Incoming Associates Getting Deferred Forum

[Anonymous User]

While I understand the desire to have students at NY schools take the NY bar because of proximity and public health concerns, I’m not sure it quite works out that well in practice. I’m a NY resident attending a non-NY law school and sheltering at home in NY. I’d have to travel to another state and then travel back to family in NY for this exam. I also know dozens of other people from my school who are similarly in NY and will be there up until the bar exam whereas I know NY law school students who are now in other states or countries.

This ruling might’ve made more sense if law schools hadn’t shut down months ago and scattered their students to the wind.

[QContinuum]

The reference to "other top law schools" makes it look to me like this is really a dig at the lower-ranked schools in NY that will have priority over every T14 school that isn't NYU or CLS. Again, this is just my opinion.

"Lower-ranked schools in NY that will have priority over every T14 school that isn't NYU or CLS"? I really like your dig at Cornell Law here...

Compare that with regionally proximate schools that are not generally considered "top schools." (See, e.g., Penn State College Park 18%, Seton Hall 17%, Vermont 13%, U Conn 9%, Rutgers 9%, New England 9%, Quinnipiac 6%).

This is actually really shocking to me that Rutgers and Seton Hall send fewer (per capita) law students to NYC/NY State than Penn State College Park or (in Rutgers' case) UConn or Vermont. I always thought part of the appeal of attending law school in Newark was the proximity to the NYC legal market. Shocking that their placement rates would be so low. Wonder if it's a really strong Jersey Pride effect or if NYC DA/public defender offices/legal aid orgs really have such a big preference for, say, St. John's or Hofstra students over Rutgers' students.

[UVA2B]

Non-NY law schools have offered to provide remote locations for the exam, and that was refused apparently. That’s where you lose the least unfair argument.

[QContinuum]

Non-NY law schools have offered to provide remote locations for the exam, and that was refused apparently. That’s where you lose the least unfair argument.

Presumably NY BOLE wants to send its own proctors to supervise. How far should its proctors have to travel out of state? There could be an argument for Seton Hall/Rutgers - Newark's pretty damn close to NYC - but have those schools offered space to administer the bar for NY applicants? And even if so, would Seton Hall and Rutgers have enough space to accommodate all of the other NY applicants? I'd guess the answer to the second question, at least, is no. And even if the answer to the first question is yes, maybe Seton Hall and Rutgers would want to reserve their (limited) seats for their own grads. Why would Seton Hall and Rutgers want to accommodate, say, UPenn students over their own grads?

But let's say Seton Hall and Rutgers are willing to take all comers, on a lottery basis. They can't possibly accommodate everyone. What happens beyond Seton Hall and Rutgers? Does NY BOLE need to be forced to trust other state bars to proctor? Arguably they should trust other states' proctors, but it's not irrational that they'd want to proctor those exams themselves. Or should NY BOLE be shipping proctors out to MA, or VT, or PA? It's not unreasonable that they wouldn't want to do that.

[UVA2B]

Non-NY law schools have offered to provide remote locations for the exam, and that was refused apparently. That’s where you lose the least unfair argument.

Presumably NY BOLE wants to send its own proctors to supervise. How far should its proctors have to travel out of state? There could be an argument for Seton Hall/Rutgers - Newark's pretty damn close to NYC - but have those schools offered space to administer the bar for NY applicants? And even if so, would Seton Hall and Rutgers have enough space to accommodate all of the other NY applicants? I'd guess the answer to the second question, at least, is no. And even if the answer to the first question is yes, maybe Seton Hall and Rutgers would want to reserve their (limited) seats for their own grads. Why would Seton Hall and Rutgers want to accommodate, say, UPenn students over their own grads?

But let's say Seton Hall and Rutgers are willing to take all comers, on a lottery basis. They can't possibly accommodate everyone. What happens beyond Seton Hall and Rutgers? Does NY BOLE need to be forced to trust other state bars to proctor? Arguably they should trust other states' proctors, but it's not irrational that they'd want to proctor those exams themselves. Or should NY BOLE be shipping proctors out to MA, or VT, or PA? It's not unreasonable that they wouldn't want to do that.

It's not unreasonable for BOLE to want to supervise their own bar exam, so if it was required that they send proctors to every location to proctor the exam, I'd be slightly more sympathetic. But given the circumstances, making accommodations in how they proctor would be reasonable to accommodate the substantial number of graduates who are trying to enter the legal profession in NY. Rather than physically deploying proctors to every school or location that offers the exam, why not set up proctoring criteria so that it could be proctored remotely? Other states have already shown an online bar exam can be and will be possible, so even if NY requires putting test takers in a central location, it's possible to proctor the exam without spreading their proctors to every location. So the entire discussion of opening up Seton Hall or Rutgers would be irrelevant, because it should be assumed the exam can be proctored remotely.

