ILNews

ADA violations in bar admission catch attention of Indiana BLE

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana State Board of Law Examiners is taking notice of a finding by the U.S. Department of Justice that Louisiana’s treatment of bar applicants with mental health conditions was in violation of the American with Disabilities Act.

Justice Department officials found that the Louisiana attorney licensure system’s practice of evaluating and treating bar applicants who have mental health disabilities was discriminatory. In particular, the DOJ concluded that the requirement that applicants to the state bar answer the mental health questions included on the National Conference of Bar Examiners Request for Preparation of a Character Report tended to screen out individuals based on stereotypes and assumptions.
 

skolnik Skolnik

The department put its findings in a letter to the Louisiana Supreme Court and requested court officials work with the DOJ to resolve the matter in an “amicable and cooperative fashion.”

Indiana’s application for admission to the bar contains the questions that were the focus of the DOJ investigation but, according to Bradley Skolnik, executive director of the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners, Indiana has not received a letter from the Justice Department.

The BLE is carefully reviewing the DOJ letter sent to Louisiana and will continue to monitor the situation, Skolnik said. “The board is committed to ensuring all policies and procedures comply with the ADA.”

Following a 2011 court order, Indiana’s board did modify one of its admission questions regarding diagnosis and treatment of any mental health disorder. Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana found the question to be improper under the ADA because it was overly broad and captured information not related to serious mental and emotional problems.

Skolnik said mental health and substance abuse issues, raised through questions on the bar admission application, are considered when assessing an individual’s character and fitness.

“The process is highly confidential because it does involve analysis of personal information,” he said. “The board has no desire to be intrusive but it does have a very high duty to ensure applicants have the ability to practice law and discharge their duties.”

According to the Justice Department, the Louisiana Supreme Court Committee on Bar Admissions was using the responses to the mental health questions to single out applicants.

The Louisiana admissions committee was recommending conditional admission to applicants with mental health diagnoses. These applicants had to sign consent agreements that gave the Office of Disciplinary Counsel permission to monitor the applicants, have “full and unfettered access” to their medical records, and to contact their employers and supervising attorneys to discuss the conditional admission.

The Indiana State Board of Law Examiners can give conditional admission if it has concerns about an applicant’s drug, alcohol, psychological or behavioral problems. Skolnik said a conditional admission could have provisions attached that, for example, would require an applicant to check in on a quarterly basis or be subject to testing for substance abuse.

In lieu of denying admission, Skolnik said, the board can ask for a conditional admission to make sure the applicant meets the standards necessary for the practice of law.

Other than the adjustment order by Pratt, the board has not made any significant changes to the application for admission in several years. However, the board did recently launch an online application process. Individuals wanting to take the bar exam in Indiana can now file for admittance electronically. Skolnik said the response has been “very positive” and the online process has improved efficiency.

Also, the board is still in the process of considering changes to the bar exam itself.

The BLE submitted a proposal in 2013 to replace the essay topics on commercial law, personal property and taxation with debtor/creditor law and employment law. In addition, the board suggested including six topics from the Multistate Bar Exam in the Indiana Essay Examination.

Skolnik said the public has made “thoughtful comments” on the proposed changes that the board is carefully considering. He anticipates the board will soon make adjustments to its suggestions.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT