The Board of Bar Examiners (BBE) has a lot of discretion. Mr. M. applied for testing accommodations for the bar exam—specifically, time-and-a-half to take it—on the basis of a 2014 diagnosis and his testing accommodations ever since (high school, college, law school). He submitted supporting documentation, but not a Form 5 assessment. The BBE denied Mr. M.’s request for time accommodation, in significant part because of the missing assessment. Form 5 requires an assessment from a qualified professional and individualized recommendations as to why more time is needed. Mr. M. moved for reconsideration and the BBE denied that too. Mr. M. appeals. While SCOV acknowledges that the BBE could have done better on a host of points, SCOV ultimately concludes that the BBE “acted within its discretion in denying applicant’s request based on his incomplete application.” In re O.M., 2023 VT 14 (mem.).
This week’s opinion is another foray into COVID-19 and speedy-trial rights. In a nutshell, defendant was held without bail when “following a series of unfortunate events,” (I have to wonder if a clerk chose that phrase on purpose) defendant fired a 9mm—several times—from inside his home through the front door onto a porch where his adult son and his adult son’s two pals were standing. One of the shots hit defendant’s son, though the wound was not life-threatening. Defendant was charged with attempted murder (among other things). For some time—twenty months—the case went through pretrial stuff, including questions regarding defendant’s competency to stand trial. A month after the pandemic hit, defendant moved for a speedy trial. Eventually, he was tried and convicted of many of the lesser-charged offenses. Defendant appeals, arguing that his speedy-trial right was violated and that his convictions should be overturned. SCOV doesn’t go for it. SCOV takes the twenty-month delay off the top, attributes the COVID-19 delays to the state but doesn’t give them a lot of weight because, well, COVID-19, and affirms. Ultimately, SCOV is “persuaded that no speedy-trial violation occurred here principally because of defendant’s twenty-month delay in first asserting the right, the unavoidable delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, and defendant’s failure to allege that the State prosecuted him with anything other than reasonable diligence.” State v. Young, 2023 VT 10.
In the entry order case presented, the Board of Bar Examiners (BBE) faced a decision regarding Mr. M.'s application for testing accommodations for the bar exam. Mr. M. sought time-and-a-half accommodation based on a diagnosis from 2014 and his history of receiving testing accommodations throughout his academic journey. While he provided supporting documentation, he did not include a Form 5 assessment, which requires an evaluation from a qualified professional and individualized recommendations for additional time. Criminal Attorney Los Angeles
ReplyDeleteAs a result, the BBE denied Mr. M.'s request for time accommodation due to the absence of the required assessment. Despite Mr. M.'s motion for reconsideration, the BBE upheld its decision. Consequently, Mr. M. decided to appeal the case. The Supreme Court of Vermont (SCOV) acknowledged that the BBE could have handled certain aspects better but ultimately determined that the BBE "acted within its discretion in denying the applicant's request based on his incomplete application."
This case highlights the importance of adhering to the documentation requirements set by governing bodies when seeking accommodations. It emphasizes the significance of providing comprehensive and substantiated evidence to support requests for special considerations during examinations.
In order to apply for testing accommodations for the bar exam, applicants must follow a specific process and provide relevant documentation to support their request pasadenadefense.com. Mr. M, in this case, applied for time-and-a-half accommodations based on a previous diagnosis and his history of receiving testing accommodations throughout his academic journey.
ReplyDeleteWhen applying for testing accommodations, applicants are required to submit a formal request to the Board of Bar Examiners (BBE) along with supporting documentation. This documentation typically includes comprehensive information about the applicant's disability or condition, as well as any previous accommodations utilized during their educational pursuits.
The BBE, which oversees the administration of bar exams, holds significant discretion in determining whether or not to grant testing accommodations. While they are committed to providing equal opportunities to all applicants, they must also ensure the integrity and fairness of the exam process.
The BBE carefully evaluates each application individually, taking into consideration the presented information, medical documentation, and the potential impact of the requested accommodations on the exam's validity. They strive to strike a balance between accommodating individuals with disabilities and maintaining the exam's rigor and standards.
The decision-making process by the BBE involves a thorough analysis of the applicant's supporting documents, consultation with experts if necessary, and adherence to established policies and guidelines. The board aims to make fair and objective judgments regarding each accommodation request, considering the applicant's past experience and demonstrated need for support.
Ultimately, the BBE's discretion in granting testing accommodations allows them to tailor accommodations to individual needs while still upholding the integrity of the bar exam. This ensures that individuals like Mr. M have equal opportunities to showcase their legal skills and knowledge, regardless of any disabilities or conditions they may have.