FIRSTTTTTTTTT!!! firsty firsty first

"E.g., Paulina Bandy (who failed the California bar exam thirteen times, before passing on try #13)."

You mean she failed 12 times, and passed on #13.... Right?

1. The 5-minute extension should have been consistently applied to all affected or not applied at all.

2. I don't agree in helping out those with learning disabilities for the bar. The same learning abilities that are needed for the bar, are needed for the practice of law.

Just like the fucking scammers who got unlimited time on their blind-graded exams in law school, its total bullshit. As a litigator, sometimes I have 3 hours to write a motion. I can't call up the Judge and ask for extra time because I take longer to process information. I mean, could you imagine how unfair that is? You know, just like its unfair to allow untimed exams be graded with the same scoring as timed exams...

The world needs garbagemen too. Not everyone needs to be a lawyer.

Bandy failed 13 times and passed on try #14. (Lat corrected the text.)

I took the bar in the room with the 5 minutes of extra time. A few notes:

1. The earthquake happened at like 2:50 in the 3 hour time period, so it was of virtually no consequence. At that point all I was doing was spell checking any way.

2. The complaint is frivolous if the person is asking for extra points because they didn't get the extra five minutes. However, it was unbelievably incompetent of the proctors to give one room 5 more minutes without giving it to the other room. That just makes no sense.

Do you think Bandy reads ATL?

"I don't agree in helping out those with learning disabilities for the bar. The same learning abilities that are needed for the bar, are needed for the practice of law."

I love how many people make this argument and then whine about how the bar doesn't test anything related to practicing law. You really think the bar exam simulates legal practice?

That said, the complaint seems overboard--the accomodations seem very generous...

"He has severe deficits in processing speed, cognitive fluency and rapid naming," said Mr. Kelly's attorney, Lionel Hutz.

The less people allowed in the legal profession, the more money to be had by those already in it. Everyone wants in, but once you're in, you want everyone else out.

"The less people allowed in the legal profession, the more money to be had by those already in it. "

Right. All lawyers are rolling in dough.

Quite complaining Cali, the NY exam is much harder.

- Double-barred

Are you out of your mind #13?

Every school has a much lower pass rate on the CA bar than that piece of crap known as the NY bar. NY doesn't even have a three day bar. And you can waive into NY, something you can't do in Cali because so many people want to live here.

NY bar = a highschool exam.

#12 - simple laws of supply and demand. The less lawyers exist. The reason more lawyers aren't rolling in dough is because of so many lawyers in the profession.

15: that's a very superficial reading of legal economics. You're assuming that more attorneys won't create new markets, or reduce competition in certain areas because, by necessity, they'll have to branch out to find work.

Or maybe this is another example of why requiring people to pass a written exam is an extremely poor way to determine who is competent to practice law.

NY Bar taker here.... Cell phone did go off... and it was the proctor's! You could see all the proctors go crazy trying to find the person in order to kick them out, until they realized that it was one of their own. It made my day. The cheerfulness I got from that moment could definitely be called an unfair advantage.

Someone with "severe deficits in processing speed, cognitive fluency and rapid naming" in West Virginia?

Shocking!

Well, the world needs ditch diggers, too.

--Judge Smails

That's hilarious if true #18.

I'm a 5'10" white guy with a desk job and absolutely no vertical; do you think the NBA will accommodate me by putting up an 8-foot hoop so that I'm not disadvantaged by those genetically-superior athletes I want to compete against?

I'm not from California and have never experienced an earthquake, so this one had me shaking. I was pretty much out of it for ten minutes and would have appreciated an extra five. It was the end of the morning session, so the lost time didn't kill me, but it did hurt my focus.

Cal should have a consistent earthquake policy in place to extend time should it be required, or to not extend time if that's going to be their policy. No reason for on-the-fly judgment calls that benefit some, but not other, test-takers.

These are just the abilities that are required of being a lawyer. If you cannot do them, then your competency would certainly be in doubt--much like if you have a severe back injury, lifting 100 pound bags of cement by hand is not for you, regardless of any possible accommodation. Are these deficits even the result of a diagnosable mental illness? Simply not being as good at something as other people is not a reasonable justification for getting more time. For that matter, should a mentally retarded person taking the bar get an open book exam and unlimited time, etc.?

