New York Cancels September Bar Exam Without Alternative Test in Place
New York joins a slew of other jurisdictions that have canceled planned bar exams amid the COVID-19 pandemic. But it's the first to pull the plug without committing to an online test or a diploma privilege.
July 16, 2020 at 05:08 PM
4 minute read
Add New York to the list of jurisdictions that have canceled their bar exam.
The New York Court of Appeals on Thursday announced the planned Sept. 9 and 10 in-person exam will not happen. The exam was already postponed from late July, when the licensing exam is typically given. Unlike many other jurisdictions that have also canceled their exams this month, New York did not immediately announce plans for an alternative online test or other licensure paths. The impact of the cancellation is likely to ripple across the country, as New York is the single largest bar exam jurisdiction. About 10,000 people typically sit for its July exam.
"The [New York Board of Law Examiners] arrived at this decision after careful consideration of current conditions and with a singular focus on the health and safety of all participants," reads the court's announcement. "Unfortunately, the global pandemic presents a persisting threat in a growing number of states and therefore, at this juncture, an in-person exam is not yet a safe or practical option in New York."
According to the announcement, Chief Judge Janet DiFiore has appointed a working group to evaluate next steps. It is being chaired by retired Court of Appeals Judge Howard A. Levine with a goal of offering a recommendation to the court by early August. The working group will consider a variety of possibilities, including administering the abbreviated online version of the bar exam that is being offered by the National Conference of Bar Examiners on Oct. 5 and 6. The group will also consider an emergency diploma privilege that would allow law graduates to be licensed in the state without passing the bar exam—an option that many examinees have been lobbying for in recent weeks.
The New York State Bar Association said Thursday that it will also review the matter and make a recommendation to the court.
"The class of 2020 has been dealt a difficult hand and many graduates are experiencing stress and strain over the uncertainty surrounding the bar exam, a grim job market, and staggering student debt," said state bar president Scott Karson. "[The state bar] will expeditiously examine the alternatives, taking into account the interests of consumers of legal services as well as the law school graduates seeking admission to the New York bar."
Reaction from bar takers and legal educators came swiftly on Twitter. Allie Robbins, a professor at the City University of New York School of Law, tweeted that the school would continue to help graduates become licensed no matter how long the process takes. She said CUNY Law Dean Mary Lu Bilek would hold a Zoom session Friday to discuss the situation with graduates.
"Cancelling the bar exam with no clear plan demonstrates how far removed from the reality of bar study the Court of Appeals is," Robbins tweeted. "Adding more chaos to this uncertain time is devastating and traumatizing. But you will get through it."
The court earlier adopted a provision allowing those who were signed up to take the July bar exam to temporarily perform legal work under the supervision of a licensed attorney as long as they take the first available bar exam of 2021.
"Because suspension of the September exam has always been a real possibility, the court has proceeded on dual tracks: working towards a safe administration of the exam while simultaneously developing contingencies to ameliorate the effects of further postponement," the court's announcement reads.
New Jersey and Pennsylvania both canceled their in-person September bar exams in the past week and said they would give the October online test. Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., were the first to take such action. Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Kentucky and Louisiana have also recently canceled in-person tests that were scheduled to take place this month, with each jurisdiction citing rising COVID-19 cases.
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 AllNY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
'No Evidence'?: Big Law Firms Defend Academic Publishers in EDNY Antitrust Case
3 minute read'Substantive Deficiencies': Judge Grants Big Law Motion Dismissing Ivy League Price-Fixing Claims
3 minute readLippman Study on Antisemitism at CUNY Weighs Free Speech, Unprotected Acts
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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