Senator doesn't pass the bar

May 3, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Of 264 people who sat for the bar in February, 184 passed. Sen. Mike Delph, R-Carmel, was not one of the lucky ones. The list of successful bar applicants was posted Monday and his name wasn’t on the list.

You may recall that Delph sat for the bar exam in February, in the middle of the legislative session. In fact, because he was taking the bar, he missed voting for his controversial illegal immigration bill.

I’m not going to rub salt in the senator’s failed-exam wounds. I’ve never sat for the bar exam, but I’ve heard it can be a difficult test and time-consuming to prepare for. There are quite a few people who have to take it multiple times before they pass. This time, only 70 percent passed. That’s 80 people who will have to sit for it again if they want to become an attorney.

But I do wonder why the senator decided to take the exam in February during the legislative session instead of scheduling it when he may have had more time to prepare and focus. The exam will be given again in July.

Does anyone care to fess up and say how many times they had to take the bar exam until they passed it?

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Surprise?
    I'm sorry but when has anyone thought that the members of our Indiana legislature were the brightest bulbs in the hardware store?
  • Delph
    For several years, I have wondered, as a Carmel voter, why a well-educated, affluent community could support Delph's agenda. He wants less government but has proposed that the state dictate the start of the school year when that should rest with locally-elected school boards and the community. Why did he not wait to take the bar? Perhaps the embarrassment regarding his immigration bill?
    He's not the first to fail the bar. I was lucky and passed the first time. Perhaps in the future he can concentrate on issues that are important to the citizens of Indiana,not the social conservatives who wish to impose their will on others.
  • Really?
    This post is low. There's no point to it other than to ridicule this man. While the writer claims she's "not going to rub salt in the [S]enatorâ??s failed-exam wounds", that's exactly what she did and-- telling from the structure of the post--what she intended to do. Maybe she wasn't trying to levy an ad hominem attack, but the post only serves to bring ridicule and further embarrassment to Delph. Why even attempt to pretend otherwise? This is demeaning to the IL and the writer.

    If there isn't anything meaningful to post, then don't. That said, it did make a mundane topic sensationalistic--a sad commentary itself.
  • ignoble gloating
    I passed first time in the middle of a lot of difficulties. But I know people who came from more difficult law schools with good grades who botched it up. What does it mean? Sometimes not much. Here, with the announced bias of this publication against his anti-immigration bill, this sure seems like gloating.
    • what about the kennedy kid eh?
      I am reminded of course, a famous young man, now decased, who failed the bar many times. His Uncle Teddy was one of the biggest advocates of the 1965 Immigration reform act, Ted Kennedy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965 That law is often criticized by anti-immigration advocates whereas today's illegal immigrant lobby adores it.

      So lets not make to much of this fellow failing the bar. Its pretty much totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.
    • Not the point
      He took the bar and passed. Not a big deal and also not the point of the article (from my understanding).

      Seems to be focusing more on why he chose to take that exam while missing his proposed bill, instead of postponing until the next exam.

      Good article. Sure fire way to get people commenting is to write about controversy.

    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
    1. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

    2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

    3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

    4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

    5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

    ADVERTISEMENT