Indiana bar exam may change test topics

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Hopeful attorneys who take the Indiana bar exam in 2016 may no longer have to write essays on commercial law, personal property, and taxation based on proposed changes from the Indiana Board of Law Examiners.

The BLE wants comment on its proposed changes to the Indiana Essay Examination. It believes commercial law is typically used by specialists more than general practitioners, that personal property is too narrow of a subject area, and taxation is extremely broad and the laws are often changing.

Instead, it will keep the other topics currently used on the test and possibly add debtor/creditor law and employment law. The BLE cites that these two law sections are among the largest in the Indiana State Bar Association.

The BLE is also proposing that six of the topics already tested in the Multistate Bar Exam be added to the potential topics that can be tested on the Indiana Essay Examination, including federal constitutional law, contracts, criminal law and procedure, evidence, real property and torts.

The National Conference of Bar Examiners recently announced that a seventh section to the Multistate Bar Exam on civil procedure will be added beginning with February 2015 administration of the exam. The number of questions per topic will decrease, with 28 questions covering contracts and 27 questions on the remaining six topics.

More information on the changes to the Indiana bar exam can be found on the BLE’s website.

The changes, if adopted, wouldn’t be implemented until 2016 to give law schools, students and applicants time to prepare.

Comments are due May 31 and may be sent to Executive Director Bradley W. Skolnik at or at State Board of Law Examiners, 30 S. Meridian St., Suite 875, Indianapolis IN 46204-3569. He can also be reached at 317-232-2552.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Great observation Smith. By my lights, speaking personally, they already have. They counted my religious perspective in a pro-life context as a symptom of mental illness and then violated all semblance of due process to banish me for life from the Indiana bar. The headline reveals the truth of the Hoosier elite's animus. Details here: Denied 2016 petition for cert (this time around): (“2016Pet”) Amicus brief 2016: (“2016Amici”) As many may recall, I was banned for five years for failing to "repent" of my religious views on life and the law when a bar examiner demanded it of me, resulting in a time out to reconsider my "clinging." The time out did not work, so now I am banned for life. Here is the five year time out order: Denied 2010 petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): (“2010Pet”) Read this quickly if you are going to read it, the elites will likely demand it be pulled down or pile comments on to bury it. (As they have buried me.)

  2. if the proabortion zealots and intolerant secularist anti-religious bigots keep on shutting down every hint of religious observance in american society, or attacking every ounce of respect that the state may have left for it, they may just break off their teeth.

  3. "drug dealers and traffickers need to be locked up". "we cannot afford just to continue to build prisons". "drug abuse is strangling many families and communities". "establishing more treatment and prevention programs will also be priorities". Seems to be what politicians have been saying for at least three decades now. If these are the most original thoughts these two have on the issues of drug trafficking and drug abuse, then we're no closer to solving the problem than we were back in the 90s when crack cocaine was the epidemic. We really need to begin demanding more original thought from those we elect to office. We also need to begin to accept that each of us is part of the solution to a problem that government cannot solve.

  4. What is with the bias exclusion of the only candidate that made sense, Rex Bell? The Democrat and Republican Party have created this problem, why on earth would anyone believe they are able to fix it without pushing government into matters it doesn't belong?

  5. This is what happens when daddy hands over a business to his moron son and thinks that everything will be ok. this bankruptcy is nothing more than Gary pulling the strings to never pay the creditors that he and his son have ripped off. they are scum and they know it.