Illinois and Ohio Move Bar Exam Online as Reciprocity Gains Traction
Many states that are now administering an online bar exam in October are making reciprocity deals with each other, meaning test takers can transfer their scores for admission in multiple states. But California—the single-largest bar exam jurisdiction to commit to giving the Oct. 5 and 6 online exam—is not offering reciprocity to other online bar takers, said a spokeswoman for the State Bar of California.
July 23, 2020 at 03:07 PM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Illinois on Thursday joined the growing list of jurisdictions that have canceled their in-person bar exams and will instead offer an abbreviated online test Oct. 5 and 6. Ohio announced the exact same move a day earlier. Both had planned to administer the exam in person in September.
And like a number of other jurisdictions, bar authorities in Illinois and Ohio hope to work out reciprocity deals with other states that are now administering the same online October test, which is being prepared by the National Conference of Bar Examiners.
"Ohio shall explore entering into memoranda of understanding with other jurisdictions administering the NCBE's remote examination on October 5 and 6, 2020, to provide for reciprocity between the participating jurisdictions," reads the Wednesday order from the Supreme Court of Ohio.
The Illinois Supreme court has similarly authorized the state's Board of Admissions to the Bar to pursue such reciprocity agreements, it said in a message to test takers.
The path to licensure for new attorneys is in flux and disarray across the country as rising COVID-19 rates have forced many jurisdictions to abandon plans to administer traditional exams in July and September. Moving the test online in October has emerged in recent weeks as the most popular option among bar exam authorities, and the reciprocity agreements that states are brokering between themselves offer a rare bright spot for candidates dealing with mounting uncertainty amid the pandemic.
"It's absolutely the right thing for them to do—to make reciprocity agreements with as many state as they can," said Joan Howarth, a professor at the William S. Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, whose scholarship centers on the bar exam. "Reciprocity is the big benefit from the [Uniform Bar Exam] in better times."
Thus far, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Kentucky, Tennessee and Washington, D.C., have established reciprocity with each other, meaning that those who take the online October exam can transfer their scores to those other jurisdictions for admission. New Hampshire and Vermont both moved to the October online exam in the past week and have said they are seeking reciprocity as well.
Georgia announced July 20 that it was canceling the in-person exam planned for September and giving the National Conference of Bar Examiners' October online exam. The state hasn't yet entered into any reciprocity agreements, said Heidi Faenza, director of admissions at the state's board of bar examiners. But reciprocity agreements are something the board will consider, she said Thursday.
But not all jurisdictions are going that route. Pennsylvania isn't in discussions to offer reciprocity to other jurisdictions even though it's also offering an online October test, said Gicine Brignola, executive director of the Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners. That's because the state's online exam will be different from the online exam in other jurisdictions. Pennsylvania plans to use the Multistate Bar Exam component of the exam—100 multiple choice questions provided by the National Conference of Bar Examiners. But it plans to write its own essay and performance test questions, in lieu of the ones provided by the national conference, Brignola said. Moreover, Pennsylvania is not a Uniform Bar Exam jurisdiction and its existing reciprocity rule requires attorneys to have five years of experience.
California is thus far the single-largest bar exam jurisdiction to commit to giving the Oct. 5 and 6 online exam, but like Pennsylvania, it's not offering reciprocity to other online bar takers, said a spokeswoman for the State Bar of California. The Golden State is not a Uniform Bar Exam Jurisdiction, though a newly formed commission examining the future of the bar exam is set to consider moving to the uniform test.
There are currently 37 Uniform Bar Exam jurisdictions, meaning that test takers in those states can transfer their scores for admission in those jurisdictions without having to take another bar exam. But COVID-19 has upended the status quo and disrupted the uniform exam, with so many jurisdictions taking different approaches.
The National Conference of Bar Examiners in June announced that it would offer jurisdictions a shorter online October exam as a backup, in the event that they couldn't move forward with in-person tests in July and September. But the organization was clear that the online version would not be a Uniform Bar Exam and would not offer the same score portability benefits as the traditional uniform exam. In addition to be an abbreviated format of the online test, each jurisdiction will be responsible for scoring and scaling the online exam results, which is another key difference with the Uniform Bar Exam.
Four states are planning to online exams in July or August that they developed themselves, and thus far no jurisdictions are offering reciprocity to those test takers. Florida, Nevada, Indiana, Michigan and Louisiana intend to give online exams they designed themselves.
Thus far, it appears that jurisdictions that are giving candidates a choice between an in-person exam and the Oct. 5 and 6 online exam are not offering reciprocity to other online bar takers. Those jurisdictions include Texas, Arizona, Oregon and Idaho.
For now, much of the attention rests on New York and what it will do with its bar exam. The New York State Court of Appeals on July 16 canceled the in-person bar exam that was slated for Sept. 9 and 10. But the court didn't lay out a new plan for attorney licensure. Instead, it established a working group that is to make a recommendation on the exam by early August. Moving to the October online exam is among the primary alternatives the working group will consider.
New York is a Uniform Bar Exam jurisdiction, as well as the single largest bar exam jurisdiction in the country. About 10,000 people typically sit for its July bar exam. A decision to administer the National Conference of Bar Examiners' October online exam and offer reciprocity to online takers in other jurisdictions would be a boon to law graduates—many of whom plan to work in New York but registered to take the Uniform Bar Exam in other jurisdictions with plans to transfer into New York. The New York State Board of Law Examiners in May encouraged graduates of out-of-state law schools to register for the exam elsewhere due to space constraints. But now some New York-bound law graduates are registered to take bar exams that—for the moment—aren't transferable.
"For jurisdictions that will not contemplate a diploma privilege, reciprocity with an online test is the next best option," Howarth said.
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 All'We're Off to the Races': Plaintiffs Win First Round Against CooperSurgical
4 minute readLive Nation, Stage Crew Reach $18M Settlement for Forklift Accident After Concert at Phillies' Stadium
5 minute read$1.3 Billion Crypto IRA Startup Faces Claims of 'Frat House' Culture
3 minute readFreshfields, Paul Hastings, McDermott, Alston Hire in Core Practices, Amid Flurry of Q4 Lateral Moves
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
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