Honestly, this comes off as after the fact justification for the decision rather than insurmountable problems that led to the decision. Treating this as a supply and demand problem, and therefore applying preference to NY schools makes complete sense, just doesn't hold up because it's not a two-dimensional supply and demand problem. The supply is being limited regardless of demand. Imagine if one NY proctor could monitor one location in VT, PA, or UT by monitoring the test takers via an online platform that BOLE adopts? While unprecedented, I would expect this level of reflexive thinking from one of the most robust state bar associations in the country. There are problems with implementing remote proctoring to be sure, but considering none of this is normal, I personally think the negatives of remote monitoring are far outweighed by offering new graduates attempting to enter the largest legal market in the country an opportunity to enter it reasonably on time.

Admittedly all of this requires asking extreme changes from how bar exams have traditionally been administered, but that's entirely the point. Disadvantaging non-NY school graduates by delaying their entrance into the bar association because they didn't go to a NY law school when that is not a hard limit.

Deferrals are arguably related to this decision by the NY bar, but it really is a separate problem, and I think it's a poorly advised one. There are new and innovative ways to administer a bar exam, should it still be a requirement (not arguing one way or another whether diploma privilege deserves consideration), and those should be examined before the bar association throws their hands up and tests all NY law school graduates, gives whatever scraps remains to some lottery system, and calls it a day. Even if you allow more deferential supervised practice rules in the interim, it's a really sad sack half measure.

Edit: Even if you assume non-NY graduates have the opportunity to take another UBE jurisdiction bar, it puts those graduates at a huge disadvantage, because every state bar association is in flux and may not be able to separately handle all of their NY-bound grads on top of all those wanting to practice in that state. Hoping IL can handle their numerous NY-bound graduates on top of their own exacerbates the problem when you extrapolate this thinking across all state bar associations that have the UBE.

[mtf612]

Letter from law school deans to NY COA was sent out last night. The letter was from the "deans of non-New York based law schools who have among the most substantial numbers of students who sit for the bar in (NY) state each year. Collectively, the undersigned schools had over two thousand JD and LLM graduates take the New York bar exam in 2019."

Solutions proposed include: (1) offering a second exam date on 9/30 and 10/1; (2) adding additional testing locations in NY for the 9/9 exam; (3) offering seats outside of NY by using some of the signed law schools as test venues; and (4) working to develop an online bar exam.

Schools represented: American U, Boston College, Boston U, Berkeley, UCLA, U Chicago, Duke, Emory, GW, GULC, Howard, HLS, U Mich, Northeastern, Northwestern, Penn, Rutgers, Stanford, UVA, WUSTL, Yale.

[Anonymous User]

Non-NY law schools have offered to provide remote locations for the exam, and that was refused apparently. That’s where you lose the least unfair argument.

Presumably NY BOLE wants to send its own proctors to supervise. How far should its proctors have to travel out of state? There could be an argument for Seton Hall/Rutgers - Newark's pretty damn close to NYC - but have those schools offered space to administer the bar for NY applicants? And even if so, would Seton Hall and Rutgers have enough space to accommodate all of the other NY applicants? I'd guess the answer to the second question, at least, is no. And even if the answer to the first question is yes, maybe Seton Hall and Rutgers would want to reserve their (limited) seats for their own grads. Why would Seton Hall and Rutgers want to accommodate, say, UPenn students over their own grads?

But let's say Seton Hall and Rutgers are willing to take all comers, on a lottery basis. They can't possibly accommodate everyone. What happens beyond Seton Hall and Rutgers? Does NY BOLE need to be forced to trust other state bars to proctor? Arguably they should trust other states' proctors, but it's not irrational that they'd want to proctor those exams themselves. Or should NY BOLE be shipping proctors out to MA, or VT, or PA? It's not unreasonable that they wouldn't want to do that.

Philadelphia and New Haven are closer to NYC than a lot of the places that offer the bar in New York state (NYC to Buffalo is a 6.5 hour drive on a good day, Saratoga is 3 hours, and Albany is 2.5). I understand if they don't trust the schools to proctor for whatever reason but it's not ridiculous to have to travel 1 hour 45 minutes to Philadelphia or 1.5 hours to New Haven (or 2 hours via MetroNorth). Boston is only 3.5 hours from NYC - not much further than Saratoga and closer than Buffalo. If all the proctors are coming from upstate NY, Boston and VT may even be closer. But I'm not sure the assumption that all proctors come from NYC is correct in which case you are right that schools may be asking proctors to travel too far. I just wanted to point out that New York is such a huge state that sometimes it's faster to travel places out of state.