Also, think of billing by the hour: if this fellow takes twice as long to do his work as other attorneys, then how would billing work? Would he need to charge half as much? Write off half his time? Would the firm be able to require him to bill 4000 hours instead of 2000, because of that? Would any firm hiring him just have to take the loss?

22: not analogous. Nobody's preventing you from playing in an average league, or even one of your own creation. The NBA equivalent would be an elite firm or SCOTUS, not the game itself.

I'm little torn on this one. If a lawyer is missing their hands and needs more time to write out their exam or accomodations to dictate the answer, I'm all for that. If a lawyer is blind and needs their bar exam in braile, it should be provided.

But if the disability is a "severe deficit in processing speed", that strikes me as different somehow. Isn't that the whole point of having a timed exam? If the goal was just testing legal knowledge, why not give everyone an extra two hours on the MBE?

#9 is right and #4 is misguided-- Time-and-a-half is the standard accommodation made for cognitive learning disabilities, which is what the exam-taker got. Absent extreme circumstances, he will probably lose. Rather than faulting him and complaining about test accommodations granted to those with legitimate disabilities, I think a better point would be to ask why this guy is spending precious time and money on a lawsuit he probably won't win when that same time & money could be spent on studying to retake the damn bar.

Also, I am one of those lawyers who got extra time in law school and on the bar exam. While I don't go running to the judge asking for more time whenever I need to write a motion, I do have to work a little harder and a little longer than some of my colleagues to accomplish the same amount of work. I am not at all complaining, this is what I signed up for when I chose this career path. My disabilities have forced me to be more organized and to utilize my time as efficiently and effectively as I can (though clearly, it doesn't keep me off ATL :) ). I think you'll find most people with disabilities feel the same way and, if this guy really wants to be a lawyer, he'll eventually need figure that out too.

#9 is right and #4 is misguided-- Time-and-a-half is the standard accommodation made for cognitive learning disabilities, which is what the exam-taker got. Absent extreme circumstances, he will probably lose. Rather than faulting him and complaining about test accommodations granted to those with legitimate disabilities, I think a better point would be to ask why this guy is spending precious time and money on a lawsuit he probably won't win when that same time & money could be spent on studying to retake the damn bar.

Also, I am one of those lawyers who got extra time in law school and on the bar exam. While I don't go running to the judge asking for more time whenever I need to write a motion, I do have to work a little harder and a little longer than some of my colleagues to accomplish the same amount of work. I am not at all complaining, this is what I signed up for when I chose this career path. My disabilities have forced me to be more organized and to utilize my time as efficiently and effectively as I can (though clearly, it doesn't keep me off ATL :) ). I think you'll find most people with disabilities feel the same way and, if this guy really wants to be a lawyer, he'll eventually need figure that out too.

If employability was factor in determining who was able to take the bar exam, then it's possible that many TTT graduates wouldn't be there. I don't think you can make the billable or competence argument in good faith.

I can confirm an examinee's cell phone went off in the Saratoga Springs City Center (NY bar exam). It was all the more ironic because a proctor had warned us about bringing cell phones into the room minutes before. The owner of the phone did not silence the ring, but let it play out, perhaps to avoid detection. For ten seconds or so, everyone turned their attention away from the exam. Honestly, I was glad to have a brief excuse to think about something other than the MBE.

11: "fewer" people. Not "less."

15: "fewer" lawyers. Not "less."

13 - you are a fool. Take one look at the average CA test taker - non-accredited law school, serious drug habit. The average NY test taker has been hired in NY, DC or internationally, and is much smarter. This explains the great divergence in passage rates. Ever compared the thickeness of ther Barbri books? NY's has twice the material. Unless you've taken both exams, you have no reason to talk.

14 - you are a fool. Take one look at the average CA test taker - non-accredited law school, serious drug habit. The average NY test taker has been hired in NY, DC or internationally, and is much smarter. This explains the great divergence in passage rates. Ever compared the thickeness of ther Barbri books? NY's has twice the material. Unless you've taken both exams, you have no reason to talk.

