Relates to the rule-making power of the court of appeals as to admission of attorneys and counselors

Summary of specific provisions

Amends subdivision 3 of §53 of the Judiciary Law to allow a person to sit for the bar exam in New York State if: (1) such person has received a juris doctorate from a law school which: (a) is accredited by a national accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Dept. of Education whose scope of authority includes first professional degrees in law; and (b) which law school qualifies for participation in the federal student loan program under Title IV; and (2)such person has passed the bar exam and been admitted to practice in another state.

Justification

* "William" is a tenured full professor in the business school at a prestigious Midwestern public university where he teaches business ethics and international business. He holds a B.A. from Oxford University, a Ph.D from Johns Hopkins University and J.D. from Concord Law School. He is a member of the California Bar. * "Isaac" is a licensed attorney and partner at a California firm. He is a graduate of William Howard Taft University's Witkin School of Law and was named a Southern California Rising Star by Southern California Super Lawyers, 2005-2007. * "Julian" was a managing director at Apple Computer International in Hong Kong. Subsequently he founded his own successful graphics business in Asia. He graduated from Williams College, earned an MBA at the University of Texas, and later became a graduate of Concord Law School He was admitted to the practice of law in California. In 2007, he was honored by the Los Angeles County Bar Association. for his work with victims of domestic violence. * "Angela" had a 30-year medical research career. While continuing her work, she was able to attend Concord Law School, and, after being admitted to practice in California, she was allowed to sit for the bar examination, passed, and was admitted to practice in her home state of Wisconsin where she applies her medical knowledge to assist the disabled to apply for social security benefits.

These sketches represent four real people, all of whom came to the study of law a bit later in life and each of whom is making positive contributions to the profession and to their communities. Every bar would be proud to have them as members. None of them, however, would ever be able to sit for the bar examination and be admitted to practice in New York because the law schools that they attended are online institutions, deemed under existing New York law as "correspondence" schools. Consequently, graduates of even the most sophisticated of these institutions, unlike the graduates of ABA, other non-ABA, and even foreign law schools, have no pathway to sit for the Bar or practice in New York. Ever. This bill would provide the handful of graduates from qualifying online law schools who seek to enter the bar in New York at least a "dotted-line" opportunity to do so.

Bar admission rules are essentially a creature of the 1920s when states were encouraged to defer to the American Bar Association (ABA) to develop clearinghouse standards by which a law school, and its graduates, should be judged. This had the effect of reversing a centuries of admission practices that sought to verify that applicants to the Bar had learned the law and were prepared to begin a career in the law, not the method he or she had chosen to learn the law. While well-intended, most state rules have become virtual dogma, surrounded by an almost religious fanaticism that transcends the original purpose for the rule, and, in the context of today's learning environment and the work life of professionals, is out of touch with 21st Century methods of teaching and learning.

The ABA accreditation process and the state bar admission standards are coming under increasing scrutiny and criticism from the law school world itself all the way to the halls of Congress. Criticisms include the impact that the ABA rules have on the cost of legal education for students, which is reflected in the increasing debt load that many have at graduation, and an intolerance for approaches to legal education and programs that do not fit into the "one size fits all" approach that the ABA Standards take.

Although technology has altered the fabric of every aspect of our lives, including education -- where distance learning and on-demand virtual libraries thrive -- these technological advancements have not been embraced when it comes to the teaching of law. Yet these non-traditional teaching environments provide significant benefits which, in the case of legal education in particular, put them within the reach of a non-traditional population -- most of which would otherwise have no opportunity to gain a legal education or enter the practice of law.

This measure provides a tempered and balanced solution by providing a pathway to bar admission for those who have the potential to be outstanding lawyers in New York but who cannot feasibly access traditional legal education. It also provides assurance that, while the door to admission is open, it is not wide open. Indeed, not all

online education is created equal. In order for a person to sit for the Bar Exam in New York under this provision: (1) the underlying institution must have been accredited by a nationally accredited accrediting agency recognized by U.S. Department of Education to award the juris doctorate; (2) the school would further have to be a participant in the Title IV federal student loan programs -- a requirement that demands that the legal education is interactive; and (3) any such graduate must have passed the Bar Exam of and been admitted to practice law in another state.

Prior legislative history

New bill.

Fiscal implications

None.

Effective date

This act shall take effect on the 180th day after it becomes law.