This year’s Law Day, May 1, was different from others. Entitled the National Law Day of Action, it was a day when more than 10,000 lawyers, including me, across the nation, reaffirmed our oaths as lawyers. The most important words are: “to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Every single lawyer took that oath whenever admitted. Our current president also took that oath.
Most, if not all of us, have taken that oath seriously and have done our jobs to preserve, protect, and defend. However, despite the oath he took, 47 is not certain as to whether he supports constitutional due process.
Does our duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution have an expiration date, a statute of limitations, so that peeps have carte blanche to toss away that oath, pretending that it no longer exists? Is the oath one of utility only? Does the oath no longer have any force and effect when peeps disagree with those words? Should they be obligated to explain why they don’t feel any duty any longer to uphold the rule of law? That could be fun to watch, as some of the Biglaw firms that have already caved are now trying to backpedal. Was backpedaling on the bar exam? Look, Ma, no hands!
We learned in law school that if you disagree with a trial court’s opinion, appeal it. That’s what appellate courts are for, but to denigrate a court’s opinion on the basis of purported “lawlessness” of a trial judge is a disgrace to every lawyer who disagrees with the court’s decision but respects the rule of law (JD Vance, Pam Bondi, and other lawyers need to stop with the unprofessional comments when cases don’t go their way).
Meanwhile, it’s been a while since I took aim at one of my favorite targets: the State Bar of California. As Joe Patrice commented, the most recent antics of the California Bar defy credibility, and only lead to one conclusion: we are not making this stuff up.
After the complete and total snafu that was the February bar exam, the California State Bar, which had revised the test to save some money, must now revert to the ways things were B.F. (Before February). Saving money is no longer the priority; wiping egg off face is. The adage still applies: when trying to save money only puts you deeper into the hole, stop digging.
Every time I have written about the California State Bar, it has been with a sense of disbelief, a feeling that the bar — both volunteers (aka the board of trustees) and staff — are like the gang that couldn’t shoot straight. The February bar faux pas is just the most recent example.
At least the misery is over for the approximately 56% of February test takers who passed — a higher than normal rate for the February bar.
But there’s more. The California State Bar has sued the vendor responsible for the February exam FUBAR, alleging fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract. The lawsuit claims that bar test takers “reported significant, unacceptable, and pervasive problems with Meazure Learning’s administration of the exam, which severely impacted their experience and ability to take the test.” No kidding.
And one more news item: Leah Wilson, the bar’s executive director, will leave in July. Someone had to take the fall and who better than where the buck stops. A smart move, Wilson falling on her sword, given some of her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Wilson admitted that some multistate questions were drafted using artificial intelligence. No lawyer was involved in the initial drafting and that she did not know the role ChatGPT played until after the exam. Wilson also admitted that the California State Bar did not copy edit test questions (lots of typos) ahead of the exam and that she did not know about the typos until she saw them on Reddit. Res ipsa loquitur.
However, in her defense, the job of executive director of the State Bar of California is a thankless job. From the legislators controlling the bar’s budget (is groveling for your allowance ever a good idea?) to members of the board of trustees with their own agendas, to the never-ending problems with the discipline system, anyone who wants the job should have a frontal lobotomy with an ice cream scoop. My pleasure to provide the scoop.
Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at oldladylawyer@gmail.com.
The post Does Our Oath Have A Statute Of Limitations? appeared first on Above the Law.
This year’s Law Day, May 1, was different from others. Entitled the National Law Day of Action, it was a day when more than 10,000 lawyers, including me, across the nation, reaffirmed our oaths as lawyers. The most important words are: “to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Every single lawyer took that oath whenever admitted. Our current president also took that oath.
Most, if not all of us, have taken that oath seriously and have done our jobs to preserve, protect, and defend. However, despite the oath he took, 47 is not certain as to whether he supports constitutional due process.
Does our duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution have an expiration date, a statute of limitations, so that peeps have carte blanche to toss away that oath, pretending that it no longer exists? Is the oath one of utility only? Does the oath no longer have any force and effect when peeps disagree with those words? Should they be obligated to explain why they don’t feel any duty any longer to uphold the rule of law? That could be fun to watch, as some of the Biglaw firms that have already caved are now trying to backpedal. Was backpedaling on the bar exam? Look, Ma, no hands!
We learned in law school that if you disagree with a trial court’s opinion, appeal it. That’s what appellate courts are for, but to denigrate a court’s opinion on the basis of purported “lawlessness” of a trial judge is a disgrace to every lawyer who disagrees with the court’s decision but respects the rule of law (JD Vance, Pam Bondi, and other lawyers need to stop with the unprofessional comments when cases don’t go their way).
Meanwhile, it’s been a while since I took aim at one of my favorite targets: the State Bar of California. As Joe Patrice commented, the most recent antics of the California Bar defy credibility, and only lead to one conclusion: we are not making this stuff up.
After the complete and total snafu that was the February bar exam, the California State Bar, which had revised the test to save some money, must now revert to the ways things were B.F. (Before February). Saving money is no longer the priority; wiping egg off face is. The adage still applies: when trying to save money only puts you deeper into the hole, stop digging.
Every time I have written about the California State Bar, it has been with a sense of disbelief, a feeling that the bar — both volunteers (aka the board of trustees) and staff — are like the gang that couldn’t shoot straight. The February bar faux pas is just the most recent example.
At least the misery is over for the approximately 56% of February test takers who passed — a higher than normal rate for the February bar.
But there’s more. The California State Bar has sued the vendor responsible for the February exam FUBAR, alleging fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract. The lawsuit claims that bar test takers “reported significant, unacceptable, and pervasive problems with Meazure Learning’s administration of the exam, which severely impacted their experience and ability to take the test.” No kidding.
And one more news item: Leah Wilson, the bar’s executive director, will leave in July. Someone had to take the fall and who better than where the buck stops. A smart move, Wilson falling on her sword, given some of her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Wilson admitted that some multistate questions were drafted using artificial intelligence. No lawyer was involved in the initial drafting and that she did not know the role ChatGPT played until after the exam. Wilson also admitted that the California State Bar did not copy edit test questions (lots of typos) ahead of the exam and that she did not know about the typos until she saw them on Reddit. Res ipsa loquitur.
However, in her defense, the job of executive director of the State Bar of California is a thankless job. From the legislators controlling the bar’s budget (is groveling for your allowance ever a good idea?) to members of the board of trustees with their own agendas, to the never-ending problems with the discipline system, anyone who wants the job should have a frontal lobotomy with an ice cream scoop. My pleasure to provide the scoop.
Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at [email protected].
