Comments on: Needs four days to finish bar exam

By: CT_Yankee

CT_Yankee — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 02:18:24 +0000

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.

By: Greg

Greg — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 00:04:15 +0000

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.

By: Jim W

Jim W — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:25:18 +0000

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.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:36:13 +0000

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.”

By: Ron Miller

Ron Miller — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:05:36 +0000

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.

By: Richard Nieporent

Richard Nieporent — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 12:55:15 +0000

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.

By: William Nuesslein

William Nuesslein — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:59:33 +0000

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.

By: Adam

Adam — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 21:38:02 +0000

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.

By: Ron Miller

Ron Miller — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 21:14:46 +0000

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.

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 20:52:23 +0000

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.”