Law Firm Sends Letter To Governor Demanding He Stop In-Person July Bar Exam To Protect Public

Bar examiners striving against all data and common sense to keep their semi-annual raison d’être going like to fall back on how they are necessary to “protect the public.” And while the argument that bar exams protect the public is almost comically weak — so weak that a state supreme court couldn’t even be bothered to articulate even the thinnest defense of the test — the argument it is massively important to protecting the public that states cancel in-person bar exams in states with surging infections is incredibly strong.

In North Carolina, an applicant has retained a law firm who just sent a letter to Governor Roy Cooper imploring him to use his authority to put a stop to this madness.

There was a day when public health officials more or less agreed that in-person events weren’t necessarily dangerous if certain precautions were taken. That day passed several hundred thousand cases ago. At this point, after a breakdown in early testing and no serious contact tracing, bringing a large group of people together in an enclosed space for a prolonged period of time constitutes a superspreader event. Plain and simple.

But so far, the NC bar examiners have refused to heed these concerns. While touting minor safety precautions, the examiners were also quick to insist on liability protections, basically conceding that they are aware of the danger but they just can’t let go. This is the language of the NC Bar’s waiver:

By proceeding to take the examination, each applicant acknowledges and voluntarily assumes all risk of exposure to or infection with COVID-19 by attending the July 2020 North Carolina bar examination, and the possibility that such exposure or infection may result in personal injury, illness, permanent disability, and death.

That is macabre!

And when they’re challenged about any of this, they send their lawyer to scold people for daring to question the Great And Powerful Bar Examiners.

In yesterday’s letter, attorney Kieran Shanahan notes that the North Carolina Supreme Court has determined that it lacks the ability to halt the test and that the bar examiners have attested to coordinating their effort with the state Department of Health and Human Services. Except…

… we received records from the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (“NCDHHS”) late yesterday indicating that — while NCBLE was in contact with your legal counsel, William McKinney — the NCBLE did not contact NCDHHS to start planning until June 30, 2020. Although NCBLE’s communications with NCDHHS were sparse, I am enclosing copies of the June 30, 2020 introductory emails that we received from NCDHHS with this letter. Preparing for the Bar Exam with only one month remaining may be typical for applicants, but it is wholly irresponsible for the public officials who decided to hold the exam in-person several months ago. While I understand that neither you nor anyone wants to take responsibility for the crisis that the NCBLE has created, as our courts have recently asked: “[w]ho watches the watchmen?”

Yes, these hyped safety precautions supposedly crafted in consultation with professionals from the state HHS were, per the documents, actually slapped together over the last couple of weeks. And, worse, the NCBLE drafted its waiver language before ever talking to the HHS! As the letter puts it, “This is even more egregious when you stop to consider the fact that NCBLE asked our applicants to assume all of the risks of exposure to COVID-19 before NCBLE spoke to NCDHHS to understand what those risks might be.”

Cooper, who was steadfast enough to kill the Republican National Convention in his state over health concerns has so far turned a blind eye to the prospective attorneys that the NCBLE plans to shove into the state fairgrounds in a few days. But, as Shanahan notes, the governor’s office has asserted its authority over the state executive branch to argue that bowling alleys presented “an immediate danger to public health” but hasn’t weighed in on bringing 750 graduates from across the state into an enclosed location for a couple of days. It’s a fitting contrast because, not to defend bowling alleys, but there are few social activities that involve less interaction with people you don’t know than bowling. If alleys ran with 50 percent capacity there’s almost no risk of bumping into anyone else.

And yet it’s the bowling alleys that have so far garnered official intervention while the bar examiners are left to their own devices.

It’s time to put a stop to this so that maybe, just this once, something to do with the bar exam can actually be about protecting the public.

Earlier: North Carolina Also Demands Waiver In Case It Kills Anyone With Bar Exam
Bar Exam Tells Woman To Stop Worrying About Petty Concerns Like ‘Health’ And Study More


HeadshotJoe 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.

Appeals Court Raises Convicted Hedge Fund Managers’ Hopes For The Supreme Court To Brutally Dash

Morning Docket: 07.17.20

The U.S. Supreme Court (photo by David Lat).

