Task Force Wants to Scrap Portion of NY Bar Exam, Irrespective of COVID-19 Pandemic
"The current bar examination format fails to protect New Yorkers by not demanding that attorneys who seek to practice here demonstrate minimum competence in New York law," said task force chair Alan Scheinkman.
April 03, 2020 at 02:46 PM
4 minute read
A New York State Bar Association group is recommending ditching part of the New York bar exam to better prepare students to practice in the state.
The group, the Task Force on the New York Bar Exam, on Friday called for eliminating the New York Law Exam (NYLE) phase of the bar exam and "replacing it with a more rigorous component focused on New York law that would be a prerequisite for admission to practice in New York," according to an announcement and report from the state bar Friday.
"Our task force concluded that the current bar examination format fails to protect New Yorkers by not demanding that attorneys who seek to practice here demonstrate minimum competence in New York law," said task force chair Alan Scheinkman, presiding justice of the Appellate Division for the Second Department, in a statement.
The task force was formed in April 2019, responding to anecdotal evidence that new lawyers don't understand the rules for practicing in New York courts.
The group's recommendations a year later coincide with the coronavirus pandemic and the high uncertainty already facing law school students and graduates. But Scheinkman said the recommendations—if approved by the Court of Appeals—would not apply to current law school students and a transition time would be implemented.
On Tuesday, the New York Court of Appeals said, due to the coronavirus pandemic, it will seek to have the July bar exam rescheduled for "early September"—a plan now getting pushback from law school deans in the state. The court also said that it had authorized Chief Judge Janet DiFiore to explore the possibility of permitting law graduates waiting to take the bar exam or waiting for test results to practice under the supervision of licensed attorneys.
The task force's report on scraping part of the New York bar exam will be presented to the state bar's House of Delegates on Saturday.
In the report released Friday, the task force said its members found "overwhelming evidence that applicants to the New York bar do not take the NYLE seriously, with some students describing it as a joke."
Among its recommendations, the state bar's task force called for allowing those who do not wish to practice law in New York to take only the Uniform Bar Exam (UBE) and allowing those who only wish to practice in New York to take only the Multistate Bar Examination section of the UBE and a rigorous New York test. Under the task force's proposals, law school graduates who want to practice in New York would not take the Multistate Essay Examination, Scheinkman said.
The task force further proposed a New York law certification program that would allow people to forgo the bar exam entirely. Under this program, ABA-accredited law schools inside and outside of New York would offer courses that include New York law-based content, the task force said.
Also recommended: conducting "an independent psychometric analysis" of the grading and scaling of the UBE. "The grading and scoring practices are questionable and no independent analysis has been conducted into whether the UBE accurately measures what it purports to assess," the report said.
Finally, the state bar's report proposed a learning pilot program that would allow second- and third-year law students to spend time counseling clients, working with practicing attorneys and learning other practical skills so that a portfolio of work is created and assessed every semester.
Amid the pandemic, the New York admissions process, like many other proceedings in the courts, has been put on hold. But a Wednesday statement from the four presiding justices of the Appellate Division said they are exploring opportunities to move forward.
"We are presently working on methods by which our admissions employees could do much of their work from their homes," the presiding justices said. "We are also exploring innovative methods by which the admissions process may be expedited through the use of technology. We hope to be able to implement these new approaches in the coming weeks."
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 AllPatent Trolls Come Under Increasing Fire in Federal Courts
Trump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
Trending Stories
- 1NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 2A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 3Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
- 4State Bar of Georgia Presents Access to Justice Pro Bono Awards
- 5Tips For Creating Holiday Plans That Everyone Can Be Grateful For
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