New York Moves Closer to Axing Mental Health Question From Bar Application
"My understanding is that this is going to happen with some dispatch. They should act quickly," Greenberg said.
December 11, 2019 at 02:46 PM
5 minute read
New York court officials agreed during a closed-door meeting Tuesday to consider removing a question from the state bar's application that asks prospective attorneys about their mental health, including any diagnosed conditions.
Chief Judge Janet DiFiore and the presiding justices of New York's four appellate courts referred the question to another committee for further review Tuesday. That committee is expected to decide in the coming weeks if the question should be removed, and if anything should replace it. The question could be changed to ask about behavior, rather than specific diagnoses, for example.
Any recommendations from that committee, which is chaired by Associate Judge Jenny Rivera of the Court of Appeals and focuses on admissions to the bar, are then expected to be sent back to DiFiore and the presiding justices for a final determination.
Lucian Chalfen, a spokesman for the state Office of Court Administration, confirmed Wednesday that New York's top judges sent the question to Rivera's committee for review during their meeting Tuesday.
"The Administrative Board met yesterday and decided to send the mental health question to the Chief Judge's Committee on Admissions to the Bar for their recommendations," Chalfen said. "The next meeting of the board will be early in the new year."
A final decision on the question's removal is expected soon, said Hank Greenberg, the current president of the New York State Bar Association and a shareholder at Greenberg Traurig.
"Based on what I was told, I'm hopeful the board will act quickly and soon after it receives the committee's recommendations," Greenberg said. "I am very hopeful there will be changes to Question 34 as it now exists."
Question 34 is a reference to the specific question on the application that queries prospective attorneys about any mental health conditions they may have, and asks them to say if their ability to practice law will be impaired or limited as a result.
Earlier this year, the New York State Bar Association set out to study whether that question should be cut, and promptly issued a report two months later calling for its removal.
"I could not be more excited, or prouder of the work of the working group of the association," Greenberg said. "It moved with extraordinary speed and rapidity itself."
The report of the group, called the Working Group on Attorney Mental Health, found that the question isn't necessary to evaluate a prospective attorney's character and fitness to practice, and may not even be legal. That's because asking about mental health may violate the Americans With Disabilities Act by appearing to exclude access to someone who discloses such an issue, according to the report.
"Screening out otherwise qualified applicants with mental disabilities is not only impossible and unnecessary, it is ultimately detrimental to the profession of law and those we serve," the report said.
Even worse, the report said, allowing the question to remain may actually exacerbate an individual's mental illness. Some applicants, according to the report, have foregone treatment over concerns it would impair their admission to the state bar.
"It's vitally important that this not drag on," Greenberg said. "Every day the question remains on the bar admission application, there's a law student in one of New York's 15 law schools that's dissuade or discouraged from getting mental health services when they feel they need it."
Tuesday's decision was the first official action from court officials to address the inquiry since the State Bar Association's report was published in August.
That was one of several efforts in recent months to consider the question after several state and federal entities voice support for its removal.
The latest effort was from the deans of almost every law school in New York, who recently penned a letter in November to state court officials calling on the question to be dumped.
The letter was inspired by the State Bar Association's report from August, which was later approved by the organization's House of Delegates. The vote doubled as both an approval of the report, and a formal position of the State Bar Association in favor of the question's removal.
Since that vote, legislation has also been introduced that would bar state court officials from asking about mental health on future bar applications. That was introduced by Sen. Brad Hoylman, D-Manhattan, who chairs the Judiciary Committee.
Removal of the question also has support from the American Bar Association, the New York City Bar Association, the national Conference of Chief Justices and the Mental Health Association in New York State.
READ MORE:
NY's Law School Deans Ask Court Officials to Remove Mental Health Question for Attorney Applicants
Legislation Introduced to Strike Question About Mental Health History for Attorney Applicants in NY
NY State Bar Set to Eye Removal of Mental Health Question for Attorney Applicants
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
© 2025 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 AllRelaxing Penalties on Discovery Noncompliance Allows Criminal Cases to Get Decided on Merit
5 minute readBipartisan Lawmakers to Hochul Urge Greater Student Loan Forgiveness for Public-Interest Lawyers
'Playing the Clock'?: Hochul Says NY's Discovery Loophole Is to Blame for Wide Dismissal of Criminal Cases
So Who Won? Congestion Pricing Ruling Leaves Both Sides Claiming Victory, Attorneys Seeking Clarification
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Learning From Experience: The Best and Worst of Years Past
- 2Treasury GC Returns to Davis Polk to Co-Chair White-Collar Defense and Investigations Practice
- 3Decision of the Day: JFK to Paris Stowaway's Bail Revocation Explained
- 4Doug Emhoff, Husband of Former VP Harris, Lands at Willkie
- 5LexisNexis Announces Public Availability of Personalized AI Assistant Protégé
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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