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
State Bar of California's logo.
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.
Read more:
'Please Offer an Alternative Pathway': State Bar Gets Earful Amid COVID-19 Crisis
Pandemic Threatens to Upend Legislation on Court Construction, State Bar
California Is Pressed to Grant Diploma Privilege to Law Grads Amid Virus Crisis
How Law Schools Fared on California's July 2019 Bar Exam
Slim Majority of Test-Takers Passed California's July Bar Exam
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 All
Fresh lawsuit hits Oregon city at the heart of Supreme Court ruling on homeless encampments
4 minute read
Trending Stories
- 1Big Law Firms Sheppard Mullin, Morgan Lewis and Baker Botts Add Partners in Houston
- 2Lack of Jurisdiction Dooms Child Sex Abuse Claim Against Archdiocese of Philadelphia, says NJ Supreme Court
- 3DC Lawsuits Seek to Prevent Mass Firings and Public Naming of FBI Agents
- 4Growth of California Firms Exceeded Expectations, Survey of Managing Partners Says
- 5Blank Rome Adds Life Sciences Trio From Reed Smith
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
