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. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  2. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  3. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  4. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

  5. Unlike the federal judge who refused to protect me, the Virginia State Bar gave me a hearing. After the hearing, the Virginia State Bar refused to discipline me. VSB said that attacking me with the court ADA coordinator had, " all the grace and charm of a drive-by shooting." One does wonder why the VSB was able to have a hearing and come to that conclusion, but the federal judge in Indiana slammed the door of the courthouse in my face.

ADVERTISEMENT