via
Getty)
I
haven’t
written
about
my
state
bar
for
some
time,
figuring
I
would
give
it
a
break
after
the
Tom
Girardi
FUBAR.
(And
give
my
editor
a
break
as
well.)
However,
I
can’t
resist
writing
about
the
California
State
Bar’s
latest
snafu:
the
February
bar
exam
held
this
week.
Are
you
familiar
with
the
term
BOGO?
It’s
a
common
marketing
term
meant
to
entice
retail
purchases:
Buy
One,
Get
One.
The
California
State
Bar
has
its
very
own
BOGO
now.
It
FUBARed
(yes,
a
new
verb)
the
February
bar
exam,
so
it
is
now
offering
those
who
took
the
February
bar
exam
(February
25
to
February
26)
and
did
not
pass
(or
who
withdrew
in
advance
from
the
exam)
spots
in
the
upcoming
July
bar
exam
without
charge.
The
bar
is
falling
all
over
itself
in
apologies,
as
well
it
should
…
mea
culpas
from
an
institution
not
known
to
readily
take
responsibility
for
screwups.
And
this
one
has
been
a
doozy.
Imagine
the
angst
for
test
takers,
the
last
thing
they
needed
in
a
situation
that
piles
on
further
stress.
(By
the
way,
the
California
Supreme
Court
had
approved
the
bar’s
trolling
for
a
new
vendor
for
the
bar
exam
after
the
court
nixed
the
bar’s
intention
to
rely
on
Kaplan.)
Now
what?
What’s
the
plan
for
the
July
bar
exam?
Kaplan?
In
house?
Consider
the
NCBE
alternative?
At
least
the
bar
is
accepting
responsibility
for
the
snafu,
unlike
the
finger
pointing
already
arising
out
of
the
LA
wildfires.
However,
I
don’t
share
Joe
Patrice’s
optimism
that
eventually
these
snafus
will
“ultimately
make
for
a
better
licensing
exam.”
Joe
hasn’t
spent
the
past
five
decades
as
a
licensee
(fka
member)
of
the
California
Bar
watching
its
antics
on
so
many
occasions
trying
to
get
things
right
and
failing.
I
could
provide
a
couple
of
recent
examples,
but
I
will
spare
you.
From
BOGO
to
NOGO:
what
would
you
do
in
this
situation?
Your
boss
or
your
boss’s
boss
or
your
boss’s
boss’s
boss,
whomever,
you
get
the
picture,
wants
you
to
handle
a
particular
case
in
a
certain
way,
a
way
that
you
think
is
sideways
to
your
ethical
responsibility.
What
to
do? Acquiesce
to
the
“command
and
control”
of
your
senior
lawyers
or
resign?
Sometimes,
new
lawyers
think
that
the
professional
responsibility
exam
is
a
one-off
and
that,
once
they
are
practicing
lawyers,
they
can
shelve
what
they
crammed
for
the
night
before
the
exam.
Au
contraire.
It’s
in
the
real
world
of
practice
that
the
rubber
(ethical
questions)
meets
the
road
(what
to
do).
Example:
The
attorney
has
not
been
paid,
or
the
client
sees
the
case
very
differently
than
counsel.
There
are
limits
on
what
can
be
said
without
violating
attorney-client
confidentiality.
So,
in
a
motion
to
be
relieved,
there
will
be
language
such
as
“irreparable
harm”
or
“the
relationship
has
broken
down
irretrievably”
or
something
similar
that
alerts
the
court
that
the
relationship
has
tanked
for
good.
Sometimes
the
court
will
relieve
counsel
but
not
always.
Timing
is
a
consideration.
The
closer
to
trial,
the
less
likely
the
relief.
The
resignations
of
seven
DOJ
attorneys
in
response
to
the
order
from
above
to
dismiss
the
Eric
Adams
criminal
case
is
a
recent
example
(“ripped
from
today’s
headlines,”
so
to
speak).
Some
might
argue
that
these
attorneys
were
insubordinate
in
refusing
to
follow
the
order
from
on
high.
That
may
well
be
the
position
of
some
who
would
tell
them
“not
to
let
the
door
hit
you
on
the
way
out.”
What
is
the
ethical
thing
to
do
when
you
disagree
with
an
order
from
a
superior
and
can’t
in
good
conscience
represent
the
client?
Exactly
what
these
lawyers
did,
they
resigned
rather
than
comply.
They
resigned
rather
than
taint
their
reputations,
which,
as
we
all
should
know,
is
the
only
thing
that
lawyers
truly
possess.
(Clients
come
and
go
and
could
care
less
about
our
ethical
responsibilities.)
The
district
court
indicated
that
it
would
not
just
rubber
stamp
the
DOJ’s
request
for
dismissal
of
the
Adams
indictment.
A
hearing
is
set
for
March
12
where
District
Court
Judge
Dale
Ho
should
receive
a
report
from
former
solicitor
general
Paul
Clement
appointed
by
Ho
to
look
into
this
mess.
As
lawyers,
we
swore
that
we
would
protect
and
defend
the
Constitution
of
the
United
States
and
whatever
state
constitution
applied,
and
to
faithfully
discharge
our
duties
as
lawyers.
Does
the
oath
now
mean
subservience
rather
than
detached
independent
service
on
the
client’s
behalf?
I
wonder
what
law
professors
are
teaching
their
students
now.
Jill
Switzer
has
been
an
active
member
of
the
State
Bar
of
California
for
over
40
years.
She
remembers
practicing
law
in
a
kinder,
gentler
time.
She’s
had
a
diverse
legal
career,
including
stints
as
a
deputy
district
attorney,
a
solo
practice,
and
several
senior
in-house
gigs.
She
now
mediates
full-time,
which
gives
her
the
opportunity
to
see
dinosaurs,
millennials,
and
those
in-between
interact
—
it’s
not
always
civil.
You
can
reach
her
by
email
at
[email protected].