The Coronavirus (Covid-19) and the Impact to the July 2020 Bar Examination

-

The Coronavirus (Covid-19) and the Impact to the July 2020 Bar Examination



It is clear that Covid-19 will have an adverse impact on the upcoming July exam.  The NCBE "understand the anxiety and frustrations that law students and graduates have regarding the uncertainty surrounding administration of the July bar exam. The bar admissions process, like everything else, is being disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic." See: http://www.ncbex.org/ncbe-covid-19-updates/

The NCBE has made it clear that a decision as to whether the July examination will occur in July will be made on or about May 5th.  It has been left up to State Board(s) of Bar Examiners to determine when and how their respective exams will occur.  As of the date of this writing, the following states have adjusted their July 202 bar examination in some form or fashion, either by postponing the date to the fall or in some other way (from the NCBE's website).

Alaska

The Alaska Bar Association has announced that the exam will be held on September 9-10.

Arizona

The Arizona Supreme Court issued an order on April 6 authorizing the emergency adoption of court rule changes allowing law school students and recent graduates the limited ability to practice law in Arizona under the supervision of an attorney licensed in Arizona. A link to the order is available in Chief Justice Robert M. Brutinell's letter to 2020 law graduates. The bar exam is still currently scheduled for July 28-29. 

Connecticut

The Connecticut Bar Examining Committee announced in a March 30 press release that the exam will be postponed until fall 2020.

District of Columbia

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued an order on April 10 canceling its administration of the exam. A decision will be made by May 4 regarding a fall administration of the exam.

Guam

The Supreme Court of Guam issued an order on April 9 announcing that the exam will be rescheduled for September 9-10.

Hawaii

The Hawaii Supreme Court, in consultation with the Hawaii Board of Bar Examiners, announced in a March 31 order that the exam will be rescheduled for fall 2020.

Indiana

The Indiana Supreme Court issued an order on April 8 amending the time limitations of its graduate legal intern rule. The order allows anyone who graduated from law school after November 2019 to potentially serve as a graduate legal intern until the February 2021 bar exam, provided they have not failed any exam prior to that date. The bar exam is still currently scheduled for July 28-29. 

Massachusetts

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and the Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners announced in a March 30 press release that the exam would be postponed until fall 2020. The press release was updated on April 6 to announce that the exam will be held on September 30-October 1.

New Hampshire

The New Hampshire Supreme Court issued an order on April 10 announcing that the exam will be postponed until fall 2020. On April 14, the Court issued an order announcing that the exam will be administered on September 9-10, according to a news release from the New Hampshire Judicial Branch.

New Jersey

The New Jersey Supreme Court announced on April 6 that the exam will be postponed until fall 2020. The order issued by the Court relaxes and expands Court rules to allow 2020 law school graduates to temporarily practice law under the supervision of experienced attorneys despite postponement of the exam.  

New York

The New York Court of Appeals announced in a March 27 press release that the exam would be rescheduled for fall 2020. On April 6, it announced that the exam will be rescheduled to September 9-10.

North Dakota

The North Dakota Board of Bar Examiners issued an April 10 policy statement indicating that it is planning to administer the exam on July 28-29. If the exam cannot be administered in July, it will administer the exam on September 9-10. At this time, North Dakota is limiting the number of examinees to 85, with priority given as indicated in the policy statement.

Rhode Island

The Supreme Court announced on April 13 that the exam has been postponed indefinitely. The news advisory issued by the Rhode Island Judiciary indicated that the Court expects to issue an order on the matter soon.

Tennessee

The Tennessee Supreme Court issued an April 2 press release announcing temporary rule changes to address ongoing concerns with the July 2020 bar exam. The rule changes include extending the time applicants can practice under supervision or pending admission to November 15, 2021, and permitting transfer of applications from the July exam to a potential fall exam or to the February 2021 exam. The bar exam is still currently scheduled for July 28-29. 

Utah

The Supreme Court of Utah has issued a proposed order for temporary amendments to bar admission procedures. According to an accompanying statement, the proposed order modifies the bar examination passage requirement on an emergency basis for certain eligible law school graduates. The Supreme Court is accepting comments on the proposed order through April 16, 2020.

Vermont

The Vermont Supreme Court announced that by an April 6 order of the Court, the exam is rescheduled to September 9-10.

Wyoming

The Wyoming Supreme Court issued an order on April 10 announcing an emergency rule that authorizes July 2020 bar applicants to be temporarily admitted to the practice of law with supervision, if certain conditions are met, in the event that the July exam is postponed. The rule is issued conditionally on the bar exam not being administered in July and will be of no effect if Wyoming is able to hold the July exam. The bar exam is still currently scheduled for July 28-29. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Defamation on the UBE - A Step by Step Guide for the MBE and MEE

-
The tort of defamation can be rather confusing on the UBE, not just in terms of its elements and/or the applicable defenses, but more so because the MBE and MEE questions on defamation can be rather confusing.  In fact, defamation ranks as one of the top two most difficult areas of tort law along with Products Liability!   This blog post has been written to try and clean up some of the confusion associated with this tort.  For starters, let us begin with the three elements of defamation:   1 – W e need a defamatory stmnt made by the defendant that specifically identifies the plaintiff; 2 – We need a publication of that stmnt and;                    3 – Resulting d amage .   BAR EXAM NOTE – If the plaintiff is a PRIVATE PERSON? They must prove that the statement was made with NEGLIGENCE .  Conversely, if the plaintiff is a PUBLIC FIGURE ?   They m...
Read more

Per Capita vs. Per Stirpes - Making Sense of the Difference for the MEE on the UBE

-
Image
One of the more common areas of confusion within the subject of Wills is the distinction between the two methods of intestacy distribution known as Per Capita and Per Stirpes.  This blog post was created to shed some light on how best to approach these distribution methods when tackling a common Wills MEE issue on the examination.     I. Intestate Prop erty Definition This includes assets held in the decedent’s name alone that do not pass by operation of law or by a will.  It should be noted that operation of law means that a non-probate assets that passes automatically because of the way the property title is held, REGARDLESS of the existence of a will. Keep in mind that the residuary (aka the rest left over) is calculated after claims, taxes, and other particular.   II. The Application of the Intest acy Rules Intestacy Rules Apply when 1) the decedent left NO WILL OR DID NOT properly execute a will, OR 2) the will DOES NOT provide for a proper distribu...
Read more

Adding Parties & Claims in Fed Civ Pro - Interpleader, Impleader, Joinder and Intervention

-
Understanding the Differences Between Impleader, Interpleader, Joinder and Intervention Federal Civil Procedure on the UBE contains a major section that pertains to adding parties and/or claims to an already existing suit.  There are four subsections relevant to this area of law known as impleader, interpleader, intervention and joinder.   It is imperative to know the distinctions between each of these subsections. At the outset, it would behoove you to create a chart or graph to capture the distinctions between these four legal mechanisms.  Understanding the nuanced differences between these mechanisms, memorizing necessary vs. permissive joinder, and understanding the difference between intervention as a right and permissive intervention is paramount for success on MBE questions pertaining to this area of the law.  Moreover, while not as common on an MEE essay as personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction or venue, we can easily see an issu...
Read more