In response to his request for handicap accommodation, the West Virginia Board of Bar Examiners gave Shannon Kelly three instead of two days to complete the bar exam, “printed its examination in big type … gave him a room to himself and allowed him an extra day to complete the test”. He flunked anyway, so it’s off to federal court to demand further accommodations for what his lawyer Edward McDevitt describes as Kelly’s “severe deficits in processing speed, cognitive fluency and rapid naming”. (Above the Law, Aug. 4; WV Record, Jul. 25). We covered similar issues in the famous Marilyn Bartlett case (before federal judge Sonia Sotomayor in New York) Aug. 20-21, 2001. More: Coppelman, Workers Comp Insider.
30 Comments
I guess one question you must ask your prospective lawyer is “did you need any accommodation when you took your bar exam?”
No one wants a lawyer who will call you 3 weeks later and say “I should have said….”
The same thing can be said for affirmative action Presidents!
I actually hope this obviously severely impaired, but exquisitely entitled, 32 year old gentleman gets adequate accommodations to pass the bar by one point.
Then, as a matter of poetic justice, spends the rest of his life as a vexious litigant against private lawfirms that discriminate by not hiring him.
I’d like to meet this gentleman to make up my own mind whether he could make a contribution as a lawyer. The practice of law is unforgiving of disabilities, but some manage quite well despite incredible obstacles. Some law school graduates, by the way, seem to have a mental block with regard to the Bar Examination. The purpose of the examination should be to identify competency sufficient to practice law, not to punish those who are extremely poor test takers, for whatever reason.
CLT
Isn’t time pressure part of the test? Part of what makes every test hard is the time limit.
Kind of like how in the real world, we have deadlines and filing dates for lawyers. If courts will automatically give him an extra week or two for any filing, he might make an excellent addition to any legal team. Yet somehow I doubt the courts will accommodate him in such a manner.
I’ll bet that if he passes the bar exam he still bills the going rate PER HOUR!
In Germany, at least in the state of Bavaria, the final Bar Exam consists of 11 written tests of 5 hours each on 11 consecutive days (without weekends), without brakes during the tests and without any multiple choice questions. Plus a 4-hour oral exam in the states’ Ministery of Justice consisting of 4 subjects, again without a brake. – How much time would you get for that – a month?
wow ..not a lawyer i want.
I have a bad back, so I want a forklift to help me win the weightlifting competition in Bejing.
CLT,
Say what you will, but this is far from a mere “mental block with regard to the Bar Examination.” His own lawyer describes law-school-Rudy as suffering “severe deficits in processing speed, cognitive fluency and rapid naming.”
I cannot begin to imagine the accomodations he extorted from the law school for exams, writing requirements, or even class attendance and participation. And yet somehow the diploma is a license to practice and a ticket to riches?
The bar has so few legitimate purposes, but surely weeding out people not qualified to practice is one of them. Shouldn’t the public be protected from unknowingly hiring someone with severe deficits in processing speed and cognitive fluency to act as their agent and fiduciary in matters affecting their rights?
I know that’s supposed to be funny, but after what happened to golf (courts made them allow golf carts), it’s simply not absurd enough to be funny… it’s believable.
Imagine he is your doctor instead of your lawyer and you just happen to be having a heart attack.
Not only should these exams filter out the people not smart enough, but they should also filter out the people who are not able to perform to a certain standard.
“Not only should these exams filter out the people not smart enough, but they should also filter out the people who are not able to perform to a certain standard.”
Then we will have lawsuits to determine how smart is smart enough and what the standards should be.
I am reminded of a student I had about 10 years ago. I was teaching Human Physiology as part of a massage therapy program at a very small career college. The student, a mature student in her mid-40s, was almost entirely unable to understand the course material, even some of the simplest biological concepts. She claimed a learning disability and said she was a visual learner. She failed the final, miserably, even after being accommodated (she was given an significant time extension to complete the exam).
