Top Law Schools

Saw this on reddit. If true, it's a pretty big deal and I bet other states will follow (as they followed NY into joining the UBE).

The New York State Bar Task Force issued a report after a comprehensive 1 year study and recommended to withdraw from the UBE. The Task Force recommendations were immediately adopted by the major New York bar associations.

The Task Force Report was scathingly critical of the UBE, saying it is not reliable and has harmed New York in many significant ways.

Link to the report and recommendation to withdraw from the UBE: https://nysba.org/app/uploads/2020/03/R ... ressed.pdf

Approval by NY Bar Associations: https://nysba.org/nysba-adopts-report-c ... -bar-exam/

Some quotes from the report:

"“We conclude that since the adoption of the UBE, the fundamental purpose of the bar examination, which is to protect the public, has been lost.” (P. 42)

“The UBE as currently administered does not meet the requirements for what has long been the standard for licensure in New York: a reliable assessment of minimum competency to practice law in our State.” (P. 71)

"“[T]he adoption of the UBE has had the unintended, though foreseeable, consequence of rendering applicants less, not more, equipped to meet the challenges of practicing law in New York” (P.2)

“Substantial evidence shows that the UBE’s scaling and scoring practices make its score unreliable and an inappropriate measure of a person’s minimum competency to practice law. This is especially problematic when the UBE score is earned in another jurisdiction and then transported to New York.” (P. 47)

“The grading and scoring practices of the UBE are questionable and no independent analysis has been conducted into whether the UBE accurately measures what it purports to assess.” (P. 1)

A NY law professor reported that “Every jurisdiction that has gone UBE has lost its own identity” (P. 35)

“We cannot . . . rely upon the assurances of NCBE, which composes, licenses, and scores the UBE, as to the quality of its own product.” Studies of the UBE by the NCBE are similar to “the author of a book wr[iting] its own book review.” (P. 1-2)

Interesting that the many other states that use the UBE don’t seem to pearl clutch about lack of testing in specific state law.

I was surprised by NY’s switch to the UBE in 2016 (after first announcing the possibility in October 2014). Back then, everyone felt this is what would happen. For example, a past president of the New York State Bar Association commented that: "I'm very concerned about the fact that [the UBE] is going to test on uniform law. I have been one of New York's five uniform law commissioners for 26 years. Unfortunately, New York is not big on adopting and passing uniform laws. We have a terrible time getting most uniform laws through the legislature .... When we do get uniform laws passed, we have a New York version of those uniform laws, and it's questionable whether they're really uniform .... That is an issue that must be addressed."

JoeSeperac wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 10:40 am

I was surprised by NY’s switch to the UBE in 2016 (after first announcing the possibility in October 2014). Back then, everyone felt this is what would happen. For example, a past president of the New York State Bar Association commented that: "I'm very concerned about the fact that [the UBE] is going to test on uniform law. I have been one of New York's five uniform law commissioners for 26 years. Unfortunately, New York is not big on adopting and passing uniform laws. We have a terrible time getting most uniform laws through the legislature .... When we do get uniform laws passed, we have a New York version of those uniform laws, and it's questionable whether they're really uniform .... That is an issue that must be addressed."

Hi Joe. Great to hear your input about this, as you are the local expert on NY. The Task Force was headed by the presiding judge of the NY Court of Appeal, who supervises BOLE, and the report was quickly adopted by the major NY bar associations - https://nysba.org/nysba-adopts-report-c ... -bar-exam/

I'm curious where you think this is headed next? It would seem that the report and its authors/supporters are powerful enough to start the process for reform, right?

Perhaps this is partially why the NY CoA is treating students that went to schools outside of NY state like second-class citizens with regard to registering for the September test.

james11 wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 2:20 pm

JoeSeperac wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 10:40 am

I was surprised by NY’s switch to the UBE in 2016 (after first announcing the possibility in October 2014). Back then, everyone felt this is what would happen. For example, a past president of the New York State Bar Association commented that: "I'm very concerned about the fact that [the UBE] is going to test on uniform law. I have been one of New York's five uniform law commissioners for 26 years. Unfortunately, New York is not big on adopting and passing uniform laws. We have a terrible time getting most uniform laws through the legislature .... When we do get uniform laws passed, we have a New York version of those uniform laws, and it's questionable whether they're really uniform .... That is an issue that must be addressed."

