With Bar Exam in Limbo, Momentum Builds for Supervised Practice Programs
And the deans of 20 California law schools wrote last week to the state bar and Supreme Court asking them not to cancel the July exam without "planning for an alternative pathway for licensing new attorneys."
April 08, 2020 at 02:08 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
|
Law students across the country have joined forces to lobby state courts and bar examiners to adopt emergency diploma privileges that would allow them to skip the bar exam altogether due to the coronavirus pandemic.
But authorities who oversee attorney admission are beginning to coalesce around a different alternative now that the July bar exam looks unlikely: temporarily allowing law graduates to practice under the supervision of licensed attorneys until they have the chance to sit for the bar.
The move toward expanded supervised practice programs got a boost Tuesday when the American Bar Association's Board of Governors adopted a resolution urging jurisdictions to cancel the July bar and allow 2019 and 2020 law graduates to practice under supervision until they take and pass the bar exam in 2021.
This year's law graduates will be in a very difficult position if jurisdictions cancel the July exam without offering an alternative way for them to launch their legal careers, notes the report that accompanies the ABA resolution.
"Without adoption of a rule to mitigate the effect of the cancellation or postponement of the July 2020 bar examination, a delay in law graduates' eligibility to practice law will place an unprecedented financial burden on thousands of law graduates," it reads. "During this unexpected delay in admission, job security will be in question; reduced salaries are likely; and law student debt remains."
Moreover, expanded supervised practice programs ensure that recent law graduates can work even if exams rescheduled for the fall must be postponed again due to the virus, supporters argue.
The National Conference of Bar Examiners has said it will decide by May 5 whether there is enough demand from jurisdictions to administer the July bar. In the meantime, it has committed to providing two alternate fall dates for jurisdictions that postpone: Sept. 9 and 10, and Sept. 30 and Oct. 1.
Law deans in several jurisdictions also have lined up behind the temporary expansion of supervised practice programs, which up to this point have been narrowly tailored to allow law students and some grads awaiting bar results to participate in clinics and other activities in which they counsel clients under the watch of licensed attorneys.
The deans of all 15 of New York's ABA-accredited law schools wrote to the state's Court of Appeals last week requesting an 18-month supervised practice period for new law graduates, and even urged the court to considering fully admitting them without taking the bar once that period is up. The court has postponed the July bar until Sept. 9 and has said it is looking at expanding its supervised practice program but has not yet announced any formal changes.
In an April 7 letter to the Florida Supreme Court and the Florida Board of Law Examiners, the deans of the state's 12 ABA-accredited law schools argue that the bar should be postponed until September and that new graduates who have passed the character and fitness requirements should be allowed to practice under supervision for 24 months or four administrations of the bar exam. After that, they should be eligible for admission without taking the test, the deans wrote.
And the deans of 20 California law schools wrote last week to the state bar and Supreme Court asking them not to cancel the July exam without "planning for an alternative pathway for licensing new attorneys." That letter did not explicitly call for an expanded supervised practice program, however. The State Bar of California's Board of Trustees is scheduled to consider the fate of the July bar exam in an April 14 meeting.
Some states are already unveiling expanded supervised practice programs amid the pandemic. The Supreme Court of New Jersey on Monday officially postponed the July bar exam until the fall and announced an expanded supervised practice provision. That provision applies only to 2020 graduates of ABA-accredited law schools who have not yet sat for the bar and who passed the character and fitness requirements. They must practice under the supervision of an attorney who has been licensed for at least three years. Under the provision, 2020 law graduates must sit for the first available bar exam, though they can petition to defer the test one time.
Bar authorities in Arizona and Tennessee have not yet canceled the July bar exam, but both jurisdictions have announced expansions of supervised practice programs. In Tennessee, law students who graduate this semester and who were scheduled to take the July bar may practice under the supervision of a licensed attorney until Nov. 15, 2021. They must take the first available bar exam, however.
The Supreme Court of Arizona this week also expanded the rule that allows law students to practice under attorney supervision to cover recent graduates as well.
Marc Miller, dean of the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, said Wednesday that he expects more jurisdictions to follow the lead of the early adopters and unveil expanded supervised practice provisions.
"I think there's going to be a national move towards this," he said, noting that admission authorities seem reluctant to abandon the bar exam completely. "It seems to be the right, clear answer."
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 AllSo You Want to Be a Tech Lawyer? Consider Product Counseling
Trending Stories
- 1King & Spalding E-Discovery Director Jumps to Nebraska Women-Owned Firm
- 2Nation's Largest Utility Parts Ways With CLO Who Helped It Navigate Bribery Scandal
- 3Advocates Renew Campaign for Immigrant Right to Counsel in New York
- 4From ‘Unregulated’ to ‘A Matter of Great Concern’: PFAS Regulation under Biden
- 5Public Interest Lawyers in NY Fear Rollback of Federal Loan Assistance in '25, Ask Gov. to Add $4M to State Program
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