Conn. Tribal Court Drops Mandatory Bar Exam

One of Connecticut's tribal courts is seeking to significantly increase the number of lawyers who practice before it -- by getting rid of a mandatory bar exam.

The Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Court has required a written exam for nearly 20 years. The idea behind the test, Chief Judge Thomas Londregan said, was to make sure lawyers knew the differences between the law in state court and tribal court.

But the exam was having an unintended consequence. To ensure that new lawyers were aware of the differences between state and tribal laws and court protocols, the test morphed from a short open-book test to a two-hour ordeal. As a result, fewer people were passing the test and fewer people were sitting for it.

"We have 33 titles of law spanning two full volumes, so it just started to became a daunting task to read and prepare for a written exam," Londegran said.

"There were a lot of lawyers who wanted to practice here but they did not want to spend the time to study for another bar exam," he said. "They did that once in their career and they didn't have the desire to do that again after 10 or 20 years of practicing law. And quite frankly, I don't blame them."

He expects to see more new lawyers now.

Ed Gasser, who is president of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Court Bar Association, and runs an insurance defense practice in Avon, said the high bar exam failure rate was causing the small tribal bar to stagnate. While the overall Connecticut Bar Exam pass rate last year for the much more involved, two-day test was 77 percent, the tribal bar exam passage rate was less than 50 percent.

"I'm not saying we don't have great lawyers practicing, we do," he said, referring to the tribal bar. "But having more lawyers in tribal court would be beneficial."

With the impediment of a written exam removed, he expects the number of attorneys who practice before the court to increase by 50 percent. Instead of 200 lawyers arguing cases in the court, there could soon be 300, Gasser said.

"I think that would be a good thing," he said. "I know a number of very good attorneys who have said they won't practice before the tribal court because the bar exam has become so difficult."

Subscribe to The Connecticut Law Tribune

You must be signed in to comment on an article

Sign In or Subscribe
">

Mandatory Retirement Policy Prompts Weil Partner to Move to K&L Gates

Mary Korby, a longtime partner at Weil, Gotshal & Manges in Dallas, joined K&L Gates' Dallas office as a partner on January 1.

Korby says she moved to K&L Gates because she had reached Weil Gotshal's mandatory retirement age and wanted to continue to practice law.

"Their philosophy is: If you don't push more mature partners out the door, you don't have room for the younger to come up. I was not at all ready to quit, so I ended up at K&L," says Korby, a transactional lawyer who chaired Weil Gotshal's associate compensation committee until August 2012.

Korby says she considered several firms for the next chapter of her practice, but K&L Gates has a "really incredible" network of offices overseas, which fits with her cross-border work.

"It was the international scope and also just the depth of expertise across the various practice areas. There are, what, 2,000-plus attorneys here," Korby says.

Korby joined K&L Gates' Dallas office with commercial litigator T. Gregory Jackson, who came from Geary, Porter & Donovan in Dallas.

Jackson says it is a good move for his practice because he has clients that "have needs on a national basis."

"I see it as a way to expand my practice and be able to retain matters that my clients have on a more national basis," he says.

Neither Jackson nor Korby would identify clients they brought with them to K&L Gates, which has 46 offices.

Craig Budner, administrative partner in Dallas for K&L Gates, says the firm is thrilled to have Korby and Jackson in its partner ranks. He says Korby adds international transactional expertise, and Jackson has done a lot of oil and gas litigation, which is an area K&L Gates wants to strengthen.

Subscribe to Texas Lawyer

You must be signed in to comment on an article

Sign In or Subscribe
">

Conn. Task Force Working to Bridge Impasse Over Mandatory Legal Education

The chair of a new task force that is examining whether to bring mandatory legal education to Connecticut ended his first meeting by handing out a homework assignment. "I want both sides of the argument to come in with some ideas that might allow us to bridge that gap," Superior Court Judge Elliot N. Solomon said.

Connecticut remains one of five states without mandatory, or minimum as it is now called, continuing legal education, and members of the state bar seem to be deeply divided on the issue. Solomon and 11 others were appointed by Chief Justice Chase Rogers to serve on the task force whose creation was suggested by the Superior Court Rules Committee.

The mission of the task force, which met in early October, is to try to determine what the costs and benefits of a statewide MCLE program would be, to seek ways to break the current impasse and then to go to the Rules Committee with recommendations.

It won't be easy. "Among the 11 people who were at that meeting, it broke down to six [for] and five [against]," Solomon said.

The task force is comprised of 10 lawyers from various practice groups and levels of experience. Solomon and Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis represent the bench. Other task force members declined to be interviewed, saying Solomon spoke for the group.

Earlier this year, the Rules Committee tabled the latest of several proposals for MCLE brought by the Connecticut Bar Association. The decision to delay action was based on concerns by opponents that the cost of MCLE would be too onerous for young lawyers and those in small firms.

Those concerns are still being raised, but Solomon isn't focusing on them. He wants to hear from other task force members about their own specific concerns and possible resolutions. He wants more information from task force members who support MCLE about how it might improve legal competence, performance and client service. Then he wants to hear "the best arguments on why we shouldn't have MCLE."

Solomon is well aware of the possibility that the task force might not be able to reach a consensus. Part of the equation, he said is timing. "Look, the Hartford County Bar is one of the oldest bar associations in the country, and they had 200 years to raise the issue of mandatory CLE. So raising it at a time when the economy is tough on everybody may not be the best time to raise it. I don't know where it's going, but we're going to have to do our research and report back to the Rules Committee."

SELF-STUDY, SEMINARS

The Connecticut Bar Association proposal would require lawyers to annually certify in writing that they had taken 36 hours of continuing legal education in the past three years. Some 21 of those hours would have to be in self-study, and the remainder from more formal classes and seminars. While the proposal was endorsed by the Connecticut Bar Association's House of Delegates, there was loud opposition by many over whether the cost of classes, which can run up to $900 each, would harm young lawyers and solo practitioners. Others said they wanted to see evidence that MCLE in other states has reduced the rates of attorney malpractice.

Subscribe to The Connecticut Law Tribune

You must be signed in to comment on an article

Sign In or Subscribe
">