"Kelly graduated from Concord University in Athens, W.Va., in 1997. He attended Thomas M. Cooley Law School in 2001 and transferred to Barry University School of Law in 2003."

TTT lifer.

24: that's why billable hours are stupid. if you know the answer off the top of your head & bill 6 minutes, is the answer worth less to the client than the same answer if given by another attorney who had to go research it first and billed 2 hrs?

I hope they find the Saratoga phone ringer and publicly sodomize him for this indiscretion.

/s/ probably failed

22 doesn't get it.

The WV bar doesn't even take near the time allowed for a nondisabled test taker. Took it as my second bar exam (not by choice, my old firm wanted me to). MBE score transferred, so I only had to do the essays.

WV has two MPTs (3 hours) and six essays (3 hours). The essays were pretty simple, one-subject questions. I finished the afternoon session over an hour early.

Two extra days for the WV exam? We're not talking Cali or NY. If you are that cognitively disabled that you need THAT much time, you are going to have a terrible time with actual practice. Not to mention the potential for malpractice...

In a couple of years this guy will be suing the WV state court system for failing to give him extra credit for his "severe deficits in processing speed, cognitive fluency and rapid naming" in ruling on his motions

27, the only reason you feel that #4 is misguided is because YOU were the beneficiary of the process that he/she found unfair in the first place.

But what you fail to realize is that you proved #4's point in your comment. By saying that you work harder to do the same work as your colleagues, so too must you work harder on the Bar than the rest of your colleagues. Just as you don't get "extra time" in real life, you don't get "extra time" on the bar.

Also, time and a half isn't something that everyone gets. I know a girl who had unlimited time in law school. She was a certifiable moron, but because daddy was rich and they got one of their rich psychiatrists to write a doctor's note, she's now making $190,000 drooling on herself at a top 10 law firm with her INSANE law school GPA. Could you imagine if all your law school exams were untimed, open book, and were graded blindly with those who had timed exams? Please.

33 - you are a fool. Look at the average 32 - types a comment, realizes he made a mistake, corrects it, hits "post comment" again. The result is a double post. Its not twice the material, its just the same material twice.

32, besides double-posting, did you miss the part of 14's comment where s/he said

"Every school has a much lower pass rate on the CA bar than that piece of crap known as the NY bar."

So that is a school by school comparison. You don't have a leg to stand on unless you can prove that dumber people from every school take the CA than the NY bar exam.

Dear #4:

By your logic, the blind and the deaf should not be lawyers either.

This kid's motion= EPIC FAIL.

That is all. Carry on, clusterf***ing.

Definitely not Cravath material. Definitely not even Cravath janitorial material.

How do you keep a stupid person in suspense?

Tell you in the next comment....

#13: were you the girl who freaked out in the chandelier room at century city? cause that was more distracting than the actual earthquake

The Javitz center is essentially one big room divided by dividers (that don't extend the whole length of the room). There's one announcer, one sound system...and one buzzing that affected everyone for an effing long time during the last half hour on the morning MBE. And in section 1A, one of the proctor's cell phones went off (but no student's did). Nice.

As for this case, I think 26 is right. If you are blind, or for some reason cannot write and need to dictate your answers, or whatever, I think there should be accomodations for that. But giving someone extra time because of mental processing slowness simply doesn't translate to the real world; as many have said, what is he going to do when he has to file a motion?

Being a lawyer is not a right.

I've never even heard of the schools mentioned by #34. Just like I've never heard of Ann Althouse. Ergo, they must all suck.

I was in the non-accomodated room in ontario.

I feel like we should get some sort of boost--but i can't possibly think of what would be fair.

All i know is five minutes would have made a difference consdierng it was my first earthquake. I was shaken up and could barely finish the thought i was working on.

Is there a complaint actually being filed?

I was in the non-accomodated room in ontario.

I feel like we should get some sort of boost--but i can't possibly think of what would be fair.

All i know is five minutes would have made a difference consdierng it was my first earthquake. I was shaken up and could barely finish the thought i was working on.

Is there a complaint actually being filed?

27 - Does your firm charge 66% the normal hourly rate for someone in your class?

What is cognitive fluency? Is that a thinly veiled way of saying the guy just isn't that bright?

