Diploma privilege discussions have been ongoing for years, but this pandemic has given new life to the movement. Exam
A few states have introduced or passed legislation to grant diploma privilege to the class of 2020, while others have simply postponed the bar exam. These changes have created controversy within the legal community about the importance of attorney licensure exams and whether they protect the public.
A study examining nationwide bar exam, MPRE, and attorney discipline data reveals that there is no correlation between ethical violation rates and licensure exam stringency. Furthermore, the study found no correlation between ethical violation rates and years of experience. The author argues that if the bar exam and MPRE serve their stated purpose of protecting the public from incompetent representation, there would be less complaints and charges against attorneys.
Using data from annual reports filed by Illinois’ Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC), early career attorneys—those in practice less than five years—made up an average 12.5% of the attorney population but accounted for only an average 4.1% of investigations and 2.8% of sanctions. This evidence shows, according to the author, that more experienced attorneys are the majority in being charged and sanctioned. Data from 2014-18 bar passage rates, MPRE cut scores, complaints against attorneys, and disciplinary sanctions for all fifty states revealed no correlation between bar passage rates and measures of ethical violations and/or between MPRE cut scores and measures of ethical violations.
This data reveals a counter to the argument that these exams serve a protective function for the public. Additionally, there is the possibility of underreporting, potentially skewing the data and showing that state reporting systems are not doing their part in protecting the public.
