Author: TSA Press

Lawyers are not virologists. Lawyers are not epidemiologists. Lawyers are not evolutionary biologists. And we shouldn’t LARP them on TV.

Today’s lesson in Stay in Your Own Lane comes courtesy of esteemed NYU Law professor Richard Epstein, who published an article on March 23 entitled “Coronavirus Perspective” with the Hoover Institution, where he is a Senior Fellow. In the piece, Epstein used “Darwinian economics” to prove that actually the doctors and epidemiologists are all wrong, and this whole coronavirus thing is NBD.

Epstein’s “Perspective” includes some extremely strange assumptions about the evolution of viruses, which he postulates must always weaken over time.

At some tipping point, the most virulent viruses will be more likely to kill their hosts before the virus can spread. In contrast, the milder versions of the virus will wreak less damage to their host and thus will survive over the longer time span needed to spread from one person to another. Hence the rate of transmission will trend downward, as will the severity of the virus. It is a form of natural selection.

The entire essay reads like a generation skipping trust drafted by a dermatologist — no visible pores, but it’s full of holes. And yet, according to the Washington Post, it’s been passed around approvingly in Trumpland to support the assumption that this whole annoying pandemic thing is getting blown way out of proportion. Because the people running our government read this passage, and thought, Yeah, this guy really get it!

By way of comparison, the virulent AIDS virus that killed wantonly in the 1980s crested and declined in the 1990s when it gave way to a milder form of virus years later once the condition was recognized and the bath houses were closed down. Part of the decline was no doubt due to better medicines, but part of it was due to this standard effect for diseases. Given that the coronavirus can spread through droplets and contact, the consequences of selection should manifest themselves more quickly than they did for AIDS.

Literally everything in this paper is nonsense, even granting Epstein the mulligan of “correcting” his U.S. mortality estimate up from 500 to 5,000. (As of this writing, it’s 2,571.) And yet, Epstein decided it would be a smart idea to give an interview to The New Yorker’s Isaac Chotiner to explain why he, a law professor, was uniquely qualified to tell those Chicken Little epidemiologists what’s what.

It was NOT a smart idea.

“You start off with this virus, and there’s a range, some of which are very serious and some of which are less, so it’s a theory of natural selection with a normal distribution set,” Epstein told Chotiner, continuing with his bizarre assumption of strong and weak strains of the virus. In this entirely theoretical universe, someone with the “strong version” infected everybody at the nursing home in Kirkland, Washington, and the high fatalities there can be traced to “either people who are in the facility or people who have family members who hugged and kissed people in the facility. So they got large doses of intense viruses.”

Chotiner spliced the interview with fact checks from IRL doctors going WTF????, including Daniel Kuritzkes, the chief of the infectious-diseases division at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who said, “There’s no evidence that there are strong and weak variations of the coronavirus circulating. There may be minor variations person to person or location to location in the actual genetic sequence, but there is no evidence that they have different virulence or that a less virulent version is overtaking a more virulent version.”

As Chotiner continued to press him on his underlying assumption that COVID-19 would “weaken” over time as he (mis)remembers AIDS, SARS, syphilis, and Ebola doing, Epstein got increasingly flustered and confrontational, insisting that his “skill of cross examination” as a lawyer qualified him to interrogate the evidence and substitute his own judgment for that of experts in the field.

CHOTINER:  You keep talking about your “sense.” I think that’s the word you’re using. But you’re stating as a fact that the virus is going to weaken over time. It seems like we do not know that. We can turn to other viruses and how they’ve—

EPSTEIN:  No, that is not what I said. I said there’s a long-term tendency in these ways. Over time, yes. And is this a hundred-per-cent tendency? No. Is there any known exception to it? No.

And then, when Chotiner politely suggested that it might be irresponsible to publish theories postulating about scientific fact in an age of misinformation where the stakes are life and death, things went totally off the rails.

EPSTEIN :  Admit to it. You’re saying I’m a crackpot.