46 - cmon...don't leave me hangin' bro!

42 - Do you think 14 has a state-by-state breakdown of every school's bar passage rate? I think not. You don't "have a leg to stand on" unless you've got that kind of data. But the data we do have, as a quick glance at US News Rankings will show, Stanford's CA bar passage rate is roughly the same as Yale's NY passage rate. The overall passage rates of each bar exam, however, diverge radically. This difference is explained by the very different composition of each state's test-takers. A notable factor in this difference is the fact that CA allows graduates of non-ABA accredited schools to sit for the exam. Another factor would be the relatively lower rank of the majority of CA's ABA-accredited law schools (at least among those CA students that take CA rather than opting for NY themselves). Think about it.

From the wiki entry regarding unacccredited law schools

"Many schools are not accredited by a state or the American Bar Association. Most are located in California. Many jurisdictions do not allow graduates of unaccredited law schools to sit for the bar examination."

Cali bar exam = TTT

I was in the extra 5 minute room in Ontario. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that the Bar already set the scoring standard for essays before we took the exam. I also thought that the essay portion isn't a scaled score. If that's the case, then any "boost" to my score would have no impact on your score. If that's not the case, then I agree that there is a problem, but have no idea how to fix it at this point. Obviously both Ontario rooms should have been treated the same, and the Bar should come up with a solution to this problem should it happen again.

My Atari also had deficits in processing speed, cognitive fluency and rapid naming, but that didn't stop me from kicking some tail in Dig-Dug.

It is people like this, who abuse the ADA because they can't cut it themselves that make me physically ill. This frivolous crap is the reason that 80% of the deaf community and 75% of the blind community are unemployed. Companies are terrified to hire them because no one NO ONE believes they should take responsibility for their own personal failings anymore.

This guy, right here, this simpering whining tool is the reason that I, as a blind law student, am planing to specialize in employer discrimination defense.

59:

If you don't mind me asking, how did you take the LSAT? Is it offered in braille now? Or were you accepted to law school based on other merits? Just interested. Thanks.

55-- California bar site has school by school data. Pass rates are consistently lower in California than the NYC figures in US News for top schools. Unaccredited schools definitely deflate the pass rate, but it appears CA is harder to pass. That said, it still isn't all that hard.

I took the LSAT with moderately extended time (which I used maybe half of) and larger type (I have had six corneal transplants so I have been able to restore some vision in the left eye but still legally blind significantly), and I was fortunate to do quite well on the LSAT after being given a reasonable accomodation, not trying to milk the system for every ounce of advantage.

"[S]evere deficits in processing speed, cognitive fluency and rapid naming" are just other terms for STUPID. Why are we allowing special accommodation for stupidity?

Ground control to Major Tom.

63 - they're really just other terms for "stupid upper-middle class kid." Less intellectually-able working class kids would pursue more useful lines of work and become carpenters or electricians. Ever try to find an electrician? The world needs many more of them and far fewer lawyers.

58: Well said.

That's an interesting statistic - deaf people are more likely to be unemployed than blind people? I would have guessed the other way around.

time and half is not the advantage that some believe it to be. I think actually causes people to overthink multiple choice questions. On the essay portion of the test, it would definitely help.

Guys in my high school were given an extra day to take the bar due to being mentally retarded, then still fail and bitch about it all the time, it was no big deal

--Bar Stud

55,

Since you're so lazy, let me do it for you. The CA bar website has pass rate by school. Here are the passage rates from July 2007 (for first-time takers) w/schools I was able to find both numbers for:

1. Yale: CA: 94%/NY: 91.2%
2. Harvard: 95%/97.1%

4. Columbia: 88%/95%
5. NYU: 93%/96%

8. U Penn: 75%/94.4%

10. U Mich.: 83%/94.8%

So, other than the Yalies, the data is all going one way. (And Yale had something like 15 takers of the CA bar, so not that statistically significant.)

63 and 65, you have no idea what you are talking about. I was entitled to time and half, but I took the Bar and LSATs (top percentile) without it because I never wanted to feel like I had an * next to my accomplishments because of mean-spirited people like you. I also agree that for multiple-choice tests it may be counterproductive unless it takes you considerably longer to read the fact-pattern.