[Waupli]

Letter from law school deans to NY COA was sent out last night. The letter was from the "deans of non-New York based law schools who have among the most substantial numbers of students who sit for the bar in (NY) state each year. Collectively, the undersigned schools had over two thousand JD and LLM graduates take the New York bar exam in 2019."

Solutions proposed include: (1) offering a second exam date on 9/30 and 10/1; (2) adding additional testing locations in NY for the 9/9 exam; (3) offering seats outside of NY by using some of the signed law schools as test venues; and (4) working to develop an online bar exam.

Schools represented: American U, Boston College, Boston U, Berkeley, UCLA, U Chicago, Duke, Emory, GW, GULC, Howard, HLS, U Mich, Northeastern, Northwestern, Penn, Rutgers, Stanford, UVA, WUSTL, Yale.

From the beginning I've thought that offering the bar a second time on 9/30 and 10/1 was the best move. The bar is already offered that day by the NCBE. It really shouldn't be hard to use the same space at the schools as was used for the 9/9-9/10 exam.

I also think that the argument that administering the exam out of state isn't possible is kind of bs. The COA and BOLE are recommending that we take the test in another state already and transfer the score. They are willing to trust out of state proctors for those exams. I understand this proposal is different because it would be the NY exam in another state, but finding suitable proctors shouldn't be a huge challenge. Yes, this would be an additional burden, but it doesn't seem at all unreasonable to either send proctors or hire local proctors for two days.

[basketofbread]

Letter from law school deans to NY COA was sent out last night. The letter was from the "deans of non-New York based law schools who have among the most substantial numbers of students who sit for the bar in (NY) state each year. Collectively, the undersigned schools had over two thousand JD and LLM graduates take the New York bar exam in 2019."

Solutions proposed include: (1) offering a second exam date on 9/30 and 10/1; (2) adding additional testing locations in NY for the 9/9 exam; (3) offering seats outside of NY by using some of the signed law schools as test venues; and (4) working to develop an online bar exam.

Schools represented: American U, Boston College, Boston U, Berkeley, UCLA, U Chicago, Duke, Emory, GW, GULC, Howard, HLS, U Mich, Northeastern, Northwestern, Penn, Rutgers, Stanford, UVA, WUSTL, Yale.

From the beginning I've thought that offering the bar a second time on 9/30 and 10/1 was the best move. The bar is already offered that day by the NCBE. It really shouldn't be hard to use the same space at the schools as was used for the 9/9-9/10 exam.

I also think that the argument that administering the exam out of state isn't possible is kind of bs. The COA and BOLE are recommending that we take the test in another state already and transfer the score. They are willing to trust out of state proctors for those exams. I understand this proposal is different because it would be the NY exam in another state, but finding suitable proctors shouldn't be a huge challenge. Yes, this would be an additional burden, but it doesn't seem at all unreasonable to either send proctors or hire local proctors for two days.

Point is, your suggestions and every other suggestion in this thread undermine the notion that the bar is just so strapped for seats that they have no choice but to screw everyone over. We should hope that the schools are able to force them to stop being so ridiculous.

[Anonymous User]

Heard from a friend that Alston & Bird deferred until January

[Anonymous User]

Blank Rome has apparently circulated an email that no decisions will be made until July, but it is considering deferrals.

[Anonymous User]

My firm was supposed to pay out advances "on or about May 1st." I know it's only the 4th, but I still haven't received my advance (direct deposit, so shouldn't be an issue with the mail). For those that have received their advance, was it paid out on time? I'm obviously reluctant to contact my firm about anything right now (they also haven't said anything about deferrals yet), but I'm kinda relying on that money to get me through the second half of May. At what point do I reach out?

[Anonymous User]

I just received a an advance today from my firm. The firm never told me exactly when I should receive it, but I sent paperwork requesting the advance about a month ago. My firm pays a combination of an advance and a stipend. Oddly, today I just received the advance and the firm never communicated with me about anything changing with regards to the stipend. I'm also unsure about what to do. The advance is plenty, but obviously I would like what the firm offered to give me and they never communicated any changes. I'm thinking about waiting to see if I get the stipend in a separate mailing (for some reason) during this week. If not, I'm planning on politely reaching out next week.

[Anonymous User]

My firm was supposed to pay out advances "on or about May 1st." I know it's only the 4th, but I still haven't received my advance (direct deposit, so shouldn't be an issue with the mail). For those that have received their advance, was it paid out on time? I'm obviously reluctant to contact my firm about anything right now (they also haven't said anything about deferrals yet), but I'm kinda relying on that money to get me through the second half of May. At what point do I reach out?

