Your Indianapolis Bar Association Board of Directors today submitted to the Indiana Supreme Court comment regarding proposed amendments to Admission and Discipline Rule 13 which would add a waiver provision allowing some currently disallowed law school graduates to sit for the Indiana bar exam. The amendment gives the Board of Law Examiners discretion to waive Rule 13’s American Bar Association accreditation requirement for applicants in two instances:
- When the applicant has graduated from a law school located in the United States that is not approved by the ABA, was eligible upon graduation from that law school to take the bar exam of another state, and the Board finds the applicant is qualified by reason of education or experience to take the Indiana bar exam; and
- When the applicant has completed legal education in a jurisdiction outside of the United States, has obtained a graduate degree in American law from a law school approved by the ABA, and the Board finds the applicant is qualified by reason of education or experience to take the Indiana bar exam.
The proposed amendment also sets out the materials a waiver applicant must provide the Board and makes clear that the Board’s decision is subject to final approval by the Supreme Court. In addition, the proposed amendment deletes outdated provisions and makes non-substantive changes for consistency across the rules.
Given a 30-day window for comment by the Court, a work group led by Elizabeth Roberson of Krieg DeVault LLP was quickly formed by the IndyBar Board of Directors to consider comments. IndyBar’s Board of Directors has voted without dissent to submit the work group’s recommended comments posted below.
Thanks to the members of the work group for their efforts: Chaka Coleman, Paganelli Law Group; David Duncan, Scannell Properties; Peter Elliott, Marion Commercial Court; Amanda Gallagher, Barnes & Thornburg LLP; Katie Jackson-Lindsay, Jackson Legal Group; Donnie Morgan, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP; Mary Tullos Morris, Indiana University McKinney School of Law; Tony Paganelli, Paganelli Law Group and Elizabeth Roberson (Chair), Krieg DeVault LLP.
We look forward to the opportunity to assist the Court in addressing the lawyer shortage in our great state.
Rebecca W. Geyer
Indianapolis Bar Association President
To the Indiana Supreme Court:
As the Bar Association representing lawyers and judges in and around Indianapolis, the Indianapolis Bar Association (“IndyBar”) is grateful for the opportunity to provide input to the Court with respect to the currently proposed changes to Rule 13 of the Court’s Rules for Admission and Discipline of Attorneys.
Historically, Rule 13 has served as a means to ensure the highest possible quality of representation for Indiana’s citizens. We are acutely aware that Indiana (and many other states) are suffering through a shortage of lawyers—especially lawyers who are able to serve Hoosiers in rural areas. We understand and acknowledge that the current proposals to modify Rule 13 are designed to alleviate this shortage. We salute this goal and agree with the Court that it is an important effort. That said, and as explained in greater detail below, our request to the Court is that it proceed slowly and cautiously as it considers what we believe to be substantial departures from well-established practices and procedures for the admission of lawyers to the Bar of the State of Indiana.
IndyBar has three concerns that we hope the Court will consider and address if it moves forward with the proposed modifications of Rule 13: (1) Will the acceptance of students from non-ABA-approved law schools lead to an even greater gap in practical, experiential education of students before they begin practicing law; (2) Will the proposed modification of Rule 13 lead to increased access to service in Indiana’s rural areas; and (3) Does the all-volunteer Board of Law Examiners have the resources to conduct the case-by-case review of applications contemplated by the proposed amendment?
When looking at the impact of the amendment holistically, we looked at the possibility of non-ABA-accredited law schools as well as fully online law schools. First, ABA accreditation serves to set standards to ensure national uniformity in legal education and practice. A non-ABA-approved law school presents a level of flexibility and financial opportunity which could be a barrier to many wanting to enter the legal field. We agree and support the sentiment that allowing those who attended a law school not approved by the ABA would offer a path to those seeking to be admitted in Indiana. We would ask the Court to consider including a more detailed understanding of an applicant being “eligible upon graduation from that law school to take the bar exam of another state.” Creating a benchmark of courses required or preparation for the bar exam would further ensure that the applicant’s education, whether ABA accredited or not, has adequately prepared them for the bar exam. Second, in light of the request from Purdue University Global Law School, it is important to address the impact of a fully online law school. We have seen firsthand the effects that the recent pandemic had on students at Indiana’s traditional law schools. For over a year, these schools effectively became online law schools. The young lawyers who graduated into the profession over the past two years were deprived of many of the experiences and interactive programs that our law schools recently have added to their curricula, and their education was diminished as a result. Such deprivations are the root of our concern. We are concerned that the proposed modifications to Rule 13 would make these temporary gaps in legal education become permanent for a subset of lawyers. We ask that the Court consider implementing some sort of experiential training program or obligation, such as clerkships or internships, as a prerequisite for admission by graduates of online only law schools.
We salute the Court’s aspiration to improve access to legal services for Hoosiers most profoundly affected by a shortage of lawyers and we echo the Court’s feeling that this proposed rule amendment will not, by itself, solve the state’s shortage issue. However, we see no data or anecdotal evidence to suggest that students at non-ABA-approved schools, who are scattered across the nation (indeed, even Purdue Global’s law school is based in California) will set up practices in rural communities in Indiana. Likewise, our anecdotal experience suggests that foreign law graduates are unlikely to practice law in those communities most adversely affected by a shortage of lawyers in rural Indiana communities. We ask that the Court consider candidates’ practice intentions when considering whether to grant them permission to sit for the Bar Exam despite their graduation from an online or foreign law school to better target the solution to the problem.
Finally, we ask that the Court consider that the proposed modifications to Rule 13, and the case-by-case reviews it contemplates, may place considerable additional responsibility upon the volunteer members of the Board of Law Examiners, and allocate such resources as are necessary to allow them to properly perform their function as gatekeepers of the profession for the benefit of all Hoosiers.
In conclusion, IndyBar is grateful for the opportunity to be heard on this matter and we laud the goal of increasing access to justice throughout the State. We simply ask that the Court tread carefully in making such a substantial modification to how lawyers are trained and admitted to the Indiana Bar. We look forward to working along with the Court to find solutions to the declining number of practicing attorneys across Indiana.
Sincerely,
Rebecca W. Geyer
Indianapolis Bar Association President
member center