CHOTINER:  I’m not saying anything of the—

EPSTEIN:  Well, what am I then? I’m an amateur? You’re the great scholar on this?

CHOTINER:  No, no. I’m not a great scholar on this.

EPSTEIN:  Tell me what you think about the quality of the work!

CHOTINER:  O.K. I’m going to tell you. I think the fact that I am not a great scholar on this and I’m able to find these flaws or these holes in what you wrote is a sign that maybe you should’ve thought harder before writing it.

EPSTEIN:  What it shows is that you are a complete intellectual amateur. Period.

CHOTINER:  O.K. Can I ask you one more question?

EPSTEIN:  You just don’t know anything about anything. You’re a journalist. Would you like to compare your résumé to mine?

CHOTINER:  No, actually, I would not.

EPSTEIN:  Then good. Then maybe what you want to do is to say, “Gee, I’m not quite sure that this is right. I’m going to check with somebody else.” But, you want to come at me hard, I am going to come back harder at you. And then if I can’t jam my fingers down your throat, then I am not worth it. But you have basically gone over the line. If you want to ask questions, ask questions. I put forward a model. But a little bit of respect.

Uhhhh … maybe don’t do that? Maybe stick to the practice of law and leave the science to the scientists? But, hey, it’s just a theory.

Coronavirus Perspective [Hoover Institution]
The Contrarian Coronavirus Theory That Informed the Trump Administration [New Yorker]

---

Elizabeth Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

The New York State Bar Association Task Force on the New York Bar Exam released a statement today, in light of the decision to pull the plug on the July administration date, calling for any postponed exam to be set “for a date as soon as possible around Labor Day and prior to the Jewish holidays at the end of September.”

The state can’t necessarily dictate that the NCBE offer a September date, but notes “because of the large number of test takers who take the test in New York, New York can –and should – exert its prominent role in the American legal community to influence the NCBE to offer the UBE in early September.” 

There you go, New York! You’re the legal capital of the country… are you gonna take orders from Madison, Wisconsin? Be the big dog.

As we discussed earlier today, a Fall exam sounds fine in theory, but it may prove difficult to get off the ground if conditions don’t improve considerably by the summer studying season. If the new date proves impossible, the NYSBA Task Force calls for an expansion of the state’s practice waiver system.

Special practice orders allow law school graduates to engage in law practice activities under the supervision of attorneys. New York law presently permits governmental agencies such as district attorney offices, corporation counsels, and legal aid organizations to apply to the Appellate Division for an order permitting law school graduates and law students who meet certain criteria to engage in specified law practice activities.

Because the duration of the coronavirus public health emergency is unknown, the task force recommends seeking the required legislation now that would allow the Appellate Division to extend the special practice orders to private sector attorneys and law firms. The task force report notes that taking such action would expand law school graduates’ opportunities for gainful employment and notes that “The public is protected since the activities of the law graduate are subject to the supervision of a licensed attorney.”

That’s the sort of creative thinking this crisis calls for. Apprenticeship was a viable attorney vetting model for decades in this country — we can give it a little, limited resurgence.

---

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

The economic uncertainty caused by COVID-19 continues to leave its mark on Biglaw. Earlier today we reported on a Biglaw firm, Womble Bond Dickinson, laying off associates and cutting salaries, and more firms holding back on lateral hiring as the economy goes into free fall. And it seems partners will also be feeling the pinch.

Reed Smith has announced that they’ll be slowing partner cash distributions in response to the financial downturn. The firm emphasized business is good right now, but they are making the move as a “precaution” and “bracing for the short-term and potential long-term economic impacts of COVID-19.”

From a firm spokesperson:

Reed Smith is performing on plan through the first three months of 2020. Many of our practices are exceptionally busy right now. At the same time, we know businesses around the world are bracing for the short-term and potential long-term economic impacts of COVID-19, and we are taking a fiscally conservative yet responsible approach. Our leadership is taking a cautious approach and has made the decision to slow partner cash distributions in the near term as a precaution. We think this is a prudent choice as we look ahead to uncertainty in global events.