Same here. Sent them an email several days ago. They said they were still discussing... I'm gonna have trouble paying my next rent if I don't get the money soon

[Anonymous User]

My firm was supposed to pay out advances "on or about May 1st." I know it's only the 4th, but I still haven't received my advance (direct deposit, so shouldn't be an issue with the mail). For those that have received their advance, was it paid out on time? I'm obviously reluctant to contact my firm about anything right now (they also haven't said anything about deferrals yet), but I'm kinda relying on that money to get me through the second half of May. At what point do I reach out?

Same here. Sent them an email several days ago. They said they were still discussing... I'm gonna have trouble paying my next rent if I don't get the money soon

If they delay the advance (without telling anyone) and then alter or change it after they were supposed to pay, that would be so incredibly fucked. Times are hard, of course, but not giving incoming associates any notice and putting the onus on them to reach out for information is so needlessly unfair.

[Anonymous User]

Can anyone speak to what's going on with deferrals for clerks? Are clerks being deferred along with 3Ls, and if so, has anyone been able to convince their firm to let them start in the Fall (since firms are citing the delayed bar exam as a reason for the new start dates)?

[Anonymous User]

Can anyone speak to what's going on with deferrals for clerks? Are clerks being deferred along with 3Ls, and if so, has anyone been able to convince their firm to let them start in the Fall (since firms are citing the delayed bar exam as a reason for the new start dates)?

This.

[Anonymous User]

Can anyone speak to what's going on with deferrals for clerks? Are clerks being deferred along with 3Ls, and if so, has anyone been able to convince their firm to let them start in the Fall (since firms are citing the delayed bar exam as a reason for the new start dates)?

I left a V20 to clerk last year (will be returning as a mid-level; maybe the calculus is different for clerks joining the firm for the first time). The firm has given the impression that returning clerks will not be deferred. It's welcome news, but I'm obviously not completely at ease.

Just one data point.

[Anonymous User]

My firm was supposed to pay out advances "on or about May 1st." I know it's only the 4th, but I still haven't received my advance (direct deposit, so shouldn't be an issue with the mail). For those that have received their advance, was it paid out on time? I'm obviously reluctant to contact my firm about anything right now (they also haven't said anything about deferrals yet), but I'm kinda relying on that money to get me through the second half of May. At what point do I reach out?

Same here. Sent them an email several days ago. They said they were still discussing... I'm gonna have trouble paying my next rent if I don't get the money soon

If they delay the advance (without telling anyone) and then alter or change it after they were supposed to pay, that would be so incredibly fucked. Times are hard, of course, but not giving incoming associates any notice and putting the onus on them to reach out for information is so needlessly unfair.

Also, deferral due to unexpected hardship is one thing, but I think it's incredibly fucked up to pull an advance that was in the offer letter right when it's about to be paid. You accepted the offer expecting to have that income to survive the summer; if money for the summer wasn't going to be available, then you could have applied for a bar loan or gotten some kind of job.

[Anon115523]

I'm not sure if this was already addressed earlier ITT or elsewhere, but if someone's deferred until January and they were originally supposed to start in September, can they apply for unemployment?

[lawdude31]

Mayer Brown has deferred incoming associates to January, and is giving a $5k stipend for each month of deferral (October, November, and December). They are also apparently providing full benefits. This may be better than Hogan's package, if Hogan isn't giving benefits. But either way, that's definitely nice to see.

[Anonymous User]

I was given word that Kirkland sent out an email today from its hiring partners that notified incoming first years that start dates will likely be moved. I'm not sure if that means an October start instead of a September start or a January start. Thought it was an interesting data point.

[Anonymous User]

Can anyone speak to what's going on with deferrals for clerks? Are clerks being deferred along with 3Ls, and if so, has anyone been able to convince their firm to let them start in the Fall (since firms are citing the delayed bar exam as a reason for the new start dates)?

I left a V20 to clerk last year (will be returning as a mid-level; maybe the calculus is different for clerks joining the firm for the first time). The firm has given the impression that returning clerks will not be deferred. It's welcome news, but I'm obviously not completely at ease.

Just one data point.

I received the deferral email meant for all incoming associates and asked if that applied to clerks. They are now discussing it...

[Anonymous User]

Third-hand info here, but apparently Thompson & Knight is deferring first-years to Jan 2021.

[Anonymous User]

I received the deferral email meant for all incoming associates and asked if that applied to clerks. They are now discussing it...

Good luck, and please keep us posted...