DC Diploma Privilege--Practicing Attorney Questions Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'm an incoming first-year and will be starting in the DC office of a V-50 (anon because post history could out me).

Yesterday, the DC Court of Appeals issued an order which would allow recent graduates to be admitted to the DC Bar without taking the bar exam, provided they comply with certain requirements. The two main ones being that: (1) for three years after admission, we must practice under the direct supervision of an enrolled member of the DC Bar who "takes responsibility for the quality of the person’s work and complaints concerning that work"; and (2) "for three years after admission, gives prominent notice in all business documents that the person’s practice is supervised by one or more D.C. Bar members and that the person was `admitted to the Bar under D.C. App. R. 46-A (Emergency Examination Waiver).'"

Assuming firms allow incoming first-years to do this, and assuming one intends to stay in DC for the foreseeable future, what to do you practicing attorney's think of the three year requirements? In reality, are they a big deal? Would complying with these requirements negatively impact a junior associate in any meaningful way? Worth it to go this route instead of risking taking a remote bar exam that is in a completely new format and is likely to present technology issues to some unknown % of examinees on exam day?

[Anonymous User]

I lateraled to DC, and I had to work under the supervision of an attorney until I was barred. The only annoyance is having to have an asterisk next to your name on everything. My firm is really strict about the DC requirements, though. I personally wouldn’t want that for three years, but to each their own.

One wrinkle I’d mention is that if you are fired/laid off, this may come to haunt you. Other than that, I don’t think it’s a big deal.