Frequently and even recently in these very pages it is proudly asserted that "[t]he license to practice law in New York has long been considered the international gold standard." (Michael Miller, July 21, NYLJ). Even so, in the new world of law that is dominated by accelerating innovation, competition and uncertainty the luster of this reputation cannot be maintained by clinging to the past. Adjustments and improvements in the way new attorneys are admitted to the bar are feasible and now urgently needed.

In the midst of the novel coronavirus crisis New York State's Court of Appeals and its Board of Law Examiners (BOLE) have embarked on an historic opportunity to serve the public need for more good lawyers and affordable legal services. They can make sweet use of the awful adversity of the pandemic with sensible data driven timely changes to the old-fashioned bar exam.

Indeed, we will not have to wait. Last week, the Court of Appeals announced that an online version of the exam will be offered on October 5 and 6, 2020. Though details will follow as they are worked out, the Court of Appeals acknowledged that there are challenges and hardships with this emergency response to the health crisis and committed to mitigate them.

Candidates' inboxes are already flooded with promotions urging them to pay yet another time for bar prep courses for the October exam. And as they have recently done after graduation, once again many—if not most—will take significant time off work needed to pay expenses, student debt and new loans. Testing sites will be needed because many, including less advantaged and disabled students—just kind of people our profession has been working hard to encourage—often do not have access to appropriate online facilities at home. (Cash strapped law schools lack the funds to pay for offsite testing locations. Perhaps New York's vaunted bar can step in with a "Dunkirk" like rescue by enabling BOLE to make use of their state of the art office facilities and rely on licensed lawyers to voluntarily proctor the exams in dozens if not hundreds of locations. Note to file: Think creatively!)

Meanwhile prospective employers are not going to like hiring and supervising aspiring lawyers now who will need to take a big chunk of time off later to study, take the test, and hope for the best while awaiting results. Speedier grading of the online test would in itself be a major improvement.

Beyond the numerous questions about how to implement the online stop gap measure, presumably and hopefully work will continue to determine a sensible evidence based way to overhaul the system for good. Chief Judge Janet DiFiore has appointed a working group under the leadership of former Judge Howard A. Levine to "study the future of the bar exam." What a legacy it would be for all those involved who could be credited with helping to reinvigorate the rule of law and deal responsibly with one of the most stubbornly insidious and almost hidden barriers to affordable, diverse and inclusive legal services and entry into the profession itself.

One solution which should not be discounted out of hand and which warrants continuing assessment in light of expanding experience is to allow graduates of ABA-accredited law schools to practice by "right of diploma" without sitting for the conventional exam. This is an approach that has worked well in Wisconsin for decades and now will be used at least this year in Washington, Oregon, Louisiana and is under consideration in Texas and other states. Indeed, at the moment of yesterday's announcement by the Court of Appeals, there were right of diploma bills were under consideration by the state legislature in Albany. All fifteen New York State law school deans have urged the Court of Appeals to adopt the right of diploma at least on an interim basis to permit 2020 graduates to practice law. After all, every one of their graduates earned their J.D. degrees. Trust me that is not easy.

To receive their diplomas the Law Class of 2020 did everything the ABA, New York State regulators, and the superb faculties of each of New York's fine ABA accredited law schools required them to do. They were constantly tested, graded, supervised, and worked hard getting practical experience and performing many required court ordered hours of free legal work before graduation.

There is another option that even now could be offered in addition to the October online test, or in the future. The good news is that much can be accomplished by building upon the most recent practice order issued by the Court of Appeals. That recent order permits the temporary practice of law under the supervision of a licensed more experienced New York practitioner. However, it does not yet quite go far enough to deal with the excruciatingly difficult circumstances that only now are becoming apparent. A few modest amendments could actually solve both the pandemic related problems and even restore the emphasis on New York Law that some feel was abandoned when the State adopted the Uniform Bar Exam. Call this approach the "New York Practice Pathway to Licensure" with the practice orders being the foundation of the pathway.

Under amended practice orders, graduates could work under the supervision of a licensed attorney for a period of time set by the Court—and then have that supervising attorney certify minimum competency based on their performance. If that is not the best indicator of minimum competency, especially under the circumstances, then what is? It is not unlike how attorneys are called to the bar in Canada and the U.K. whose attorneys have a deserved reputation for excellence.

In addition aspiring attorneys should be required to take and pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam and the New York Law Exam within the two years leading to licensure (Both of which are already online and required, and most 2020 candidates for admission to the bar have completed taken by now).

Current requirements for admission already include the practice pathways (now amplified by practice orders) and 50 hours of pro bono work (which could be increased and could even be a part of the desperately needed COVID access to justice response).

To meet the concerns of some that there is no longer enough New York law required to be admitted to the State bar (which by the way candidates for admission would learn working under practice orders)—the Court of Appeals could consider increasing the already required 32 hours of new lawyer Continuing Legal Education.

Upon completing all of these requirements, plus satisfying that they have the character and fitness to serve the public as officers of the court, candidates would be admitted without sitting for the conventional examination. An additional test would not only be unnecessary, but the prospect of having to take the bar is for many worthy candidates the most critical shortcoming of the existing practice order.

That is because 2020 law graduates already are learning that they are less likely to be hired and supervised, or that job offers are rescinded, if their path to admission is uncertain and if potential employers know they will need to stop work in the future to prepare for a test. Perhaps most important, as with the online option, the added cost of paying once again for the bar cram courses and forgoing several more months of gainful employment while studying for the bar would be too expensive for many hardworking, talented aspiring attorneys to bear.

The proposed practice order initiative might be described as "the COVID pilot program." If available soon as an option in conjunction with the online exam, it could help BOLE from becoming overwhelmed by reducing the numbers who need to be accommodated for the online test. The online test might prove to be more practical and appropriate for graduates of out of state law schools and international students for many reasons. In addition, it would be possible to monitor the lawyers licensed in different ways and to ask them, their employers, and perhaps clients to voluntarily participate in surveys and compare their performance to others who took the New York Bar Exam and the Uniform Bar Exam. I am betting that no difference will be discerned, but at least the bar would have useful information before deciding to return to old normal or to change.

Justifications for the traditional bar exam are increasingly hard to come by. It is a perverse absurdity that the first thing law graduates must do after receiving their hard earned expensive diplomas, is to pay thousands of dollars to take a cram course for a test that bears little relation to what they learned in law school and even less to what they must know and do as practicing lawyers. After all, the practice of law is a lifelong open book exam.

It simply cannot be the case that the collective talent and wisdom of our profession is incapable of developing a better way or even multiple new ways to license new attorneys to serve the public. We can hope that the present necessity will jumpstart the effort to modernize the final stage of becoming an attorney. Until that time, adopting the right of diploma in New York for the class of 2020, as my former respected law dean colleagues urge, or amending the Court of Appeals practice order to establish a rigorous pathway to practice without sitting for the traditional exam, are approaches which deserve further consideration based on available and growing evidence. The traditional bar exam is only the best of all systems until you seriously consider the alternatives.

Nicholas W. Allard is former president and dean of Brooklyn Law School.