ILNews

BLE will strike broad question, revise other

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court’s Board of Law Examiners is cutting one controversial question from its annual bar exam application and will revise another in order to comply with a federal judge’s recent ruling.

U.S. Judge Tanya Walton Pratt in the Southern District of Indiana ruled Sept. 20 that Question 23 on the state’s bar exam application violates the Americans with Disabilities Act because it too broadly asks potential lawyers about their mental health back to age 16. She also ruled that three other questions were permissible because they focused more specifically on medical history and mental and psychological conditions that might impact one’s current practice of law.

Her ruling in the case of ACLU-Indiana – Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis Chapter, and Amanda Perdue, et al. v. The Individual Members of the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners, No. 1:09-CV-0842, granted and denied summary judgment motions from both sides, and the attorneys today filed a joint submission of proposed judgment as the judge had requested.

The submission addresses the specifics of Judge Pratt’s ruling but doesn’t waive the right for either party to appeal her decision on the questions.

Indianapolis attorney and BLE chair Jon Laramore said the state will immediately stop using Question 23 on the applications for the February 2012 bar exam. The applications are posted online and will be revised as soon as possible, although he pointed out that any applications downloaded prior to that change would still include the question at issue. If anyone submits an application with answers to that question, the BLE will disregard those responses, Laramore said. The BLE will revise Question 22, although final language hasn’t yet been approved, he said.

“We believe that the revised question, along with other questions on the application, will allow us to obtain all the information we need to evaluate applicants’ character and fitness,” Laramore wrote in an email to Indiana Lawyer.

Judge Pratt will issue a final order in the case, and from there the parties will have an opportunity to appeal to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Both Laramore and the ACLU of Indiana’s legal director Ken Falk said no official decisions have been made on the possibility of appeal at this time.
 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT