ILNews

In-Box: Reader responds concerning proposed changes to state's bar exam

July 31, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Letters to the Editor

To the editor:

As a new lawyer, I appreciate the timely news and critical legal updates provided by the Indiana Lawyer. I would like to take this opportunity to write in response to a June 19, 2013, IL article on proposed changes to the Indiana Bar Examination.

As a recent law school graduate and even more recent bar exam participant (July 2012), I would like to express my concern for the proposed changes to the Indiana Bar Exam. While I can appreciate the challenges associated with changing anything, particularly a bar exam, the proposed changes seem to entirely miss the boat on the purpose of any bar examination.

The article suggests that a bar exam is the opportunity for the examiners to make a determination as to which candidates appear at least minimally competent to practice law in Indiana. That is about the only premise I generally agree with, and yet I personally know people who did not pass the bar exam that are more competent in certain areas of the law than I could hope to be.

The article suggests that bar exam candidates “learn” Indiana law by studying for the bar exam. That’s simply not accurate. I took the exam, and I would not begin to suggest that I learned Indiana law by that preparation. In fact, if I recall correctly, there were only two questions on the Indiana Bar Exam in July 2012 that even remotely hinted at Indiana law – one regarding family law and one regarding simple, basic trial rules/procedure. The essay I remember most clearly was the one on UCC-3, a course I never took in law school and a subject that I memorized for the Indiana Bar Exam using a mnemonic device, which I don’t remember. Yet I’m certain I scored every point possible on that question. My “flawless” answer to that question should not have determined that I was “minimally competent to practice in Indiana,” but it likely did contribute to my passing that exam. Personally, I’d prefer that the state went to a diploma privilege license like Wisconsin with the additional requirement that new law school graduates then apprentice for several years with experienced lawyers. That’s another discussion.

My primary concern with the proposed changes to the bar exam is that there is no discussion of moving to the Uniform Bar Examination like at least 13 other states have already done. Just use the MBE, the two ridiculous MPT “products” if you must, and six national essays. If 13 other states can figure out who is minimally competent to practice law from the UBE, so can the Indiana Board of Law Examiners. The benefit for the hundreds of Indiana law school graduates – portability of the UBE score to other jurisdictions – far outweighs any presumed competence the Indiana bar might think it is gaining by using Indiana specific essays. And, based on my experience, Indiana only currently uses one or two somewhat specific essays per exam administration at this point.

The proposed changes such as adding tax law and bankruptcy law to the exam is a great idea in theory, but it is flawed in its premise that anyone is going to come out of that exam preparation ready to practice, for example, bankruptcy law with minimum competency. I had an excellent course in bankruptcy law in law school and did well in it. I also worked in a law office in Crown Point for two years while in law school with an experienced bankruptcy attorney. The only thing I know for certain is that I am in no way competent to practice bankruptcy law, even though I am technically licensed to do so. If I were to decide to practice bankruptcy law, or any other field for that matter, I would work with an expert lawyer who has been doing it for 20-plus years and knows what he or she is talking about. To do it any other way seems to me to be flirting with malpractice.

As the nation’s law schools regroup and restructure to offer more practical, skills-based education to their students, boards of law examiners and state bars should be restructuring their requirements to insist on far more than minimal competency in the candidates that enter the profession. Is it ethical to allow a “minimally competent” lawyer to practice law on an unsuspecting client? Now that would be a useful question on the MPRE!

So, do future attorneys a huge favor and don’t be the last jurisdiction to switch to the UBE. Do something truly important for lawyer competency in Indiana – put a “residency” requirement in place for all new Indiana attorneys, regardless of what area of the law they want to practice, rather than Indiana’s current position of allowing new lawyers to practice on their clients. Thank heavens the medical profession doesn’t allow a minimally competent doctor to do open heart surgery. It should be no different for attorneys.•

Richard Mitchell, Ph.D., J.D.

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