Apologies for the tardiness -- this news is from last month. But it's about the bar exam, which is still fresh in the minds of many, so it's fair game.

Some of you who took the New York bar exam last week complained of a loud, distracting, feedback-type noise in one of the rooms at the Javits Center. There were also reports of cell phones going off during the test.

Wouldn't you have liked a room of your own, quiet and distraction-free? Or maybe an extra day to take the bar exam? From the West Virginia Record:

West Virginia's Board of Law Examiners printed its examination in big type for Shannon Kelly last year, gave him a room to himself and allowed him an extra day to complete the test, and he blames them for his failure.

Kelly sued the examiners July 21 in U. S. District Court at Charleston, demanding four days to finish an exam that most law school graduates finish in two days.

"He has severe deficits in processing speed, cognitive fluency and rapid naming," wrote his attorney, Edward McDevitt of Bowles Rice McDavid Graff and Love in Charleston....

Kelly received a score of 253 last year, 17 points fewer than he needed to pass the exam. He had asked for four days to take the exam, but the board had granted three.

We don't mean to sound callous or, even worse, politically incorrect. But if one has "severe deficits in processing speed, cognitive fluency and rapid naming," one should perhaps explore professions other than law. Some people just aren't cut out for it. E.g., Paulina Bandy (who failed the California bar exam thirteen times, before passing on try #14).

Meanwhile, in other complaints about bar exam administration:

Thought you might be interested. Prefer to be anonymous lest it sound like I'm whining.

One of the rooms of CA Bar test takers received five additional minutes as a consequence of the earthquake. This was the room with the metal grate and bakery. [Ed. note: Bakery???] Older male Caucasian announcer.

Ballroom A/B/C, with an older, white-haired, female Caucasian announcer, got no extra time.

To those of you who just took the bar exam, especially in California: Is the tipster's complaint fair, or frivolous? Does it affect the fairness and integrity of the exam? Or is five minutes just too trivial to get worked up over? It's certainly not as big a deal as getting an entire extra day.

Well, Californians, look on the bright side: here's an even worse exam to have interrupted by an earthquake.

Student with disability sues after failing law exam [West Virginia Record]
L.A. quake catches Twitter user in ladyparts exam [Valleywag]

A woman in Missouri says the scary-looking bonnet macaque (see specimen at right) helps her social anxiety disorder. Having that thing in our arms would increase our anxiety immensely, but to each their own.

Local health officials apparently share our anxiety. They allegedly banned the monkey from grocery stores and restaurants, including Wal-Mart. From the Kansas City Star:

A southwest Missouri woman has sued Wal-Mart, local health officials and Cox Health Systems, claiming they discriminated against her and her monkey named Richard.

Debby Rose of Springfield said in the lawsuit that the 10-year-old bonnet macaque helps curb a social anxiety disorder that can cause her to have panic attacks in public.

We're no experts in naming monkeys, but "Richard" seems like a horrible monkey name. We'd have a lot more respect for this woman and her suit if her monkey were named "Bananas" or "Bobo." But that's off-topic.

Rose's suit claims that the local health department decided that the monkey was not a legitimate service animal and told establishments not to admit her and her little monkey. Was the problem that the "service animal" is a monkey, or that social anxiety disorder is a questionable disability?

We'd try to sort it out, but we're still schoolgirl-giggling over "macaque named Dick."

Springfield woman's lawsuit alleges discrimination against her monkey [Kansas City Star]

When traveling abroad for the first time, it seems every American is struck by the brilliance of creating paper money with a correlation between the size of a bill and its value. "That must be nice for blind people," we think.

Well, the D.C. Circuit thinks the same way. In a 2-1 ruling (PDF) issued today, it affirmed a district court decision holding that the U.S. discriminates against blind people with its uniformly-sized bills.

The American Council for the Blind sued the Treasury Department six years ago. If the decision stands, vending machines everywhere will have to be redesigned!

That seems like a better defense than the one the Treasury Department used. From the Associated Press:

The U.S. acknowledges the design hinders blind people but it argued that blind people have adapted. Some relied on store clerks to help them, some used credit cards and others folded certain corners to help distinguish between bills.

The court ruled 2-1 that such adaptations were insufficient. The government might as well argue that, since handicapped people can crawl on all fours or ask for help from strangers, there's no need to make buildings wheelchair accessible, the court said.

Apparently, that huge ugly number five on the new five-dollar bill was the Treasury Department's first stab at meeting the needs of the blind. Unfortunately, it discriminates against good aesthetic taste.

What do you think of the decision?

Court says money discriminates against blind people [Associated Press]
Amer Cncl Blind v. Paulson, Henry [PDF]

I previously wrote (here and here) about Oscar Pistorius, the Olympic hopeful who was ruled ineligible to compete in the Beijing Games by the International Association of Athletics Federations ("IAAF") because he uses Cheetah Flex-Foot prosthetic legs. With help from Dewey & LeBoeuf (disclosure: my previous employer) as his pro bono counsel, Pistorius recently challenged the IAAF's ruling in the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

On Friday, a three-person arbitration panel ruled in Pistorius's favor, finding that Pistorius's prosthetics do not provide him with "an overall net advantage" in violation of IAAF Rule 144.2(e). This opens the door for Pistorius to compete in South Africa's Olympic trials using his prosthetics. The panel reserved the right to change its ruling if new scientific evidence emerges.

With this matter resolved for now, let's take a look at the big winners and losers from the litigation:

Big Winners

Oscar Pistorius: Finally eligible for South Africa's Olympic trials, the Blade Runner is a step closer to competing against the world's finest. In addition, he is also a step closer to earning the kind of endorsement dollars that would make even Dan & Dave envious.

Ossur HF Company: The Iceland-headquartered supplier of the Cheetah Flex-Foot prosthetics is gaining all kinds of free publicity. Most of us have now heard of the Cheetah Flex-Foot. Can anybody name a competitor prosthetic? I didn't think so.

Dewey & LeBoeuf: Forget the goodwill that comes with pro bono representation. By winning this case, Dewey & LeBoeuf has expanded its sports-law footprint across the Atlantic Ocean, as well as opened the door to secure new business in international sports arbitration.

Debevoise & Plimpton: Real kudos goes to the Court of Arbitration for Sport for their gutsy and articulate 18-page decision that does not pull its punches with the IAAF. David W. Rivkin, a partner in the New York and London offices of Debevoise & Plimpton, was one of the three named arbitrators in this dispute. His work could only look good for the firm.

Read the rest, after the jump.

Remember Chief Judge Edward Nottingham (D. Colorado)? We named him our Judge of the Day back in August, after he reportedly "was too drunk to remember how he spent more than $3,000 at a strip club in two consecutive days." We subsequently honored him as our Paulie Walnuts Doppelgänger of the Day.

We are hereby declaring Judge Nottingham ineligible for future Judge of the Day contests. Like the Honorable Elizabeth Halverson, he has transcended the competition, joining the Judge of the Day Hall of Fame.

Read about his latest misadventures, in the ABA Journal:

A Denver lawyer has filed a complaint claiming the chief judge of the Colorado federal courts threatened to call authorities when she confronted him about parking in a handicapped space.

The lawyer, Jeanne Elliott, was paralyzed in 1986 when she was shot by an angry litigant. She told KUSA in Denver that she waited in her wheelchair behind the illegally parked SUV outside a Walgreens. Judge Edward Nottingham arrived and threatened to call the U.S. Marshals service when she didn’t move, according to her grievance (PDF) filed with the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He later called 911.

More after the jump.

* Like an aging babyboomer, L&O might be spending its golden years with its progeny… at TNT. Loyal fans, you will always find L&O-related news here. (And when I say "here", I mean in Non-Sequiturs, because Lat does what he wants.) [Los Angeles Times]

* Oops, they f**ked up. (And when I say "they", I mean both Ashley's parents and the hospital.) [WFSB]

* JDs (or passing the bar) not required. [Sports Law Blog]

* Victory for teachers, held not legally required to baselessly bolster students' self-esteem with good grades on such challenging homework as posters, book reports and "leaf projects." [Charleston Daily Mail]

* Suggestion for replacement billboard: "At least our controversial billboard lasted longer than Britney Spears' first marriage." [ABC News]

* $3.19 a gallon for this? [CNN]

* Hasselhoff videotape (no, not the German music video) leads to loss of custody rights. [CNN]

* Bat-ban Begins -- groups sue to overturn NYC ordinance.[SI]

* Senators expand Attorneygate probe. [MSNBC]

* Ethics of "pillow angel" surgery called unlawful. [CNN]

* They may or may not be activist, but they sure aren't very active. [New York Times via How Appealing]

* These people are going to hell... and maybe jail. [CNN]

* Does a U.S. court have jurisdiction to stay the execution of Saddam Hussein? [Jurist]

* Tie one on...online. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Legal challenges likely to sweeping illegal immigrant county ordinances in Cherokee County, Georgia. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution (free reg. req'd)]

* Judge: Paper money violates the Rehabilitation Act because blind people cannot distinguish between bills. [CNN; USA Today]

* John Turley digs into recent comments by (presidential candidate?) Newt Gingrich on freedom of speech. [MSNBC]

* "Oregon Lawyer Wrongly Arrested After Madrid Bombings Settles Lawsuit for $2 Million." [Law.com; New York Times; Washington Post]

* Louis Vuitton sues Chewy Vuitton Vuiton... [WSJ Law Blog]

* ... and Ringling Bros. sue Louis Vuitton. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Former Illinois governor and convicted felon George Ryan gets bail pending appeal from the Seventh Circuit. [Chicago Sun-Times]

Fantasy football after the jump...