* The Supreme Court handed down an order yesterday that will make it very difficult for ex-felons in Florida to vote this year. It’s not like there’s an election coming up or anything… [Slate]

* A lawyer for victims of Jeffrey Epstein is claiming that the estate of Epstein is withholding evidence and stonewalling the litigation. [ABC News]

* A court is allowing Mo’Nique’s discrimination lawsuit against Netflix to proceed. [Fox News]

* Weil Gotshal was able to ink four merger deals in a single day recently despite the ongoing pandemic. [Reuters]

* An attorney whose slogan was “been hit, call Flit” has surrendered his law license for withholding settlement funds from clients. Calling all lawyers with a last name that rhymes with “hit”: the slogan is now open… [Daily Report]


Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.

California Bar Exam Moves Online… And Finally Lowers Cut Score

California already signaled that they were interested in an online bar exam to avoid the catastrophe of jamming applicants into a convention hall. But now we finally have word that the state is going remote and the news comes with a bit of an unexpected twist.

First things first, here’s what the California bar examiners are going to be doing now:

The California Bar Exam will be administered online on October 5-6;

The court directed the State Bar to extend registration for the October exam through July 24;

The court permanently lowered the passing score from 1440 to 1390;

The court directed the State Bar to expedite creation of a provisional licensure program under supervision to 2020 law school graduates—effective until they can take and pass a California bar exam, and expiring no later than June 1, 2022.

The decision to lower the cut score — permanently — is a huge victory for common sense. Under the circumstances a temporary reduction seemed prudent, but addressing the problem for the long haul is great news. California’s prior cut score made a mockery of the idea that the exam is about protecting the public. Applicants who could easily serve the public in other states were cut out of the profession by a score that always seemed more about artificially capping the profession than guaranteeing competency. A policy that exacerbated the state’s significant access to justice problem and damaged efforts to diversify the profession with many minority candidates logging scores that would easily pass in New York but left them on the outside in California.

Dean David Faigman of Hastings lauded the decision:

The decision was rather more than I thought that I could hope for, and certainly more than I expected. I am deeply grateful to the California Supreme Court for this decision, which takes into account the needs of the candidates for the bar and ensures protection for the public. It is a sensible and fair outcome.

It is a better result than trying to force an in-person exam in a few months.

But this option is still fraught with peril. Access to reliable internet and locations devoid of interruption will still be substantial problems for applicants. As will unresolved issues over remote proctoring, which could include AI proctoring software that might run afoul of local laws.

There may be many more changes to this process before October.


HeadshotJoe 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.

Are You an M&A Lawyer and Want to Practice in Seoul?

Our client, a Vault 20 US law firm, is actively looking for a mid-level M&A lawyer to join its office in Seoul (3-6 years PQE).

The ideal candidate needs to have attended a US law school for JD or LLM with good grades and have BigLaw experience at the associate level on M&A/PE investments.

The US law qualification is a must-have for this position.  This is a great role for Asian background lawyers who want to stay closer to home, as well as a great opportunity for international lawyers to explore Korea/Asia – Korean language skills would be a bonus but are not required for this position (although, tbh, Seoul’s a lot more fun if you can parlez).

Deals-wise, you will be working on a mix of inbound PE investment on Korean targets and Korean outbound M&A transactions.  Reach out to asia@kinneyrecruiting.com to inquire.

Skadden’s Favorite Law School

(Image via Getty)

Ed. Note: Welcome to our daily feature Trivia Question of the Day!

According to data collected by Law.com’s 2020 Go-To Law School Ranking, which law school did Skadden hire the most associates from last year?

Hint: A whopping 23 members of the Class of 2019 went to Skadden from this top law school — the largest cohort to go to a single firm in last year’s graduating class.

See the answer on the next page.

Ex-Bridgewater CEO Disputes Objective Bridgewater Criteria That Pay Women Less

New Legal Innovators Initiative Targets the Challenge for Firms of Supporting Diverse Staffing During Pandemic | LawSites

Among the lessons for law firms that came out of the recession of 2008 was that diversity and inclusion initiatives suffer during an economic downturn, says Bryan Parker, chief executive officer of alternative legal services provider Legal Innovators.

It took a decade before the numbers of Black and LatinX attorneys at large law firms returned to pre-recession levels, Parker told me. “We are committed to working with leaders in the law to address diversity and inclusion at every stage of the talent recruitment and development process, to ensure this doesn’t happen again.”

Bryan Parker

Last December, I wrote about the launch of Legal Innovators, a company that aims to enhance diversity and inclusion in larger law firms and legal departments by changing how lawyers are recruited, hired, priced and trained.

