ILNews

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 Bradley.skolnik@courts.in.gov 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.

 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT