Justices OK 'Limited Practice' by Pa. Law Grads Shut Out of July Bar Exam by COVID-19
The order came down the same day the Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners announced the July bar exam was being moved to September.
April 29, 2020 at 04:06 PM
3 minute read
In light of the Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners' decision to postpone the July bar exam until September, the state Supreme Court on Tuesday said law school graduates who had applied to sit for the exam may "temporarily engage in the limited practice of law," including advising clients under the watchful eye of a supervising attorney.
On April 28, the PBLE announced the bar exam was being moved to Sept. 9 and 10.
The justices issued an order the same day allowing graduates who were planning to take the July exam to practice in a limited capacity until either the September exam is administered (if they don't sit for it) or the results of the September exam are announced (if they do sit for it).
According to the order, eligibility to practice as a limited licensee requires having graduated from an American Bar Association-accredited law school with a juris doctor degree and having never failed the bar exam before.
Eligible limited licensees must also have already applied to sit for the July bar exam and must meet the character and fitness requirements of the Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners.
The justices' order also said that limited licensees are required to be supervised by an actively practicing member of the Pennsylvania bar.
The supervising attorney, according to the order, cannot oversee more than two limited licensees and "shall assume personal professional responsibility for ensuring that the 2020 limited licensee's legal work is competent and compliant with the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct."
In addition to advising clients, according to the order, limited licensees "may prepare documents on behalf of a client, including documents that will be filed in a court, administrative tribunal or agency of the commonwealth," as long as they include the supervising attorney's signature.
The order also allows limited licensees to "appear for any activity subsumed within the practice of law," as long as their supervising attorney is also present.
In a statement released in conjunction with the Supreme Court's order and the announcement of the new bar exam dates, PBLE chair David Fine said, "The board believes this order represents an appropriate balance between the need to ensure that the public is represented competently, the particular need for additional lawyers to assist the public in matters related to or arising from the pandemic, and the need for graduating law students to start the careers for which they have worked and invested so much."
Read the full order:
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Trending Stories
- 1'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 2What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 3Judge Blasts Authors' Lawyers in Key AI Suit, Says Case Doomed Without Upgraded Team
- 4Federal Judge Won't Stop Title IX Investigation Into Former GMU Law Professor
- 5Ex-Prosecutor and Judge Fatally Shot During Attempted Arrest on Federal Corruption Charges
Who Got The Work
Charles A. Weiss of Holland & Knight has entered an appearance for Rafael Badalov in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed July 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Lee Law on behalf of Otter Products LLC, accuses the defendant of selling counterfeit phone cases and accessories bearing the plaintiff's 'OtterBox' trademark. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nina R. Morrison, is 1:24-cv-05214, Otter Products, LLC v. Badalov et al.
Who Got The Work
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partners Benjamin Hershkowitz, Richard W. Mark and Casey J. McCracken and R. Scott Johnson, Thomas M. Patton and Cara S. Donels have entered appearances for Berkshire Hathaway Energy Co. and MidAmerican Energy Co., respectively, in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 17 in Iowa Southern District Court by Nyemaster Goode PC and Caldwell Cassady & Curry on behalf of Midwest Energy Emissions Corp., asserts six patents related to sorbents for the oxidation and removal of mercury. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Stephen H. Locher, is 4:24-cv-00243, Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. v. Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.
Who Got The Work
Michael J. Hickey and Michael L. Jente of Lewis Rice LLC have stepped in to represent Tidal Wave Management in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 18 in Missouri Western District Court by Husch Blackwell on behalf of Waterway Gas & Wash Co., accuses the defendant of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Clean Car Club' mark. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan Jr., is 4:24-cv-00471, Waterway Gas & Wash Company v. Tidal Wave Management LLC.
Who Got The Work
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz partners Lauren M. Kofke and William Savitt have stepped in to represent CVS Health and and its top officials in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Chaya Sara Kaufmann, accuses the defendants of failing to disclose that they used misleading forecasts to set premium plans which overstated the profitability of the company's health care benefits segment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06595, Kaufmann v. Lynch et al.
Who Got The Work
Robert L. Wallan from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman has entered an appearance for Findlay Management Group in a pending complaint for declaratory judgment. The complaint, filed on Aug. 8 in Nevada District Court by Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani and Skarzynski Marick & Black on behalf of Houston Casualty Co., seeks to declare that no insurance policy exists between Houston Casualty and Findlay due to there not being an adequate form of delivery and claims that if delivery was substantiated it is rescinded based on material omissions and misrepresentations. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro, is 2:24-cv-01459, Houston Casualty Company v. Findlay Management Group.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250