Now, in recognition of the staffing challenges legal organizations face as a result of the coronavirus crisis, and with the goal of avoiding a repeat of 2008, the company is introducing two services designed to help — one a free assessment of an organization’s diversity and inclusion and the other a staffing program to help organizations meet shorter-term needs for attorneys in high-demand practice areas.

Free Diversity Assessment

The company is providing its Diversity and Inclusion Talent Assessment at no cost to law firms and legal departments. It will review an organization’s processes, procedures, and cultural approach, and conduct stakeholder interviews and anonymous surveys.

Within 30 days, Legal Innovators will deliver a written report that will address recruiting, development, retention, promotion, and enablement of legal talent, as well as recommendations to measure and track performance against metrics.

If the assessment identifies a need, the organization can optionally work with Legal Innovators to be matched with diverse junior legal talent.

I asked Parker why a firm should have his company perform this assessment rather than do it itself.

“Why does a lawyer not have himself for a client?” he replied. “There is something about a fresh set of eyes coming in and being dispassionate.”

Beyond that, he said, he and his cofounder Jonathan L. Greenblatt, a longtime, now-retired partner at Shearman & Sterling, are large-firm veterans who understand the staffing and diversity issues firms face.

Flexible-Term Lawyers

Legal Innovators standard model is recruit diverse law school graduates and match them for terms of one-to-two years with law firms and legal departments. Legal Innovators employs them during that period and provides training and mentorship.

Under the service announced today, Legal Innovators will provide these attorneys for shorter terms of three-to-six months, with the attorneys working either remotely or in an organization’s offices.

The service is targeting high-demand practice areas where firms and legal departments are likely to need additional staffing, including regulatory, bankruptcy, restructuring and litigation.

The lawyers will come from diverse and non-diverse backgrounds and have initial training rele vant to support these high-demand business areas, Legal Innovators says.

After the initial term, employers would be free to continue to work with Legal Innovators for the standard, longer-term duration, or to hire the lawyers permanently.

In Parker’s view, these initiatives are win-wins for both the firms that participate and the lawyers who get placed.

The data is clear that more diverse firms are more profitable firms, he says, and in the times in which we find ourselves, diversity is both a moral imperative and a business imperative.

For the lawyers who get placed in firms or legal departments, this is an opportunity to get valuable experience that can fuel their careers. And for some, it could lead to permanent placements.

Legaltech Week 6.5.20: Guest Bryan Parker Joins the Panel for A Conversation on Diversity

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp Protects Public Health By Nixing Local Mask Requirements

Yesterday, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp issued an Executive Order striking down mask requirements in at least fifteen local jurisdictions.

While the governor has encouraged Georgians to mask up to prevent the spread of coronavirus, he has called mandates “a bridge too far.” So despite growing evidence that masks work, and Kemp’s own exhortation that people should mask up if they want to watch college football this fall, the newest order explicitly makes them optional.

[A]ny state, county, or municipal law, order, ordinance, rule, or regulation that requires persons to wear face coverings, masks, face shields, or any other Personal Protective Equipment while in places of public accommodation or on public property are suspended to the extent that they are more restrictive than this Executive Order.

The ordinance also caps indoor gatherings at fifty persons and suspends the requirement that Georgians renew their gun permits during the pandemic. So if anyone needs to shoot a virus, they’ll be able to do it. Phew!

Next door in Alabama, Republican Governor Kay Ivey instituted a mask mandate yesterday. Mississippi’s governor Tate Reeves tweeted a long thread on dangers of a herd immunity approach, encouraging his constituents to wear masks, and allowing municipalities to enact their own mask regulations.  But in Georgia, this abridgment of personal liberty will not stand!

Savannah Mayor Van Johnson, who was gearing up to enforce his city’s mask ordinance with warnings and fines, was outraged.

But the governor was unmoved.

“We’ve been clear in previous orders and statements that local mask mandates are unenforceable,” Kemp spokeswoman Candice Broce told the Savannah Morning News yesterday, when the state reported 3,871 new COVID infections. “The Governor has encouraged Georgians to wear them voluntarily for months now.”

Because Brian Kemp really wants to protect his constituents’ health and stop this pandemic in its tracks. Just not enough to actually do anything at all about it.

Check out the Executive Order here.


Elizabeth Dye (@5DollarFeminist) lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.