Fall In-Person NJ Bar Exam Canceled, Goes Online Only Due to COVID-19
The state's in-person exam that was scheduled for Sept. 9-10 and had attracted some 2,000 applicants, now will be administered remotely by the New Jersey Board of Bar Examiners on Oct. 5-6, according to the order signed by Chief Justice Stuart Rabner.
July 15, 2020 at 05:51 PM
4 minute read
The New Jersey in-person bar exam, originally scheduled for July 2020, then postponed until early September due to the coronavirus, has now been fully canceled.
Those planning to take the fall bar exam will need to take it remotely under a new Supreme Court order announced Wednesday. New Jersey joins Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia, which had already moved their July in-person exams to September before canceling them in favor of the Oct. 5-6 online test.
Louisiana, Florida, Texas, Tennessee and Kentucky canceled in-person tests that were scheduled this month as COVID-19 cases continue to surge rapidly in certain parts of the country, particularly in the West and South.
The state's in-person exam that was scheduled for Sept. 9-10 and had attracted some 2,000 applicants, now will be administered remotely by the New Jersey Board of Bar Examiners on Oct. 5-6, according to the order signed by Chief Justice Stuart Rabner.
"Like other court functions that have transitioned successfully to remote operations, a remote bar examination will maintain professional standards and public confidence at a time when health officials counsel against large, in-person events," Rabner said in the Wednesday release.
"Under the circumstances, and guided by the science, the Supreme Court has concluded it is simply unsafe to gather 2,000 applicants, even across multiple coordinated locations, for an in-person bar examination," added Rabner.
Rabner said while the September test was to be administered at multiple locations, the nationwide spread of COVID-19 remains a concern. Some Western and Sunbelt states have reported alarming increases in recent weeks that have prompted governors in those states to scale back their reopenings or, in California's case, again close bars and other businesses for a second time.
The chief justice said of the nearly 2,000 law school graduates who applied to take the exam, about 900 were from out of state, and 150 from states whose residents are subject to the governor's two-week self-quarantine advisory. In a tweet on Tuesday, Gov. Phil Murphy announced he had updated his travel advisory. The governor said anyone now traveling to New Jersey from these 22 states should quarantine for 14 days: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin.
Not surprisingly, some of these same states have canceled their own in-person bar exams. This month Louisiana became the first jurisdiction to cancel a planned online bar exam. The Louisiana Supreme Court and the court's Committee on Bar Admissions in early June announced that bar takers would have the option to take exams scheduled for July and October in person or online. The court had already reduced the length of the exam from the traditional three days down to one.
"Although New Jersey has made significant inroads to combat the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic, COVID-19 is gaining strength in many areas of the country and continues to be a serious threat to health and safety," Rabner said of the changing landscape.
Maryland, Massachusetts, Tennessee and the District of Columbia have recently announced they too will administer a remote bar examination in October.
"The Court will seek to enter into agreements with those jurisdictions, and any others that follow suit, to allow exam results to be accepted reciprocally," Rabner said.
Candidates are urged to visit the Board of Bar Examiners' website for further information regarding their applications and the upcoming exam.
Those who already have applied are automatically registered for the October remote exam.
Candidates can also defer to a future in-person exam and would be permitted to temporarily practice law, without a license, under the supervision of experienced attorneys. An order signed by the chief justice on April 6 relaxed court rules, but requires the supervising attorneys to be in good standing and have been licensed for a minimum of three years.
Rabner said then that the April court order was meant not only to help fulfill legal needs during the state's prolonged public health emergency, but also to buffer the economic blow for recent graduates by enabling them to gain practical experience and have some type of income.
Several states, including New York, have said they are considering similar moves in light of bar exam complications because of COVID-19, but New Jersey looks to be the first state to have made the supervised practice arrangement official.
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 AllNJ Justices Provide A Sensible Decision on the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
4 minute read2024 Continuing Legal Education Attorney Ineligible List and In-House Counsel Ineligible List
Trending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
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