Let’s hope that this proactive approach saves jobs, and the firm won’t be forced to join the layoffs 2020 club.

---

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

I batted .500 on my big predictions for 2020.

Three months ago, before the pandemic, I predicted that (1) because Bloomberg was essentially entering the race on Super Tuesday, the Democrats would have a brokered convention this year and (2) a global pandemic would hit in March, instantly crushing the global economy.

I was wrong on the first half, but I was the only person in the world who nailed the second half.

Here’s the link.

Wait!  Those damn editors at Above the Law! I just reread my post, and the editors must have replaced the paragraph about the global pandemic with some nonsense about the economy remaining strong through the election. I can’t believe it!

Anyway, now you know the value of my predictions. So here are a few more, about how COVID-19 will affect law firms in 2020.

(I write these columns a few days before they get posted on Monday mornings. And the pandemic is moving quickly, with events daily outrunning predictions. But I’ll give it a try anyway, recognizing that predictions that I make on Wednesday many have already been proven true or false by the following Monday.)

First:  Litigation is sunk for 2020.

Hearings are off. Depositions are off. Trials are off. Litigators are sitting on their thumbs.

Many clients, trying to conserve cash, are telling lawyers to slow the pace of litigation.

But that’s not the half of it.

The pandemic is going to last longer than folks believe (here on March 25, when I’m typing). I know that President Donald Trump says he’s going to reopen the economy by Easter. He’s smoking something.

The healthcare crisis in New York City will get worse for another couple of weeks. Other cities will quickly suffer the same fate. We’ll be watching Italy and China to guess when a second wave of disease will begin if we release people from their homes, but no politician will run the risk of being at fault for people’s deaths. When our 15 days of staying home expire (here in Illinois, on April 7), the governor will decide that we must stay home for another 15 days, and perhaps another 15 days beyond that. When Chicagoans are finally freed from captivity, folks who haven’t been restricted in their movements will come back into town and start the plague all over again.

If we’re not successful in “flattening the curve,” many people will die in the next couple of months. But if we are successful in “flattening the curve,” then the pandemic will linger for much longer — people will become ill over time.

I’m going to be an optimist here: The pandemic will linger, but litigation will be in the doldrums all along. The year will not be good for litigators.

So, too, for the deal lawyers. Companies are conserving cash. Public markets are cratering. Private equity is in distress. Portfolio companies are seeing supply lines disrupted. PE firms can’t raise money to do acquisitions or find money to do intelligent exits. This will last for a while.

The global economy is getting hammered, and law firms will follow the fortunes of the economy as a whole.

The only practice area in demand will once again be bankruptcy, as we go through the 2008-09 cycle all over again.

Overall, 2020 will be a very, very, bad year for law firms.

That’s it for predictions. Here are stray thoughts.

First: When people are out of work and can’t feed their families, but own guns, that’s a bad combination.

Second: Two years from now, when this is over, someone will do a study of whether this pandemic disproportionately affected the political parties. I’m not sure how this will cut: Democrats tend to live in big cities, where “social distancing” is hardest. But Republicans tend to listen to Fox News, which told people for months that the pandemic was a hoax, and people should continue on with their lives. A good scientist could probably control for those factors and tell you which party suffered the most from this plague.

Third: Clever plaintiffs’ lawyers are probably already thinking about how to sue Fox News for the deaths of elderly Republicans. “Grandma watched Fox News, was told the virus was a hoax, went out to the movies, caught the virus, and died. Who’s fault is that?” Discovery may easily unearth evidence that Fox knew (or should have known) that its statements were false when made.  Causation will be tricky to prove, but I bet the trial lawyers (who skew Democratic and would love to put a Republican-leaning network under siege) will take a chance on this.

Lastly, suppose I woke you up in the middle of the night and asked you this question: “Quick! A person owns a company. Things outside the company’s control cause the company to make a huge profit. Does the owner of the company get to keep the profit?”

