- law dawg
- 23 Comments
- 2064 Views
- Nevada Supreme Court orders removal of Judge Erika Ballou from case. [8NewsNow]
- Trump and Republicans file suit to nullify Nevada ballots mailed on Election Day. [Nevada Current]
- Biden campaign alleges RNC using Nevada lawsuits to so early doubt in election. [TNI]
- RJ agrees to turn over most data on slain reporter’s phone. [RJ]
From yesterdays discussion, I’ve found attending therapy once or twice a month to be hugely beneficial. Most therapists these days seem to do telehealth which makes it easier to schedule and I can just wfh that day. The biggest benefit to me has been learning healthier coping mechanisms and the importance of selfcare. Just learning how to better set boundaries with when I stop checking my emails for the night and developing an identity/hobbies outside of being a lawyer has been huge. I still struggle some days, and the job can definitely beat me up, but at least now I feel like I know how to handle it better.
Great point. Reminds me of the story from Simon Sinek about the Two Lumberjacks.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GL2mV5Jyziw
See also “Sharpening the Saw,” Stephen Covey’s 7th Habit of Highly Effective People,
One my goals right now is to have a firm cut off of 5:00 PM for work. Not to just merely stop working at 5:00 PM, but to give my mind a focus a total break from it. I already get up early to work, I don’t need it to be present from 5:00 PM – 9:00/10:00 PM every night too. My family needs that time and I too often don’t give it to them.
Its really so helpful. It took me a little while to get out of the habit of periodically checking my email throughout the night but once I got through it, its so nice to decompress for a few hours every day.
Turning off Outlook Notifications on my phone has been an absolute game changer for me. Discovered by accident when I did so at my wife’s request on a trip to Cancun last year. They never went back on.
I am fortunate enough to have reached the point where I can close Outlook entirely and send my business cell to voice mail between mid-afternoon Friday and mid-morning Monday.
There has been a lot of discussion about the changes to Nevada’s Bar Exam. The ADKT is 0594. The report was posted on April 2, 2024. The report is the last document 24-11608. Having trouble posting. Perhaps the Administrator can post or someone else can place it in the
Comments section. The report is quite voluminous. They have been engaged in a study with a task force since 2022.
Here are excerpts from the Task Force on changes to the bar exam-ADKT 0594. Document 24-11608.
RE: ADKT 0594 – Foundational Subject Requirement and Performance Test Implementation
Task Force and the Supervised Practice Task Force Joint Report
Dear Chief Justice Cadish and Associate Justices:
Enclosed for your consideration are two documents: (1) the Joint Report from the Foundational
Subject Requirement and Performance Test Implementation Task Force and the Supervised
Practice Task Force and (2) the Nevada Foundational Law Examination Proposed Content
Blueprint, as referenced in the Report.
The Task Forces believe that the recommendations in the Report would better protect the
public and be a more valid and fair assessment of lawyer competence, and that implementation
of the new process is highly feasible within the timeframe necessary to replace the existing bar
examination and reliance on the NCBE.
We greatly appreciate and thank the Court for its valuable time, input, and support. We are
available to answer any questions, meet with the Court, and/or provide whatever additional
information is needed to move forward on this important endeavor.
Respectfully Submitted,
Here is what the new Nevada Bar Exam is going to look like from the Exec Summary.
Execu�ve Summary: This Joint Report recommends restructuring the Nevada bar
examina�on as a three-step assessment. The Na�onal Conference of Bar
Examiners’ decision to discon�nue the Mul�state Bar Examina�on (MBE), which
forms an integral part of Nevada’s current bar exam, necessitates some change.
The integrated assessment we propose includes three components:
• The Founda�onal Law Examina�on, a 100-ques�on, closed-book, mul�plechoice exam tes�ng founda�onal concepts drawn from the seven subjects
currently tested on the MBE;
• A Lawyering Performance Examina�on, consis�ng of three 2-hour
performance tests like the ones Nevada currently administers; and
• A modest Supervised Prac�ce requirement, ensuring that applicants possess
lawyering competencies that are difficult to measure on writen exams.
Following best prac�ces for learning and assessment, candidates would complete
these components in stages. In addi�on, candidates would s�ll have to pass both
the Mul�state Professional Responsibility Exam (MPRE) and Nevada’s Character
and Fitness inquiry. The flow chart atached as Exhibit A explains how and when
candidates would meet each of these requirements. The Nevada Board of Bar
Examiners would con�nue to administer all components of the licensing process
under the direc�on of the Nevada Supreme Court.
The three-part assessment we propose, “Nevada’s Comprehensive Licensing
Examina�on,” would enhance the validity, fairness, and educa�onal effect of
Nevada’s licensing process, while maintaining its reliability and feasibility.
Adop�on of the Comprehensive Licensing Exam would put Nevada at the
forefront of lawyer licensing na�onally. Indeed, three other states have
expressed preliminary interest in following Nevada’s lead.
Why should we be at the “forefront”/guinea pig? Let some other states tinker around first, and we can watch how it plays out. Who cares if we are the first to change things??????
Some states will opt to keep the MBE. They created the MBE because bar examiners had a hard time writing exams. Then they created the MEE and MPT. I think we should give folks a choice. The new fangled bar exam in segments or one and your done. I would opt for one and your done. Give law grads a choice. Maybe the new fangled bar exam will help local law grads at Boyd so they will opt for that one.
The supervised practice requirement sounds like a PITA to administer. I give it 3-5 years before it becomes a total rubber stamp.
PITA, especially with A.I. If anything, artificial intelligence makes the current closed, timed format even more compelling.
Why is Nevada caught up with this movement to dismantle/abolish the bar exam? We have a state funded law school pumping out plenty of law grads who never leave. We have so many lawyers moving here. The bar exam has been tinkered with and made easier (i.e. fairer). Why tinker with and destroy something that works.
Let everyone in. That’s the take away. It is discouraging.
Did anyone even consider that the practicing bar should have input?
Sort of like the current “mentorship”?
Why on earth would we even consider testing professional competency at the student level
Legal education barely prepares a new associate for essential drafting skills, using client management software, hearing etiquette, or what to expect in negotiations. The vast majority of new associates are so afraid of litigating that any task beyond writing a memo becomes an adventure in hand-holding
Sorry for these question marks. This is what happened when the summary was cut and pasted from the ADKT 0594 and 24-11608. Encourage folks to read the Task Force report and hope that folks will comment on this to the Nevada Supremes. This is as big as the trust audits and mandatory malpractice insurance. This will change licensing dramatically and ultimately the profession.
Truly do not care that they’re getting rid of the bar. Very much looking forward to having a field day with gen z/alpha attorneys. Their incompetency will be so obvious. Makes my job a hell of a lot easier.
That’s not true. Most of the time, it’s more difficult to litigate against an incompetent attorney. Two good litigators work efficiently towards resolution, although they may be adverse. This will cost clients more, even (and especially) those that hire competent counsel.
This is actually a very good point. Maybe the settlement amount will be higher because they get to the points quickly, but the cost efficiency will outweigh saving $10K on the settlement amount easily. A good client/adjuster will realize that hopefully as well.
Yep, let’s make every case like a family law case, shouting and throwing around pointless and costly litigation.