portion "include paper notes, paper outlines, paper textbooks, paper bar prep materials and paper copies of the Georgia Code."
July 27, 2020 at 03:03 PM
4 minute read
The next Georgia bar exam will depend more than ever on technology, given the test for more than 1,000 would-be attorneys will be conducted online. But for one key part, old-fashioned paper will play a big role.
The Office of Bar Admissions announced Monday that the three essay questions concerning Georgia law will be "open book," meaning applicants will be able to refer to paper books and paper notes.
Bar admissions Director Heidi Faenza told the Daily Report that allowed materials include "include paper notes, paper outlines, paper textbooks, paper bar prep materials, and paper copies of the Georgia Code."
Another wrinkle to the exam rules is that all candidates must use a computer that has a camera or connect to a separate online camera. "While you are logged into an exam session, the remote-proctored, online exam will be continuously recorded and monitored by both artificial intelligence and human proctors," the board office said in its announcement.
Monday's announcement came a week after the state Supreme Court canceled the in-person bar exam, which was initially scheduled for this month, then postponed to September due to the COVID-19 pandemic. With Georgia's virus caseload reaching its highest levels, the court canceled the September test and shifted to an online exam, Oct. 5-6, as several other states have done.
The bar admissions office said Monday it was still considering whether to enter reciprocity deals with other states by which each would recognize lawyers who passed the other's online exams. "The portability of your score for the online exam will depend on the bar admission rules in the jurisdiction in which you seek admission," the announcement said.
Andrea Curcio, a Georgia State University law professor who was an early proponent of the need for bar exams to change to accommodate social distancing, told the Daily Report on Monday, "The Court and Board of Bar Examiners are doing their best in a very difficult situation with an untested exam and exam format. It's a tough job and they are really working hard to make this work as well and as smoothly as possible under the circumstances."
Curcio said her biggest concern is how the exam will be scored and reported in terms with previous years' exams, "It's a new exam format given on computers—both of which may affect outcomes. Also, it is an exam given to examinees who have had so many twists and turns this year—both in terms of life circumstances and in terms of ability to engage in focused study like in years past."
The bar admissions office said Monday that it will be working with a psychometrician—an expert in validity and fairness of an testing program—to "sustain high exam reliability while maintaining a standard that is reflective of past exams."
Curcio said consulting the expert is useful, but "it will be extremely difficult to accurately scale and equate this exam to past exams."
Curcio praised the open book Georgia essay questions: "Lawyering is an open book profession, and making these questions open book recognizes that."
She encouraged bar exam authorities to state which topic areas—torts, contracts, evidence or trusts and estates, for examples—that will be covered. "Letting examinees focus on key topic areas would relieve some level of stress and would still test what we really want to know: can examinees structure a legal argument using the correct rules of law and appropriate factual analyses."
"Identifying key topic areas also would allow graduates to know what materials to bring to the exam while still requiring them to issue spot and engage in legal analysis," Curcio added.
|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 AllFrom 'Confusing Labyrinth' to Speeding 'Roller Coaster': Uncertainty Reigns in Title IX as Litigators Await Second Trump Admin
6 minute read'The Court Will Take Action': Judge Upbraids Combative Rudy Giuliani During Outburst at Hearing
When Police Destroy Property, Is It a 'Taking'? Maybe So, Say Sotomayor, Gorsuch
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
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