Bar Application Shouldn't Inquire Into Mental Health
The current question of New Jersey's bar application form is similar to the question that New York has now discarded. We respectfully urge our Supreme Court to join in this movement.
March 15, 2020 at 10:00 AM
3 minute read
The New York Court of Appeals recently announced that it was modifying its application questionnaire for admission to the NY bar, and removing the question that asked: "Do you currently have any condition or impairment including, but not limited to a mental, emotional, psychiatric, nervous or behavioral disorder or condition, or an alcohol, drug or other substance abuse condition or impairment or gambling addiction, which in any way impairs or limits your ability to practice law?"
In its place, the application form will henceforth inquire into the past conduct of the applicant, by asking: "Within the past seven years, have you asserted any condition or impairment as a defense, in mitigation, or as an explanation for your conduct in the course of any inquiry, any investigation, or any administrative or judicial proceeding by an educational institution, government agency, professional organization, or licensing authority; or in connection with an employment disciplinary or termination procedure?"
We applaud this action by New York. The prior inquiry on the bar application into whether a student is, or has been, a mental health consumer had an obvious deterrent effect on law students getting the professional help that they needed. We think that anyone in the legal profession who has the good sense to seek treatment for mental health issues, and who thus may have been diagnosed with a "condition or impairment," should be praised for the prudence in doing so, and should not be placed under the additional stress of worrying whether seeking treatment would adversely affect their chances of being admitted to the bar.
Gathering information on an applicant's general mental health status simply invites unhelpful speculation, and encourages the propagation of stereotypes about those who seek mental health treatment. New York's new focus on the conduct that may have resulted from any such condition is more than sufficient to allow the appropriate character committees to assess whether the applicant will be a fit and competent lawyer.
The current question of New Jersey's bar application form is similar to the question that New York has now discarded: "Do you CURRENTLY have any condition or impairment (including but not limited to substance abuse, alcohol abuse, or a mental, emotional or nervous disorder or condition) that in any way affects your ability to practice law in a competent, ethical and professional manner and in compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct, the Rules of Court, and applicable case law?"
We appreciate that the current wording makes an attempt to limit the inquiry within some temporal and subject matter bounds. But like the old New York question, New Jersey currently imposes the burden on the applicant to decide whether a mental health condition "affects your ability to practice law," a judgment that a law student is hardly in a position to make, and which tempts the student to avoid creating a record that might used later.
The Conference of Chief Justices, the ABA, and numerous other professional and advocacy organizations, have all adopted public positions calling for the removal of questions on bar applications inquiring into mental health diagnoses and treatment. We respectfully urge our Supreme Court to join in this movement and make suitable changes to New Jersey's bar application.
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 AllA Year of Controversy: NJ Judges Face Disciplinary and Legal Issues With Mixed Results in 2024
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Kirkland's Daniel Lavon-Krein: Staying Ahead of Private Equity Consolidation
- 2Many Southeast Law Firms Planned New, Smaller Offices in 2024
- 3On the Move and After Hours: Goldberg Segalla, Faegre Drinker, Pashman Stein
- 4Recent FTC Cases Against Auto Dealers Suggest Regulators Are Keeping Foot on Accelerator
- 5‘Not A Kindergarten Teacher’: Judge Blasts Keller Postman, Jenner & Block, in Mass Arb Dispute
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