Shutdown Imperils DC Bar Exam, Swearing-In Postponed
Whether February's test will occur is in question amid the federal government's partial shutdown. Several states are stepping in to allow D.C. takers to register late for their exams.
January 24, 2019 at 01:58 PM
4 minute read
Law graduates who expected to sit for the bar exam in the District of Columbia next month are in limbo, awaiting official word on whether the test will take place amid the partial shutdown of the federal government.
The District of Columbia Courts' Committee on Admissions is closed due to the shutdown, and it warned test takers earlier this month that the exam could also be impacted. In a message on its website, the committee said it was still planning to administer the exam on Feb. 26-27, but that it was “closely monitoring any new developments with the federal government shutdown.” The status of the exam could change, it warned. (The federal government controls the funding for D.C., which has a dispensation to keep essential functions operating amid shutdowns.)
On Tuesday, the National Conference of Bar Examiners said it was aware of the situation and looking for potential solutions. But it clarified that it cannot step in to administer the exam should the shutdown persist, because registration and administration for the bar is handled by individual jurisdictions.
Meanwhile, at least four other jurisdictions—New York, New Jersey, Missouri and Minnesota—have said they will accept some applications to take the exam from D.C. takers even though the official registration deadline has passed. All five jurisdictions use the Uniform Bar Exam, meaning their scores are transferable. The D.C. test does not have a local jurisdiction component.
“We are in contact with DC Court of Appeals representatives and are awaiting their decision about the possible need to cancel the exam should the shutdown continue,” reads a message on the national conference's website.
The D.C. courts, which are federally funded, remain open. But several committees, including admissions and the marriage bureau, are closed.
It's unclear exactly how many test takers could be affected should the exam be canceled. Last February, 623 people sat for the bar there, and 47 percent of them passed. (The February exam has a higher percent of repeat takers than July.)
Even those who passed the July 2018 D.C. bar exam are getting hit with the consequences of the shutdown, however. Their swearing-in ceremony, scheduled for Jan. 25, has been postponed. That ceremony will be rescheduled once the shutdown ends, the courts said earlier this month.
Law grads already certified to practice by the D.C. Committee on Admissions can apply to be sworn in by absentia.
As for upcoming test takers, New Jersey has given D.C. bar registrants until Feb. 1 to sign up for its exam, but only those affiliated with the state. They'll have to provide proof of current New Jersey residency, proof that they graduated from a New Jersey law school, or proof of past or current legal employment in the state.
New York has cautioned that the space for its upcoming bar exam is limited, and that preference will be given on the same priority basis as New Jersey. Any remaining seats will be issued on a first-come, first-served basis.
It's too soon to know how many D.C. registrants will end up taking the bar in New York, said New York State Board of Bar Examiners Executive Director John McAlary in an interview Thursday. The state just announced its late registration option Wednesday evening, after hearing from a half-dozen D.C. test takers looking for an alternative.
“I put myself in their shoes, and through no fault of their own they find themselves in this situation,” he said. “If it were me, I'd certainly be stressed about it.”
McAlary said he expects other jurisdictions to announce late registration for D.C. bar registrants in the coming days. No single jurisdiction can accommodate all the D.C. test takers—should the exam be canceled—since they've already booked testing space, chairs and proctors.
“Hopefully, we'll know more soon, so test takers know whether to sit tight or go elsewhere,” McAlary said.
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
© 2025 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 AllPennsylvania Law Schools Are Seeing Double-Digit Boosts in 2025 Applications
5 minute readWhat’s at Stake in Supreme Court Case Over Religious Charter School?
University of New Hampshire Law School Launches Specialized Health, Life Sciences Program
Supreme Court Takes Up Case Over Approval of Religious Charter School
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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