Postpone July Bar Exam or Cancel It, State Bar Tells Calif. Supreme Court
The board's decision not to immediately endorse diploma privilege, which would allow 2020 law school graduates to practice without passing the bar exam, is sure to disappoint hundreds of third-year students.
April 14, 2020 at 06:18 PM
4 minute read
California state bar leaders on Tuesday recommended two options to the California Supreme Court for dealing with COVID-19′s impact on the July 2020 bar exam: postpone the two-day exam to Sept. 9 and 10 or cancel it altogether.
The bar also advised the high court, which has the ultimate authority over the exam, to convene a working group to study provisional licensing if a September exam does not take place.
Emerging from almost two hours in closed doors, the bar's board of trustees offered no rationale for their proposals. Instead, chairman Alan Steinbrecher made a brief announcement via videoconference and immediately adjourned the meeting.
A bar official later clarified in an email that should the court choose to postpone the exam until September, "staff will work to be ready to administer the exam in person, online or a combination of in person or online as necessary to address social distancing needs then in effect."
As for the provisional licensing study, trustees are proposing that "a working group be convened to evaluate changes needed for a provisional certification program for eligible individuals to work under the supervision of a licensed attorney, such that if the September exam cannot go forward there is an alternative in place," bar interim executive director Donna Hershkowitz wrote.
Trustees also proposed holding the June exam for certain first-year law students, known as the baby bar, online only or canceling it. The October test would be postponed until November.
The board's decision not to immediately endorse diploma privilege, which would allow 2020 law school graduates to practice without passing the bar exam, is sure to disappoint hundreds of third-year students who pleaded with bar leaders for an emergency exemption so they can begin searching for work and paying off law school debt.
"It's not too late for California to show leadership on this," Jake Pillard, a 3L at University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law, told trustees during a lengthy public comment session Tuesday. "I implore you to acknowledge the extraordinary time we're living in and grant diploma privilege."
It's unclear when the California Supreme Court will act on the bar's recommendations. The seven justices are scheduled to meet for their weekly conference Wednesday.
States across the country are grappling with what to do with the July exam, which is typically administered to hundreds of bar applicants in venues that may not easily accommodate recommended physical distancing.
Some states, including New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Connecticut, and the District of Columbia have already announced they are postponing the July bar exam until the fall or another unspecified date. The Utah Supreme Court last week proposed allowing some 2019 and 2020 law school graduates to practice law without passing the bar exam so long as they complete 360 hours of legal work under the supervision of a licensed attorney by the end of the year.
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 AllNewsom Names Two Judges to Appellate Courts in San Francisco, Orange County
5 minute readAdvisory Opinion Offers 'Road Map' for Judges Defending Against Campaign Attacks
3 minute readSanta Clara County Superior Court Authorizes Electronic Recording of Proceedings
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Don’t Settle for the Minimum: Finding Constitutional Claims Closer to Home
- 2Federal Judge Weighs In on School's Discipline for 'Explicitly Copying AI-Generated Text' on Project
- 3Unchartered Waters: The AI Phishing Wave Is Here
- 4AI Poisoning: A Novel Cybersecurity Option
- 5The Expanding Universe of Attorney Cyber Liability
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