Go back to sleep.  A half hour later, I wake you up again: “Quick! A person owns a company. Things outside the company’s control cause the company to suffer a huge loss. Does the owner of the company have to suffer the loss?”

I’m not sure how you’d answer those questions, but don’t you have to give the same answer to both questions? (Yeah, yeah: Maybe you’d have to adjust for tax payments when you think about earning money. And maybe some companies are truly essential to national defense, so you don’t want to bankrupt them in a time of losses. But, as a general matter, don’t you have to find one principal here and stick with it?)

Or maybe I’ve already got cabin fever. It’s gonna be a long 30 days.

---

Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and is now deputy general counsel at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com.

First came the Biglaw layoffs, and now come the Biglaw recruitment problems.

Just a few weeks ago, people were pretty confident that the lateral recruitment process would go on as usual, but thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic, it’s come to a grinding halt at some Biglaw firms. Law.com International has the details:

A spokesperson at Slaughters said in a statement to Law.com International’s Legal Week: “Given current circumstances, we have paused recruitment processes while ensuring we have the right resources in place to help our clients through the current challenges.”

Meanwhile fellow Magic Circle firm Linklaters is “pausing all bar the most essential recruitment” as a result of the uncertainty caused by the pandemic, a spokesperson confirmed to Legal Week. …

Meanwhile a person with knowledge of the situation said CMS has also halted its associate recruitment program. A person at the firm said the firm is currently progressing “some key hires” but has stopped recruitment that was in the early stages. The person added that there will be a “higher bar” for new approval of hires.

Meanwhile, firms like White & Case and Bird & Bird are both reevaluating their associate hiring amid the uncertainty that’s been caused by the coronavirus outbreak.

Perhaps Biglaw will circle back to associate recruiting in a few months, but for the time being, if you were hoping to leave your firm, you may be waiting for a while.

Slaughters, Linklaters Halt Associate Recruitment Amid Pandemic Disruption [Law.com International]

---

Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Lateral Link can quickly help law firms during this COVID-19 crisis by supplying short term interim attorneys who are Top 25 grads with major Am Law 200 experience who work remotely on an hourly basis on the most sophisticated litigations and transactions. These interim attorneys used to work at law firms such as Kirkland & Ellis, Gibson Dunn, Skadden Arps, and other top-tier firms. These are the same attorneys who were once billed out at $800 per hour as Biglaw firm associates and partners, and as these elite lawyers have been increasingly working as contract attorneys given their preference for flexible schedules, legal departments can access their skills and expertise at a relatively low cost. And because of their pedigree, you can still bill their clients at firm rate. 

There are many good reasons for law firms to embrace this shift especially given the current climate of the legal market. 

1) Fill Needs Quickly. On average, the permanent lateral process takes months from the identification of a need, to the onboarding of the associate. As the market conditions quickly fluctuate, using experienced interim attorneys allows firms to scale to meet their immediate demand in any practice, without the comparative lag and permanence of a traditional lateral search. In a volatile market, flexibility and swiftness are key.  

2) Lower Costs For The Same Experience. Interim attorneys require a significantly reduced commitment of overhead than their permanent counterparts. When engaged through a high-end and trusted staffing company, law firms are not responsible for the attorneys’ healthcare costs, payroll taxes, or equipment, and most firm malpractice policies cover “contractors” at no additional cost. Because interim attorneys are paid by the billable hour – no down time, no hours written off – they are guaranteed to generate a significant ROI with no downside risk.

3) Satisfy Client Needs. Senior attorneys with partner or counsel experience are widely represented among the interim attorney ranks. This means that rather than referring work away (and even when pitching for work), firms can temporarily add high-level expertise in practice areas or industries they otherwise could not service. As we are seeing so much market instability, interim attorneys allow firms to quickly scale up their offerings in countercyclical practices to hedge against losses in other practices and avoid a layoff crisis like we saw in 2009. 

4) Increase Profits Even In A Downturn. New revenues are generated not just from the interim attorney’s time, but also from the hours the firm’s permanent lawyers spend on the engagement. This income is amortized over the firm’s fixed costs (i.e., its permanent lawyers), making the firm more profitable as a whole. The same analysis applies to blending rates. Should we enter a fully-fledged economic downturn, it is in the firm’s interest to continue service to a cost-sensitive client even when it doesn’t fit within the firm’s billing structure (for example, when failure to do so could cost the firm larger engagements with this client). Adding interim attorneys allows for a lower blended rate while still providing the level of experience needed for the matter, and generating work for other members of the firm. The pedigree of our high caliber interim attorneys also allows the firm to bill at an equal rate to their permanent associates as the client is getting commiserate experience and value. 

Permanent lateral attorneys will always have an important place in the market. Savvy firms, however, can engage interim attorneys now to add flexibility in these uncertain times. As workflow remains somewhat unpredictable, firms will do well to hedge their bets on practice growth by strategically utilizing the talent pool of first-tier interim attorneys now at their disposal. As a premier provider of interim talent, we are happy to discuss your hiring needs to help you weather whatever storm comes your way. Please reach out to Jaclyn Genchi if you are interested in utilizing our flexible staffing offerings. 

Most of us don’t come in contact with people in jail, don’t think about them, and feel that of all the things to worry about right now, prisoners are low on the priority list.

Not so for criminal defense attorneys. People in jail are our clients. And they’ve been calling every day telling us they’re worried as hell and being ignored.

Things are getting worse in jail week to week. Last Friday, the New York City Department of Corrections announced that 103 inmates tested positive for COVID-19.  That was up from 73 the day before. Eighty prison guards tested positive, up from 58 the day previous.

Prison is a petri dish for the spread of viruses because of the close sleeping conditions and lack of adequate medical care. Dorm rooms are often three rows of beds, 20 in a row, with less than 18 inches between them.

Personnel at Rikers Island (home to ten separate jails) can’t keep up. Their present safety measures — when an inmate coughs or shows other signs of coronavirus, he’s quarantined by being locked in a cell 24/7 –- are inhuman.  One client told me, “We’re being treated like animals. The guards won’t even approach us.”

Rikers is no longer permitting visits to the prison library, where inmates go to review the electronic evidence in their cases. Outside yard time has been cancelled as has inside time in the cell designated as a gym. Food is being served in individual cells rather than communal dining halls.

Many who suffer asthma, diabetes, or other medical conditions, have reportedly not seen doctors even when they’ve been coughing or wheezing.

One client told me the guards are refusing to bring them to showers.  Violence broke out in his section when frustrated inmates attacked the elevated “bubble,” a glassed-in section where correction officers monitor the halls. The inmates broke it.

Communication with the outside world has become tenuous. No visitors, even lawyers, are allowed. I’m frankly more worried about the clients I haven’t heard from, then the ones able to reach me. Some are older, or lost my card, or have no money to call. I can’t find out about them in the black hole that is Rikers.

Considering almost half of the inmates suffer mental health issues ranging from depression and anxiety to bipolar illness and schizophrenia, the coronavirus further imbalances their already delicate hold on reality.

New York City courts (covering the five boroughs) have been scrambling to figure out how to set up court so they can link inmates, attorneys, and judges by video for appearance dates. But so far, the success of the effort has been inconsistent and at times a downright failure in terms of connecting with Rikers. Hopefully, things will soon go better.

It’s tough on an inmate, not yet found guilty of a crime, to not see his lawyer or a judge, and have his case in limbo for who knows how long.

There’s been some movement with federal and state prosecutors to release a small percentage of the inmate population deemed nonviolent. Last week, the Department of Corrections released approximately 360 inmates facing lesser issues like technical violations of their parole.

One judge set free an older man charged with murder who was “at high risk for severe illness or death,” the judge wrote.

But the calculation of who deserves this benefit is narrow. Although some bails are being reduced, the indigent who can’t even put together $100 remain locked in, scared, and out of luck.

While it’s a hopeful beginning, the effort should be more widespread and the criteria more transparent. That way when a client calls me asking why the guy accused of murder in the next cell got out, but he can’t, I could give him an answer.

Prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges should take a good hard look at every inmate and widen their perspective on who really needs to stay in jail while awaiting trial. No matter how strong the evidence, inmates must still be considered innocent unless proven guilty.

As a spokesperson for the court put it, “A jury should decide on a defendant’s fate, not a virus.”

---

Toni Messina has tried over 100 cases and has been practicing criminal law and immigration since 1990. You can follow her on Twitter: @tonitamess.

With some summer administrations of the bar exam already off, the profession is staring down the likelihood that the whole bar exam endeavor may be impossible this year. A Fall exam might be technically possible, but when will students get a chance to study for it if everyone’s still locked down deep into the summer? And won’t students be working by the Fall?

Right now, the NCBE says it will make a call in May, but that just adds to the uncertainty for students. In a letter addressed to the NCBE, over 2,000 law school students — and a few older grads — ask the organization to go ahead and make the call:

The only acceptable response the NCBE could make to the COVID-19 crisis is to encourage and support state bar associations to adopt diploma-privileged licensure. This includes licensure for out-of-state graduates of ABA-accredited law schools, so long as they meet the requirements for a state’s character and fitness determinations and the MPRE. We are asking for total coverage in terms of licensing for the classes of 2019 and 2020, with exceptions for additional entrants made by each state specific bar association; this is not an unreasonable request in this unprecedented moment.

There’s always pushback when it comes to major changes like this, usually from grumpy older lawyers who can’t countenance someone else not having to suffer exactly as much as they did, but these aren’t ordinary times. Even if diploma-privileged licensure isn’t the ideal solution, now is the time to think outside the box. Heightened CLE requirements for the first two years, or apprenticeship privileges for the 2020 class, or shorter subject-specific certification exams. Apply some of that creative problem-solving we pretend attorneys value.

In any event, “do what we always do… but a couple months later” isn’t going to cut it.

---

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

COVID-19 continues its devastation — both medical and financial — across the United States. We’ve heard about smaller or regional firms conducting staff layoffs or cutting salaries in response to economic uncertainty caused by the pandemic. But the latest impact the coronavirus has had on the legal industry is hitting Biglaw, and hard.

According to multiple sources at the firm, Womble Bond Dickinson announced on Friday afternoon a series of cost-cutting measures. That includes associate layoffs, employee furloughs, and cuts to lawyer compensation for those left at the firm. As a tipster reports:

FYI Womble Bind Dickinson made an announcement this afternoon about layoffs and furloughs to associates and staff. They also announced a 10 percent pay reduction for anyone making over $100k and a lower percentage reduction in the $50k to $100k range and the below $50k range. Announcement was made via conference call. No memo sent out to anyone yet

It’s starting to feel a lot like 2009 up in here.

We reached out to Womble, and they confirmed the measures. According to their statement, the move is mean to “curb the negative economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic” and allow the firm to continue serving clients:

In response to the tremendous uncertainty brought on by this virus, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) has reluctantly had to make some adjustments to its business during this difficult time. We made the hard decision to furlough some selected salaried employees for a while and also had to let go another small group. In addition, we are temporarily instituting a 10 percent or less pay reduction (with lower levels of compensation reduced by smaller percentages) for our remaining staff and attorneys in this group. Decisions like these are never easy, but we hope by taking these steps now, we will curb the negative economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and continue to build a strong firm that is positioned to serve our clients well.

There’s a lot of upheaval in Biglaw (and the rest of society) right now. Other Biglaw firms are still struggling with what to do about summer associate programs and others are doubling down on pro bono hours in response to the pandemic. But with no end to the global health crisis in sight, we have to wonder if other Biglaw firms will make similar moves that will leave more lawyers out of work.

---

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

Honestly, I wrote that title and immediately thought, “I have no earthly idea.” The world is absolutely batshit crazy right now, and I spend most of my days working from a panic fort that I built out of pillows and blankets on the floor in my office (that’s a story for another day). Who am I to be telling anyone how to cope with bad news? Well, I’ve had years of experience helping law students through stressful times and even more experience coping with my own stress and anxiety. So, I’m going to put my skills to good use and do my best to help you through this. 