Unfortunately, those who diagnose learning disabilities have many counterproductive methods to correcting it and have a one size fits all method in the case of standardized tests i.e. extra time. Much like affirmative action, the plain well-intentioned but the results are not great.

I was amazed that most of the critics of extra time were huge proponents of affirmative action (which gave considerable advantages to certain candidates). I guess certain people think they are the only ones entitled to preferential treatment.

CA taker in Century City Hyatt in the huge ballroom. The proctor cheated us out of four minutes the morning of the first day. No, I am not blaming the earthquake. My watch and those of friends of mine were started at noon. The proctor called time at 2:55-56ish cutting us out of about four minutes. I spoke the person next to me and asked her if she agreed that the proctor had cut us out of time and she agreed. Aside from that, our proctor was fair on calling time correctly through the rest of the examination.

I bet this guy flunked because he got the Family Law question wrong. Probably didn't know there is an exception in WV allowing you to marry your minor under-age cousin if she is pregnant.

32- I have taken and passed both exams (CA and NY). Yes, California allows non-accredit schools to take the exam. That isn't relevant to the difficulty of the exam itself. The exam is more gruelling, first of all, because it is 3 days rather than two. Moreover, the questions aren't any easier in California than in New York, where they practically tell you what the issues are in the wording of the questions. California is the more difficult exam.

70, not saying you're wrong, but that doesn't take into account that it is possible the more intelligent people from those schools take the bar in NY.

Lat should conduct a poll among those people who can prove that they've taken both the CA and NY bar exams (via firm website info or otherwise). I don't know if passage rates necessarily equate to difficulty - for example, I did better in the "harder" classes in law school because I sucked it up and studied more. Query - are there material differences in study habits between someone who planned to settle down in Manhattan versus someone who planned to settle down in Venice Beach? I would venture: yes.

30 - I was sitting near the back of the room in Saratoga Springs and I can confirm that it was one of the proctors whose phone rang. I was so surprised I looked around until I saw her trying to turn it off. The reason it went on so long was that she had to dig through her purse to find it.

Do firms in WV have hillbillable hours?

I think that lawyers that needed time and a half on the LSATs, law school exams or the bar should be required to put in 1.5 times as many billable hours.

78:

Comic gold.

Give whoever wants the extra time as much as they want, within reason, and make them specifically state the reason that they need it.

Then, make them disclose the reason and the amount of time needed to all future clients and all future employers - i.e., the people who will be paying for their (admittedly less productive) time.

David Boies is dyslexic.

ATL said: "We don't mean to sound callous or, even worse, politically incorrect."

I say, you did that when you ripped off a copyrighted logo and picture and then renamed it "SpecialOlympics retarded people.jpg" to make some ridiculous point that had nothing to do with Special Olympics -- an organization that does nothing but good by empowering people with intellectual disabilities to live a full, inclusive life, despite the ignorance that pervades our society from blowhards like David Lat.

What usefulness do these people have who can't process information fast. Not only should they be prevented from being lawyers, but they should be eliminated altogether. This is a dog-eat-dog world, and these people are at such a disadvantage that they should just shut it down. Having them around makes the bar lower for all of us.

What usefulness do these people have who can't process information fast? Not only should they be prevented from being lawyers, but they should be eliminated altogether. This is a dog-eat-dog world, and these people are at such a disadvantage that they should just shut it down. Having them around makes the bar lower for all of us.

Oh my goodness? Did you just propose a genocide against the more than 190 million people around the world that have an intellectual disability??

Who are you?

Dude, I agree. These slow people are going to end up costing all of us at one point or another--they may be on welfare one day, they may be on Social Security. Let's just get rid of them now so they don't become drains on society.

I was in the said room in Ontario. The EQ was really strong where we were (very close to its center). We received exactly 2 minutes of extra time. We were under the table for a longer period than 2 minutes and could hardly think of the exam right after it, so I really don't think it was huge discrimination against anyone.
In other words - stop whining.

Good lord. Are you people human? 84/85, 87, I can only assume you are joking. No actual human being can really feel this way. You would really kill 190 million people?? Really?

What are your names?? I'd love to have you put your name behind those statements. My name is Ryan Eades. I made the other comment above about genocide as well.

Stand behind your statements with your names.

And the guy who got extra time is the stupid... 85 and 87, you're definitely retarded.

"Some people just aren't cut out for law"

Like that guy who failed the CA bar 43 times and still tries.

He and others were featured in a movie on the CA bar, "A Lawyer Walks into a Bar." Check it out. There is also a non-ABA grad there too, and she'll probably fail it times before finally passing or giving up.

84/85 clearly qualifies as one of the very folks being discussed given his/her inability to understand how to post to ATL, that having been said, 89, take a deep breath and try to take life a bit less seriously would you please. Sarcasm is often a successful device to make a point, learn the concept, I understand that we Jews are gifted with a PhD in the art of sarcasm at the moment of conception but I think at least some of you Goys get it too.

Oh, I'm not for exterminating the disabled (blind guy circa post 59 here) but I am for denying morons the right to vote. Stupidity is largely a choice and far far too many people in this country seem to bask in such a life path.

92:
Thank you. At least somebody understands sature.

--84/85

92:
Thank you. At least somebody understands satire.

--84/85

75,

Or perhaps they take it in CA. No way of knowing without better data.

I am all about taking the piss out of stupid people and people who are ignorant, but did you, Mr. Lat, really take a picture of the Special Olympics and call it SPECIAL OLYMPICS RETARDED PEOPLE. Seriously?

What a piece of scum you really are. I know you think that retard is not offensive (ignorant Americans) but it fucking is and anyone who uses such a term to insult people who try there best in sport and athletics, deserves bad karma. I would like to say you lost a reader but I will come back to see who gets fired next - but I will not lcick on any ads!

Seriously though, that is a bad fucking description.

I've been in arguments before over accomodations (I'm generally in favour of most relating only to speed) -- for trial work, sure, being able to think quickly is important. But for contract drafting or any number of other jobs lots of lawyers do? Hardly. It may be important in terms of how much work one can get done, but the billable hour is not a reason to deny someone competent (but slow) a license to practice law (emphasis on competent).

Now, I do think it might be fair that depending upon the accomodation, there be corresponding restrictions put on practice (e.g. in a case like this, no trial work unless certain conditions met). That said, I don't think that in a well-designed/well-marked exam, that having more time is going to help that much. It's not like sitting there and meditating will give you the answers you didn't know!

I read extremely quickly etc. and so in a sense I have "more" time to write (in some "open book" law school exams I brought e.g. a crossword or the newspaper to give me a break between questions -- and to give me an amusing story later on!). I similarly type quickly (not that a laptop was an option when I wrote the bar), together are those unfair advantages meaning I should get less time? Maybe, but I'd rather everyone get enough more time that they can actually plan out their answers etc.

As for California, if the exam is interrupted by a 5-minute earthquake, you should get (at least) 5 minutes more. The story in a recent posting mentioned a past CA examination where those who gave CPR to someone who ultimately died, weren't given extra time, sickened me. Wasn't it Justice Cardozo who noted, "Danger invites rescue...". Lawyers have a bad enough reputation, let's encourage them not to help dying people...

I knew someone in law school who encountered a traffic accident on the way to one of her exams, she stopped and gave first aid (no-one else around was qualified), the person died, she was both late for the exam and in no mood to write it, the professor let her write it later.

For shame ATL for that picture caption.

"http://abovethelaw.com/Special%20Olympics%20retarded%20people.jpg"

ROFL LMAO ZOMG 1!!11

Lat

97 has clearly never negotiated a contract.

97, What do you think happens when you get a 120 page SPA and you have to review it, comment, discuss with your clients and get it back around within 2 days? What if you have 6 deals like that going at the same time? Slow=fucked.

I recently learned of a woman (wife's colleague), who had a nervous breakdown because she, a special ed teacher, realized that try as she might, those goofy bastards will never amount to anything.

To the extent that the courts have a responsibility to the general public to ensure that officers of the court are not retarded, maybe we are all better off without Warren there passing the bar...

"Kelly graduated from Concord University in Athens, W.Va., in 1997. He attended Thomas M. Cooley Law School in 2001 and transferred to Barry University School of Law in 2003."

