ILNews

Judge hears arguments on bar exam application suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

How far the Indiana Board of Law Examiners can go in asking potential lawyers about their mental-health history was the subject of a federal court hearing Wednesday, where attorneys explored the scope of the Americans with Disabilities Act and what might be reasonable in determining someone’s potential fitness to practice law.

Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana and the state’s BLE both appeared before U.S. Judge Tanya Walton Pratt in Indianapolis in the case of Amanda Perdue, et al. v. The Individual Members of the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners, No. 1:09-CV-0842. The two-year-old class-action suit boils down to accusations that certain questions on the state’s bar exam application violate the ADA because those inquiries treat certain applicants differently based on their mental-health history.

The plaintiffs are an Indiana woman who is admitted to practice in Illinois but wants to practice in her home state, as well as the student ACLU chapter at Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis where some law students say the could be impacted by the controversial questions.

This hearing had been continued from earlier in the summer, and Judge Pratt is determining whether to grant summary judgment for either side or if the case should proceed.

On one side, the plaintiffs focus on four specific questions that they contend are too broad and go beyond what the state should be asking about mental-health history as far as their childhood when only their current states should be considered in the context of conduct and character in practicing law. But the BLE argues that by simply asking these questions, the state is doing nothing wrong and not treating individuals differently; rather the process is gathering more information to determine if a potential concern exists that might impact a person’s ability to practice law.

Attorneys on each side disagree about key points in the case, from what the evidence proves about bar exam applicants’ impact from these types of questions to how the ADA sections apply or don’t allow the questions, and even whether someone can be injured simply by an entity asking about his or her mental illness. The lawyers also disagree on what caselaw from courts nationwide have decided on these issues.

“These questions go way too far and are invalid in all situations,” said the ACLU of Indiana’s legal director Ken Falk. “No jurisdiction in America has temporally open questions like these that Indiana demands answered by those who want to take the exam. And there is no case anywhere that upholds questions as broad and intrusive as this, and multiple ones that strike them down.”

Tony Overholt with Frost Brown Todd represents the BLE and told the judge that Title II of the ADA, which governs public agencies on these issues, allows the mental-health questions to be asked. Although Title I puts limitations on what can be asked by employers and doesn’t allow criteria or different procedures for those who might be disabled, Overholt said Title II doesn’t contain those same restrictions and only prohibits any specific discrimination based on a person’s disability. That is not happening here, he said.

Plaintiffs are mistaken in trying to claim that an actual injury occurs because of the questions being asked, and that only a flat-out rejection of someone who answers affirmatively on those questions would be an ADA violation, he said. Once a potential lawyer answers a question affirmatively, that person fills out a separate form detailing his or her mental-health history so that the BLE can do an individualized-assessment to determine if any possible concern is warranted.

No one has been denied application because of answering the question affirmatively, although the ACLU has included discovery showing that some applicants withdrew their names or didn’t take the bar exam as a result of these questions being asked. The lawyers on the case disagree about what the discovery shows – one side says it proves the questions are ADA violations because it’s restricting, while the other side contends it shows there’s a need to ask them and it’s not rejecting anyone based on their answers.

They disagree on what triggers an “injury” under the ADA, and they have different views on what’s considered reasonable and appropriate questions.

“Unless we categorically deny people based on their disability, we aren’t violating the ADA,” Overholt said. “When someone answers affirmatively, we do what the ADA tells us to and conduct an individualized assessment. No one is treating them as having a disability, we’re just seeking information and starting an interactive dialogue on this.”

Falk said that argument ignores the injury and belittles those who’ve experienced these “scary and demoralizing” mental-health issues and what they must go through just by disclosing these circumstances from their past.

“It is a big deal, and it’s not allowed by the ADA,” he said.

The ACLU wants the judge to declare that these questions violate the ADA, enjoin them from being asked on applications, and leave it open for the BLE to craft more narrow questions based on the various templates that exist nationwide. The state is arguing for summary judgment on the basis that these questions are necessary and reasonable.

Judge Pratt told the attorneys to expect a ruling on the summary judgment motions by the end of September. The previously-scheduled trial dates for November have been vacated.


 

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. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  2. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

  3. Low energy. Next!

  4. Had William Pryor made such provocative statements as a candidate for the Indiana bar he could have been blackballed as I have documented elsewhere on this ezine. That would have solved this huuuge problem for the Left and abortion industry the good old boy (and even girl) Indiana way. Note that Diane Sykes could have made a huuge difference, but she chose to look away like most all jurists who should certainly recognize a blatantly unconstitutional system when filed on their docket. See footnotes 1 & 2 here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html Sykes and Kanne could have applied a well established exception to Rooker Feldman, but instead seemingly decided that was not available to conservative whistleblowers, it would seem. Just a loss and two nice footnotes to numb the pain. A few short years later Sykes ruled the very opposite on the RF question, just as she had ruled the very opposite on RF a few short years before. Indy and the abortion industry wanted me on the ground ... they got it. Thank God Alabama is not so corrupted! MAGA!!!

  5. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

ADVERTISEMENT