First, I want to virtually validate your feelings. Are you relieved? That’s fine. Scared? That’s fine. Angry? That’s fine. Sad? Also perfectly fine. Whatever it is you are feeling is 100% fine. You may be hearing a lot of “what’s the big deal? It is just a test” or “you are lucky that you aren’t sick” or some version of “be grateful for what you have.” While I’m sure the people who say these things have good intentions, the effect of statements like that is invalidating your very real feelings. I want to make one thing abundantly clear: your life, career, and future have been flipped upside down, and you do not need mine, or any else’s permission to grieve that.

Next, you have to keep in mind that the situation is rapidly evolving. My opinion, which is worth little on a good day and next to nothing right now, is that the decision to postpone the New York bar exam until the fall is just New York’s way of buying themselves some time. We can’t possibly know whether New York, or any other jurisdiction, will actually offer a fall bar exam or whether they will ultimately choose some alternative way to license new lawyers this year.

Finally, and here is the real kick in the pants, you don’t have control over any of it. You don’t decide if and when there will be a bar exam. You don’t decide if there will be emergency licensing. And you don’t even decide when these decisions will be made. You can choose to see that as frustrating or as freeing. These are real problems that need real solutions, but it is not YOUR responsibility to solve them. And worrying about them constantly certainly will not help.

Over the past few days, I’ve been flooded with questions from students about what postponing the bar exam means for them and what they should be doing. While most of us have more questions than answers, I’ve put together a few dos and don’ts that have been helping me and that I hope will help you.

Do allow yourself some time and space to process your emotions. Your instinct is to act. I get that. Mine is too. But the truth is there really isn’t very much action you can take right now. Take the time you do have to try to process your feelings so that when the time comes to act, you’re ready.

Don’t panic. Trust me. I tried it, and it didn’t help. Going down the rabbit hole of “no bar exam, no job — no job, no money — no money, no anything” isn’t going to help you right now. Try to recognize yourself getting caught in these thoughts and redirect them whenever possible.

Do stay informed. Keep yourself up to date with what is going on from the National Conference of Bar Examiners and your state’s board of law examiners. These are the people making the decisions, and they will be the first to update you on any changes. On that same note, keep in touch with your law schools and bar prep companies as they will also be resources for reliable information.

 Don’t become obsessed. There is a fine line between informed and obsessed (again, one that I know from first-hand experience). There is no need to check websites twenty times a day or refresh hourly. Checking in on things a few times a week is probably sufficient to stay informed.

Do remember that it is not just your life being affected. In New York alone, more than 10,000 people take the bar exam each July. There are many, many people focused on what this issue means for them. While this is a big scary thing, you are not going through it alone.

Don’t try to work out a million contingency plans. Did you hear that New York was postponing and immediately start making plans to take the test in another UBE jurisdiction? Yeah. I would have done that, too. But, it will probably cause you more frustration and wasted time than anything. Remember, this situation changes daily, sometimes hourly. I would strongly advise that you wait until we have more information before you start making new plans.

Do try to see this as a positive. I know. You didn’t see that one coming. Maybe a little extra time to let this all play out, to let the economy start to come back, to let you adjust to your new life without throwing studying for the bar exam on top of that, is actually a blessing in disguise. 

I’ll end by saying that this sucks, and I am so incredibly sorry that you are going through it. I’m a proud New Yorker and our motto is #NYtough, but that’s nothing compared to being #LawSchoolStrong. You’ve done many hard things in your life and education, and you can handle whatever the coming weeks and months throw your way.

---

Kerriann Stout is a millennial law school professor and founder of Vinco (a bar exam coaching company) who is generationally trapped between her students and colleagues. Kerriann has helped hundreds of students survive law school and the bar exam with less stress and more confidence. She lives, works, and writes in the northeast. You can reach her by email at info@vincoprep.com.