The world needs ditchdiggers, and those ditchdiggers need someone to clean their toilets. Shannon Kelly will clean the toilets of those that clean the ditchdiggers' toilets.

#97 again

Yes, I have negotiated and drafted contracts, and litigated, and (etc.).

I have never had to, as #101 proposes, review, comment upon, and discuss with clients six different, 120-page share purchase agreements within the space of two days. However, I would suggest that many lawyers would not be able to competently do that much either, at least not within the meaning of competence under ABA Model Rule 1.1.

I have dealt with other matters which required a huge amount of work in a short period of time. I am not suggesting that the prospective candidate discussed in the story could necessarily do that. However, neither could (1) certain senior lawyers who are still competent lawyers; (2) certain junior lawyers without sufficient experience who are still competent lawyers; (3) certain lawyers engaged in part-time practice who are still competent lawyers; (4) certain lawyers without experience in the field who are still competent lawyers; (5) certain (etc.).

My somewhat ham-handed point being, just because one is admitted as a lawyer does not mean one is instantly competent to do everything. One is merely licensed to do everything and one has to be professionally responsible enough not to negligently or intentionally overreach.

Again, the bar exam is supposed to be a measure to help ensure competence, not speed. There's a huge difference. Market forces or difficulty finding employment or whatever might limit the ability of a competent but very slow lawyer to make a living as a lawyer, but that's a different matter.

Now, all that aside, maybe 4 days is too long, I don't know. Giving extra time for someone who didn't understand English and needed interpretation would I think be unfair -- but extra time for someone who needed Braille or large-print or whatever I think would be fair. My problem is with some of the reflexive reactions that extra time is automatically unfair or that no-one needing extra time can be competent.

I do have problems with this candidate for other reasons. He's trying to get two shots at the target; he wrote the exam in 4 days, and if he'd passed, great, he didn't, so then he sues...now THAT'S unfair. Seems like the objection should have been made earlier...

The file name of the picture really is quite tasteless.

I am fairly certain that from, say, Michigan Law, you cough and get a job in New York, while you have to have a pretty good GPA to get a job in California (and a strong connection to the state). And trust me.. while some very smart people went to NY, so did everyone else... and there was still a 97% pass rate.

I was in Ontario, CA when the proctor made the announcement after the earthquake: "We'll give you 2 extra minutes."

However, I kept time and we did NOT receive the extra 2 minutes!

I was in the room in Ontario also and the announcer simply said, "We'll give you a few extra minutes" and, from my calculations, we did get some extra time.

I was in the room in Ontario also and the announcer simply said, "We'll give you a few extra minutes" and, based on my calculations, we did get some extra time.

Anaheim did not get any extra time. While I'm more than willing to concede that I put myself at a disadvantage by handwriting, fact is, handwriters tend to use every alloted nanosecond. Between the time for the quake itself, and the post-quake re-orientation (best I can describe it: it took a few minutes to get my mind back into gear), we definitely lost a few minutes.

Are five minutes worth complaining about? Well, Mr. Lat, only if you failed by a couple of points. :)

IMHO, the most sensible thing to do would be to pass Anaheim (and LAX/Ontario centres that did not receive extra time) if within one or two points of the passing score.

There may have been a more uniform response had the quake occurred earlier in the session; proctors could have consulted with each other and other test centres to determine a uniform time extension. The ad-hoc basis is really the most troubling part of it.

Apparently, some of the people in the Ontario center were too stressed out to accurately remember what happened. We were told shortly after it happened that we would be given a few extra minutes at the end. Then, when the normal time was about to expire, the proctor announced that we would get 5 minutes.

110 is right about Ontario. The quake hit with about 6 - 7 minutes on the clock for the morning session. We lost about 1 - 2 minutes in the duck and cover + waiting for an announcement of what to do next. Thus we should have had the 5 minute warning read about the time we were told to continue writing. Instead we were told "we're giving you a couple extra minutes" and everyone just went back to work and didn't think anything else of it. I think the session ended probably 6 - 7 minutes later, so the "extra" time was really just the 1 - 2 minutes lost in the confusion not "bonus" time for emotions or something.