Hi Joe. Great to hear your input about this, as you are the local expert on NY. The Task Force was headed by the presiding judge of the NY Court of Appeal, who supervises BOLE, and the report was quickly adopted by the major NY bar associations - https://nysba.org/nysba-adopts-report-c ... -bar-exam/

I'm curious where you think this is headed next? It would seem that the report and its authors/supporters are powerful enough to start the process for reform, right?

I wish I knew. I will admit that the flip-flopping is disconcerting. Just 5 years ago, NY's chief judge stated: “We don’t think it’s necessary to test New York law on the bar exam itself anymore,”

https://seperac.com/pdf/2015-05-06-NYTimes.pdf

This position was taken even though there were a lot of valid concerns that the switch would indeed hurt NY.

https://seperac.com/pdf/2015-02-04-Stat ... ournal.pdf

My guess is they will go to the "more rigorous component focused on New York law" which will probably be very similar to the pre-UBE NY bar exam.

mtf612 wrote: ↑

Thu May 21, 2020 1:33 pm

Perhaps this is partially why the NY CoA is treating students that went to schools outside of NY state like second-class citizens with regard to registering for the September test.

Every state is doing it. I was told Maine has filled its courtesy seats allotment and Missouri recently announced it was at capacity. One repeat examinee told me: " Currently, I’m struggling with the Bar because I don’t know if I can sign to take it in September. MO, ME and NY told me to apply for February 2021." DC just enacted similar rules. It appears the states are becoming more protectionistic under the guise of safety.

From reviewing the recommendations it seems that the NY BOLE will be keeping the UBE for non New York bound lawyers (got to keep that foreign money coming in) and having a new NYLE for those who are New York bound.

I found it interesting that they recommended that New York hopefuls would not have to sit the MEE but the new NY portion.

I presume there will be a third day added in somewhere either on bar week or at another time.

billybobbarguy wrote: ↑

Wed May 27, 2020 12:01 pm

From reviewing the recommendations it seems that the NY BOLE will be keeping the UBE for non New York bound lawyers (got to keep that foreign money coming in) and having a new NYLE for those who are New York bound.

I found it interesting that they recommended that New York hopefuls would not have to sit the MEE but the new NY portion.

I presume there will be a third day added in somewhere either on bar week or at another time.

There is precedent for a third day. I think pre-UBE if you wanted to be admitted in both NY and NJ you sat a third day to be tested in both states. Correct me if I'm wrong.Also California used to be 3 days. The cut it to 2 to save money.

james11 wrote: ↑

Wed May 27, 2020 10:17 pm

billybobbarguy wrote: ↑

Wed May 27, 2020 12:01 pm

From reviewing the recommendations it seems that the NY BOLE will be keeping the UBE for non New York bound lawyers (got to keep that foreign money coming in) and having a new NYLE for those who are New York bound.

I found it interesting that they recommended that New York hopefuls would not have to sit the MEE but the new NY portion.

I presume there will be a third day added in somewhere either on bar week or at another time.

There is precedent for a third day. I think pre-UBE if you wanted to be admitted in both NY and NJ you sat a third day to be tested in both states. Correct me if I'm wrong.Also California used to be 3 days. The cut it to 2 to save money.

CBX used to be three days. I didn't think they cut it to two for costs. LOL, and I doubt they passed the savings onto test takers....but maybe they did?

rcharter1978 wrote: ↑

Sat May 30, 2020 10:42 am

james11 wrote: ↑

Wed May 27, 2020 10:17 pm

billybobbarguy wrote: ↑

Wed May 27, 2020 12:01 pm

From reviewing the recommendations it seems that the NY BOLE will be keeping the UBE for non New York bound lawyers (got to keep that foreign money coming in) and having a new NYLE for those who are New York bound.

I found it interesting that they recommended that New York hopefuls would not have to sit the MEE but the new NY portion.

I presume there will be a third day added in somewhere either on bar week or at another time.