She then informed me that she was going to demand that I design a purely visual-oriented examination, and even went into detail, describing what would essentially amount to an interactive multimedia testing program. I explained to her that, given that I wrote my lectures on a four-year-old 386 PC, and had virtually no experience in visual instructional design nor medical illustration, this was fairly unlikely to be accomplished, especially with my contract period coming to an end in two weeks, and the fact that I was paid only for contact hours ($25/hr, 6 hrs a week). Also, the kind of software required to create the desired material was, at that time (around 1998), not quite as ubiquitous as today and was prohibitively expensive as well.
After this it was out of my hands, and what ended up happening was that she was allowed to complete a “remedial” course (with no exam), and to advance to the second year. This drama played itself out for all of her academic courses, though she was somewhat competent in the practicum classes.
Despite (or perhaps because of) all of this, and the fact that she suffered from chronic fatigue, severe back pain, and was developing appreciable arthritis in her hands, she was able to “special case” her way to graduating as a certified massage therapist.
Not being smart enough is failing. The standards are already set by the rules that govern the exam.
@#11
Using a golf cart to get from hole to hole is something that many people do everyday. I understand that the gentleman who asked to be allowed a golf cart during tournament play had a hard time walking, but was okay standing and hitting the ball. Since the actual game is the standing and hitting the ball part, not the strolling down the course, it seems reasonable to me. (I am disabled and walking long distances and standing for long periods of time is difficult for me too – but I don’t play golf).
Insisting on using a Segway to complete a marathon, or using a moped in a bike race are much more analogous to using the forklift assist in the weight lifting competition at the Olympics.
“Imagine he is your doctor instead of your lawyer and you just happen to be having a heart attack…”
Well, of course, if the doctor’s disabilty prevents him from helping you and you are damaged, then you sue the bejeebers out of him and everyone else in the process that failed to screen you from his incompetence. I am not aware of a “political correctness” defense in med-mal cases.
If however, he is your lawyer and misses a crucial deadline and you are damaged, you may be able to find a lawyer willing to sue your lawyer. Unlikely, however, to find a lawyer willing to sue the State Bar as a defendant. You may be able to file a grievance with the Bar and a have a secret Bar grievance committee implement a limited reprimand and possibly publish the results of their investigation and sanction in a Bar journal available only to Bar members – that should make you happy.
His own lawyer describes law-school-Rudy as suffering “severe deficits in processing speed, cognitive fluency and rapid naming.”
Didn’t we used to call a person with these conditions stupid?
I believe I can get comfortable with four days and the other accomdations for the bar exam provided that his cards, stationary, and advertising bear a disclaimer.
— Shannon Kelly, Esq. —
* Licensed by the West Virgina Bar Association
* Suffers Severe Deficits in Processing Speed, Cognitive Fluency, and Rapid Naming
* Took Twice as Long to Barely Pass the Bar Exam in a Room all by Himself
This is unfortunate, there is no question about. The question is reasonable accomodations and obviously he is seeking beyond reasonable accomodations.
Not one person mocked the “affirmative action president” which was the very first comment. Putting these two issues together is stunning to me and the only thing more stunning is the 17 comments let it pass.
To a lesser extent, the “not being smart enough” comment is also awful and should not pass without comment. The question of whether the system should have to bend for this guy is different from the question of how smart he is.
I agree with you all in premise. But can’t we have a little “fair and balanced” commentary?
Ron Miller
http://www.marylandinjurylawyerblog.com
I hope, Ron, that you have by now encountered the online phrase “Don’t feed trolls” which loosely translates as “When someone makes an outrageous comment intended to hijack the discussion, ignore it rather than give him the satisfaction of responding, or else you’ll just encourage more of the same.”
Ah. Point well taken with respect to my former comment. I think my other comment about saying the guy is not smart probably is germane to the topic at hand.
What meant to say earlier is that if you are not smart enough to pass the bar than you don’t have the qualifications to become a lawyer. Since this guy didn’t pass the bar with accomadations that I don’t think he deserves than perhaps he isn’t smart enough.
