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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

    2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

    3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

    4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

    5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

    ADVERTISEMENT