California Supreme Court Raises Prospect of October Bar Exam
The court's suggestion is the latest twist in efforts to administer a bar exam in California during the COVID-19 pandemic. Citing the need for social distancing, the seven justices earlier delayed the July exam until September.
June 11, 2020 at 03:57 PM
3 minute read
California's Supreme Court late Wednesday raised the possibility of holding the next bar exam online in October instead of September, noting that the National Conference of Bar Examiners will offer an online version of the multiple-choice Multistate Bar Exam on Oct. 6.
"As the state bar is aware, the administration of the MBE is an essential component to scoring the entire two-day exam," the court's clerk and executive officer, Jorge Navarrete, said in a letter to bar chairman Alan Steinbrecher.
"Although the court had originally postponed the July 2020 California Bar Examination to September 9-10, 2020, the court will consider moving the exam to October 5-6, 2020 after the state bar assesses its online administration of First-Year Law Students' Examination on June 23 and the feasibility of upscaling that administration to the full exam in the fall," Navarrete wrote.
The court's suggestion is the latest twist in efforts to administer a bar exam in California during the COVID-19 pandemic. Citing the need for social distancing, the seven justices in April delayed the July exam until September, ordering the bar to "make every effort possible" to administer what is traditionally the most heavily attended test of the year online, with a combination of electronic and remote proctoring.
The bar announced on its website Thursday it will not change the September date "until a final determination has been made by the court."
"Exam applicants are encouraged to continue studying with the September date in mind but are alerted about the possibility that these dates can change," the post continued. "We encourage applicants to check our website for updates. Registered applicants are advised to check the applicant portal for any changes and updates."
The state bar has not yet announced how it may provide an online test this fall. The bar's committee of bar examiners is scheduled to hear an update on 2020 exams at its June 19 meeting.
"As noted in the court's [April 27] letter, the court will continue to explore other options as circumstances develop or change," Navarrete wrote. "The court appreciates the State Bar's continued efforts concerning these matters."
At least five states have announced that they will or may hold bar exams remotely this fall. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals on Monday announced that it will administer its bar exam via the internet Oct. 5 and 6. All applicants will be required to provide their own computer, webcam and internet service for the test.
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 AllSome Elite Universities Favor Wealthy Students in Admissions Decisions, Lawsuit Alleges
5 minute readHow Uncertainty in College Athletics Compensation Could Drive Lawsuits in 2025
'Basic Arithmetic': Court Rules in Favor of LA Charter School Denied Funding by California Education Department
Trending Stories
- 1For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
- 2As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
- 3General Warrants and ESI
- 4GC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
- 5Authenticating Electronic Signatures
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