I didn’t want to become a lawyer because I didn’t think I was smart enough for it. I just don’t know the law as good as others, and apparently neither does he.
The ADA was passed with the best of intentions, but it opened the door for gaming the system. We should ask ourselves how many people were helped vs. how many did it hurt and at what cost? My observations – no wheelchairs in any diner that I have been in; only one wheelchair in downtown White Planes NY in 12 years, and that for only 2 years; the access lawyers in California who sue small business to extort settlements; the instant case in this post, etc. – convince me that ADA should be revoked.
The ADA was passed with the best of intentions, but it opened the door for gaming the system.
William, you are giving Congress more credit than it deserves. When Congress refused to specify what would be covered by the law and explicitly left it up to the courts to decide what was a violation of the ADA, they invited these types of abuses. The law has done nothing for the people it was supposed to help. In fact, I have read that the percentage of disabled people that are working has actually gone down since the passage of the act. The ADA is nothing more that a full employment act for lawyers. I agree with you that the law should be (but of course will never be) repealed.
Oh please. To suggest that the ADA was an employment act for lawyers is just plain nonsense. There are so wonderful plaintiffs’ employment lawyers but this is not a lucrative field. Employment lawyers are not the ones buying baseball teams (again, caveat a small minority have had large successes but that is mostly class action). The lawyer handling this guy’s case is getting nothing or next to nothing. He is certainly not getting rich.
Virtually everyone agrees the ADA is often misapplied, often with claims of mental – as opposed to physical – handicaps. But if we are going to err, let’s err in favor of the less advantaged. That is just the hallmark of a civilized society.
No, Ron.
It’s the hallmark of a sucker.
“Won’t somebody think of the children!”
I would rather err in favor of the intent of the constitution-I believe that the judiciary was never intended to determine the extent of laws, just wether they are written correctly. Leaving it up to the judges allows different interpretations to come to pass than would be ratified if they went thru the legislature.
When the ADA was passed, it was specifically left to the “judges” to determine what the law meant. Leaving us with countless lawsuits all for the “less advantaged.”
The intellectual bar for becoming a lawyer is not that hard, especially with all the 3rd and 4th tier schools that will let in anyone with a pulse and a tuition check.
Well I am truly amazed at how sanctamonious and pious alll my fellow attorneys are! The main problem is that not a single one of you know the plaintiff and have taken absolutely no time to do what any GOOD attorney always does before rendering an opion, and that isto research the case.
The first thing that everyone needs to know is that Mr. Kelly graduated from an accredited law school, no not a tier one or two, but accreditted nontheless. Second, The West Virginnia Board of law examiners has patently mis-stated an important fact, that being “that they gave Mr. Kelly 3 days to complete the exam when in fact they only afforded him 2 very long days! For those of you that have hazy or fading memories of the bar exam try to tink back and REMEMBER how you felt at the end of each day (which were 7-7 1/2 hours in length including lunch) NOW TRY TO THINK HOW MR. KELLY FELT AFTER 2 10- 10 1/2 HOURS DAYS BACK TO BACK. Although the bar states that he was afforded 3 days he was actually given the (equivilent of three days not three actual days) I submit to anyone that 3 six hour days of testing is much easier to manage than 2 9 hour days of testing.
In closing I can only Pray that all of you hateful self-gratifying, perfect lawyers out there, one day get to experience some of the hardships that Mr. Kelly has endured and hopefully you will receive the same warm treatment that you have shown a brother in the law.
If your doctor needed special accomidations, you might not live long enough to sue.
If your lawyer needed special accomidations, you might not win a meritorious case against the doctor.
I have also heard of firefighters and police seeking accomidations for promotions for the inability to read or process information quickly. I hope thier flames and criminals also slow down to accomidate them.
The ADA has reduced employment because it is now riskier to hire someone with a disability, however, there is little risk in not hiring them in the first place (unless you announce the reason).
Legislators seem to forget that businesses hire people with the primary intent to make a profit. Anything that reduces a company’s expectation that hiring a person will help the company will clearly hurt the applicant.