Bar Admission Process Holds Value
The authors of a recent Law Journal commentary, "The Need for Bar Admission Reform," make some worthwhile points but ignore the important work that the various Character and Fitness Committees perform in New York State, as part of the attorney admission process. In particular, they seek to marginalize the interview requirement for all applicants.
June 15, 2017 at 02:00 PM
6 minute read
In “The Need for Bar Admission Reform” (NYLJ, May 9), the authors reflect on the necessity for reform in the bar admission process. They make some worthwhile points but ignore the important work that the various Character and Fitness Committees perform in New York State, as part of the attorney admission process. In particular, they seek to marginalize the interview requirement for all applicants. This short piece shall serve as a response.
The authors, focusing on practices involving the Character and Fitness Committee of the Appellate Division, Second Department, believe that the admission process is far too slow, causing unnecessary delay for financially overburdened young lawyers eager to begin the practice of law. They believe that the requirement of an interview for each applicant is a relic of times long past when admission to the bar was controlled by an all-boys club. It is their view that such interviews need only be conducted in the most unusual situation when it is appropriate to “flag” an applicant's application in advance on account of some past significant problem. The authors also argue for the abolition of the traditional admissions ceremony to be replaced instead by a sort of mass induction, without frills, to be held as soon as possible.
The authors note that “It is not unusual, especially in the Appellate Division, Second Department, for young lawyers to be admitted a full year after graduation from law school or later.” While we are not privy to the statistics that the authors rely on, we believe that once a completed application is submitted to a Departmental Character and Fitness Committee, unless circumstances call for an extended examination, the candidate should be scheduled to appear at a swearing in ceremony within three months from that date. We believe that this period of time is more than reasonable to process an application and conduct the necessary due diligence of the applicant.
This content has been archived.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 AllCourt System's Franklin H. Williams Judicial Commission Presents Annual Diversity Awards
Trending Stories
- 1New Class Action Points to Fears Over Privacy, Abortions and Fertility
- 2Ex-Big Law Attorney Disbarred for Defrauding $1 Million of Client Money
- 3'New Circumstances': Winston & Strawn Seek Expedited Relief in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
- 4Productivity Suite Startup Macro Announces $12 Million Funding Round
- 5Rudy Giuliani Loses Bid to Dismiss $1.3 Million Davidoff Hutcher & Citron Suit Over Unpaid Legal Fees
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