Officials Ponder Potential Delay in July Bar Exam Because of COVID-19
The Texas Board of Law Examiners meets Friday to discuss the July bar exam, which some law deans fear will be impacted by the coronavirus. The July exam is going on for now, and any decision about delaying it would not come until early May.
March 26, 2020 at 05:56 PM
4 minute read
Law school deans across Texas are worried that if the COVID-19 pandemic goes on long enough, it could delay the Texas bar exam scheduled in July.
In a joint letter this week, the nine Texas law deans raised the issue with the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Board of Law Examiners, saying that if the exam must be rescheduled, they hope the new date will come as soon as possible.
"At this point, the planning everyone is doing has taken into account the possibility of this pandemic reaching into the summer months," said Brad Toben, dean of Baylor University School of Law in Waco. "The July bar exam is only four months away, and that aspect drew the attention to planning now, for what may unfold."
Texas Supreme Court Justice Debra Lehrmann said the Texas Board of Law Examiners will meet Friday to discuss the issue and come up with a recommendation for the high court's action. The court wants to make a choice by early May, around the time law graduates begin studying for the bar exam.
"What we're really hoping is we don't need to be making a decision in our opinion until May 1, because we don't have a crystal ball. We don't know what is going to happen," said Lehrmann. "It's a challenging issue because you've got all these young people who have just gotten through law school. They really need to start making a living."
But if the coronavirus outbreak hasn't stopped by then, it wouldn't be possible to gather 2,600 test takers into one room, she added.
The law deans' letter said that the deans hope there's no need to postpone the test, but added that if the government is developing an exigency plan, that they want the exam to be postponed, and rescheduled as soon as possible. They also want graduates to take the Texas bar exam, and not the Uniform Bar Exam, which is a new format of the test that launches in Texas in February 2021.
"We wanted to offer any assistance that we might provide to you should the nature or manner of the bar exam have to change. Regrettably, each of our schools has had to develop some expertise in the preparation and administration of remote exams," the deans wrote.
Read the letter:
Susan Henricks, executive director of the Texas Board of Law Examiners, wrote in an email that the board is still planning to hold the test in July.
"The board will postpone the examination only if necessary to comply with state and national directives for protection of the health and safety of examinees and examination staff," Henricks said, noting that a rescheduling decision would come before May 5.
If rescheduled, the new testing date would be somewhere between Sept. 29 and Oct. 1, she added.
On the national stage, legal educators have been asking bar officials to decide now what to do about the July exam. They've said it's unlikely that the limits on large gatherings will be lifted by July, and proposed six options ranging from postponing the exam, to moving it online, to administering the test to groups of 10 or fewer graduates at one time.
Third-year law student Jolene Robin-McCaskill said she's constantly thinking about what the coronavirus will do to the bar exam.
"My concern is will we be able to take the bar on time? Will I be able to start work on time," she explained. "This exam is very important to me. I have a job that's waiting, so I need to pass this the first time."
Having a delay from July to September or October is not as big a concern as ensuring she still takes the Texas version of the bar exam, not the Uniform Bar Exam, she added.
"A delay, although certainly inconvenient, is not nearly as disruptive as saying, 'We're not going to have this last Texas bar," she said. "That would be, for me, a huge issue, because then I have to go back and learn the format of the UBE."
Related stories:
July Bar Exam Alternatives Under Consideration Amid COVID-19
No Bar Exam? That's What 1,000 Law Students Want NY to Declare Amid COVID-19
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 AllPaxton's 2024 Agenda: Immigration, Climate, Transgender Issues, Social Media, Abortion, Elections
9 minute read11 Red State AGs Demand Damages in Antitrust Lawsuit Shaming ESG Climate Investors
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Lawyer’s Resolutions: Focusing on 2025
- 2Houston Judge Exonerated on Appeal, Public Reprimand Vacated
- 3Bar Report - Dec. 30
- 4Employment Law Developments to Expect From the Second Trump Administration
- 5How I Made Law Firm Leadership: 'It’s Imperative That You Never Stop Learning,' Says Ian Ribald of Ballard Spahr
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