There is precedent for a third day. I think pre-UBE if you wanted to be admitted in both NY and NJ you sat a third day to be tested in both states. Correct me if I'm wrong.Also California used to be 3 days. The cut it to 2 to save money.

CBX used to be three days. I didn't think they cut it to two for costs. LOL, and I doubt they passed the savings onto test takers....but maybe they did?

From what I recall the Cal state bar was very clear about the reasoning. They said cutting it to two days will save millions in administrative fees without changing the pass rate. Of course they did not pass the savings to test takers.

This seems the appropriate thread to post this in.

Jackson Mumey in this week's Extra Mile Podcast has suggested that New York has now introduced a limit on being able to take the bar in the state.

His reasoning being that they have placed strict limits on who can take the online bar exam in October where there is no issue with seating or accommodating bar takers. Additionally, they have issued strict reciprocity rules as well.

Two times seems to be the limit for taking the test now.

For domestic takers this means shifting to another state but for foreign trained lawyers with several failed attempts under their belt, it could be the end of the bar road completely without the need to complete a LLM in a US university or be admitted in their own country.

There's no formal change of rules of yet on the BOLE website, but if you're a repeat foreign taker, this is something to be aware of.

billybobbarguy wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 24, 2020 4:38 am

This seems the appropriate thread to post this in.

Jackson Mumey in this week's Extra Mile Podcast has suggested that New York has now introduced a limit on being able to take the bar in the state.

His reasoning being that they have placed strict limits on who can take the online bar exam in October where there is no issue with seating or accommodating bar takers. Additionally, they have issued strict reciprocity rules as well.

Two times seems to be the limit for taking the test now.

For domestic takers this means shifting to another state but for foreign trained lawyers with several failed attempts under their belt, it could be the end of the bar road completely without the need to complete a LLM in a US university or be admitted in their own country.

There's no formal change of rules of yet on the BOLE website, but if you're a repeat foreign taker, this is something to be aware of.

Foreign trained lawyers can still take California as many times as they want, right?

And a number of other bars as well, but not without extra qualifications such as an LLM or home admission.

New York is the only jurisdiction remaining that allows entry to the bar with just a qualifying law degree (CA used to be the same as NY but added extra requirements a few years ago)

billybobbarguy wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 24, 2020 4:38 am

This seems the appropriate thread to post this in.

Jackson Mumey in this week's Extra Mile Podcast has suggested that New York has now introduced a limit on being able to take the bar in the state.

His reasoning being that they have placed strict limits on who can take the online bar exam in October where there is no issue with seating or accommodating bar takers. Additionally, they have issued strict reciprocity rules as well.

Two times seems to be the limit for taking the test now.

For domestic takers this means shifting to another state but for foreign trained lawyers with several failed attempts under their belt, it could be the end of the bar road completely without the need to complete a LLM in a US university or be admitted in their own country.

There's no formal change of rules of yet on the BOLE website, but if you're a repeat foreign taker, this is something to be aware of.

Under the current limits, I cannot even get admitted in New York!

I graduated in 2018, have been practicing ever since, and am admitted in Texas.

The October bar exam is limited to people who graduated in 2019 or later—despite being a completely online administration.

Admission on motion is limited to people with five years experience.

I’m trying to move to New York and continue my career there, but I’m completely boxed out at the moment.

God willing, they will relax the standard for taking the bar in February. Obviously, it makes no sense to restrict the number of applicants based upon a public health rationale when the test is online.

Really, they should relax the admission by motion standards, too. The model rule is three years, as it is for many states.

The reason I posted this in this thread is because it would seem there is some larger plan regards the UBE and the belief that the quality of lawyers being admitted is not adequate.

While they plan a strategy to revamp the NYLE or the Bar Exam overall they're using the pandemic as a handy way to exclude 'undesirables' when as noted it makes no sense to limit an online test.

I don't think there are no reasons to limit an online test other than dissatisfaction with the UBE. They still have to (pay to) process and grade all the tests. It seems to me that they may be imposing limits because they're concerned that an online test will open them up to lots of people who wouldn't otherwise take the exam at all.