I agree with posters who say the policy should have been consistent. With earthquakes happening so frequently the CA Bar should have a policy and probably they do -- likely it's up to the test proctor to allot more time. Apparently at least 1 proctor believed that getting 1000+ people writing on laptops back to the place they were before meant 2 extra minutes and another did not. No test center stopped the session early, so I'm not sure anyone has an EP claim about this. Yes the quake was felt in Anaheim, Century City, San Diego but certain the Ontario folks have a little more grievance since the epicenter was mere miles away. If you fail based on that last essay, appeal it. Otherwise you have no one to blame but yourself for poor test performance.

71 - in a strange way you prove my point. Why were you "entitled" to accommodations if your performance indicated that they were not necessary? I stick to my original point and challenge you to find one law student with accommodations for anything other than a PHYSICAL disability who does not come from a wealthy, or at least an upper middle class family.

65

To add to what 111 said, if you do fail because of your performance on that 3rd essay, it has nothing to do with the fact that 1000+ people in Ontario got a few more minutes than you did.

Yes the quake was felt in Anaheim, Century City, San Diego but certain the Ontario folks have a little more grievance since the epicenter was mere miles away.

Um... Anaheim was 10 miles away from the epicenter. Ontario is 20. Heard of this lovely invention we call a "map"? Good thing the bar isn't testing your knowledge of LA geography....

"Retarded" just means "slow". Get over it.

I was in the Ontario room that got the extra five minutes. I am already admitted in other states and have practiced for a few years, so I was not as nervous as the first time takers. The earthquake was scary, and most of the room got under the desks for about 30 seconds. I was writing my last sentence as the quake occurred, but was shaking when it was over.

As an attorney, I don't think it matters if some people got the extra five minutes or not. This was "an act of God", and how one proctor reacts over another is just a consequence of a totally unforeseen event. Life and the practice of law is often unfair. That being said- I do think that for first time takers, especially, it was probably extremely unnerving. The only way to attempt to be fair is to axe the last question for everyone in the state- but even then, some people answer the questions out of order... Sadly, all I could think was, if I die, I can't believe it will be while taking a bar exam. Worst way to go ever.

Finally, no way Cali is harder than NY or even NJ. Don't know what all the fuss is about.

/\ Please WAIT until you get your results before claiming the California bar is easy.

I too was taking the California Bar when the quake hit. What surprised me was that people actually decided to duck and cover. I mean come on, you are taking the most important test of your life and you think that you have time to protect yourself from a little falling debri? Suck it up.

Also, what the heck was up with no California Civil Procedure? Or, for that matter, that Presidential Power's question?

Well, here is the official word from the CA State Bar:

http://calbar.ca.gov/calbar/pdfs/admissions/Special-Notices/Earthquake-Notice0708.pdf

my law school provides unlimited time and separate rooms for people with so-called learning disabilities. this one guy who got diagnosed with ADD during our first semester of law school has been given unlimited time to do these exams all throughout law school. yea ... hes like 26 years old, made it this far through life and a top 50 business school without anyone diagnosing him with ADD but now all of a sudden he has it and needs unlimited time to complete exams. Nonetheless, he booked every single class our first semester, and booked all but 1 the following semester. it's total bullshit.

call me politically incorrect or what you want ... but I feel like I can say this as someone who has ADHD and went all through school with it. When I was younger in like middle school and high school I would take the extra time and other accomodations. But when I got to college (where I studied accounting) I realized that I'm not going to be able to take extra time during tax season on the basis of my ADHD. Similarly... most of the legal profession and being a good lawyer is about working well under pressure and deadlines. These people are only hurting themselves in the end by refusing to adapt to the way things are done ... when they get their first job ... boy, will they be in for a shock when the firms partner requires a brief or memo or something on his desk within a couple hours ... nobody is going to care that you have ADD when you get into the workforce.

So my point is these people need to get their shit together and stop using ADD as a crutch. We all have our shortcomings ... figure out how to adapt to the profession that you want to work in. I actually found a way to make it work to my advantage and redirect all by extra energy into studying. And I have been very successful thus far in law school because of it. And if you cant adapt and find a way to makt it work ... you're simply not cut out for this profession.