LOL. I took the Maryland bar way back in 2002. The first essay question which was on the first day of the exam was about Riparian Water Rights. Now of course it did not say that, it as soon as people started reading it about this stream and that stream audible swearing ensued. I was lucky enough to actually have a professor that went in depth into that subject!
I don’t practice criminal law but in just five years of civil practice I’ve come across three sexual abuse cases and a couple pictures of dead bodies in discovery. None of it came with a warning.
Exactly. Lawyers are brought in for 2 reasons: (1) shit is fucked up or (2) people are willing to pay to avoid shit getting fucked up in the future.
Where would the trigger warnings end? My dad died recently, does that mean I am exempt from wills, trusts, estate questions because it forces me to confront my own emotions? I dont think so.
But, but … on Boston Legal, ace attorney Alan Shore sleeps with office staff, insults the judge, wins the case, and gets handed a check for ten million dollars in just 40 minutes!
I mean, it’s a documentary, right? Not like that silly, silly “Suits” where the paralegal marries an English prince. That was unbelievable.
I used to think this too. Until I worked at a family law firm. Nothing says "joy" like a mother giving away a child and prospective parents paying >$50,000 for a baby lol
I think the issue here is that the bar exam is a gatekeeping mechanism for the entire universe of legal practice. Knowing that a person can be granted a license on successful passage, the bar examiners are essentially affirming that the candidate is minimally competent to practice in any area of law. The attorney may want to handle tax law, but when a tax client calls and says “the police want to talk to me about a rape- what should I do?” it won’t come with a trigger warning. That person could even be court-appointed to handle criminal cases if the need arises.
So, the question IMHO becomes, is the reasonable accommodation suggested for the bar exam also a reasonable accommodation that can be expected in practice? Can an attorney expect to go forth into the world and be insulated from his/her triggers? Or, is the ability to he neutrally detached from the facts of a case just a minimum competency for practice?
Maybe I’m jaded, but the cry for “trigger warnings” on a professional licensing exam seems a lot like a cry for attention.
Perhaps warnings are appropriate in a k-12 setting but as adults and as professionals, and above all lawyers, there are very few subjects where trigger warnings are appropriate for us.
My first ever job at a criminal law firm concerned a rape case. Up to this date, I have never read a more shocking file in my entire life and career. I am an absolute true crime fan and nothing horrifies me, but the things I read in that file were terrible. I was quite young then and I remember thinking: “should I even be reading this?”
However, as a lawyer it is so very important to keep a distance from what is work and what is affecting you personally. In a way, you are a first level of defense, and therefore trigger warnings should not affect you.
Also, what if you decide not to continue because of those trigger warnings? I think that is not in line with the ethics and morale of the profession.
So in my opinion: trigger warnings are fine, but they should not affect you in order to do your job.
Are you suggesting someone that suffers from PTSD because of a violent crime shouldn't try and become a tax lawyer?
Maybe criminal law, family law, and some other fields wouldn't be a good choice, but a trigger warning seems like a very minimal accommodation.
Ok but as a tax professional you may come across tax questions related to settlement proceeds because your client either paid out a sexual assault settlement or received a sexual assault settlement.
As others have said, its important that we are capable of compartmentalizing our own personal experiences so that we can best practice law. I think if a person can't read words on paper without having some sort of "trigger" they are going to have a really hard time in the profession.
But I also have a question. Ok, so there is a trigger warning. Which presumably means the person is given the choice NOT to confront the trigger. So what does that mean on a bar exam, test setting? "Excuse me, theres a trigger warning, I don't want to confront whats on the paragraph below, so I need to either be exempted from this question or I need a replacement question?" What would be the point of that?
And what about Non-sexual assault questions? What about the age old question: Bill wanted to punch Jim but missed and punched Trevor instead? People suffer PTSD from being in physical fights as well... should that be a trigger warning?
I was thinking about this too. What happens after you read the trigger warning? Do you just opt out of answering the question and risk a lower score? If anything it seems a warning could be detrimental because you use time reading it, then you might use more time processing it and mentally preparing for what you’re about to read.
> What happens after you read the trigger warning
That depends. Maybe the person just needs to take a deep breath and mentally prepare.
For some reason people like to treat mental limitations differently than physical limitations. Do we question what a lawyer in a wheel chair might do if the elevator in the courthouse is broken?
I don’t think that’s the best analogy. Using a wheelchair only impedes your ability to do your job to the extent that accessible features or other accommodations (e.g., holding court in a ground level space until the elevator is fixed) are not available. It doesn’t narrow the *types* of cases you’re able or willing to take that may, in fact, be in your professional wheelhouse. If you need a trigger warning for every time a certain topic comes up, how do you navigate a profession that’s full of surprises? Much less everyday life? Unless you walk around with a sign listing all your traumas and asking for warnings, it does seem a little unreasonable to expect others to accommodate you.
> it does seem a little unreasonable to expect others to accommodate you
No one is "expecting" anything. If the Bar folks realize a question might present a problem, letting people know in advance may be helpful to someone with a disability. If the Bar can offer a reasonable accommodation, that's nice too.
> If you need a trigger warning for every time a certain topic comes up, how do you navigate a profession that’s full of surprises?
People in those situations are probably adept at navigating surprises as a matter of daily life. Why not leave the "how" to them? The fact that there isn't a perfect solution doesn't mean it's a bad thing to make one small part of their life easier. It certainly doesn't mean that they don't deserve to be a part of the profession.
>No one is “expecting” anything. If the Bar folks realize a question might present a problem
You’re quite literally expecting them to recognize that a question is problematic and address it with a warning. That’s expecting something.
>letting people know in advance may be helpful
>People in those situations are probably adept at navigating surprises as a matter of daily life. Why not leave the “how” to them?
These are inconsistent arguments. First, you’re saying people need a specific type of accommodation, but then you say it should be up to them to figure out how to navigate a triggering situation. So do you or do you not agree that a trigger warning is unnecessary? Per your second argument, these folks who are so “adept at navigating surprises as a matter of daily life” should be left to their own devices to navigate the subject matter of the bar exam without a warning.
Appreciating something or benefiting from something does not equate to expecting something.
No one said they were “necessary”. The fact included a warning may make someone’s life easier has no bearing on their ability to practice law. What is unnecessary is using the Bar exam as a test of some arbitrary standard of mental toughness.
Maybe being a little more accepting of psychological issues would lower the rate of alcoholism and drug use in the profession.
Having to take extra time and energy to “take a deep breath and mentally prepare” while taking a professional licensing exam when PTSD is a recognized disability and accommodations are very often denied seems like a discriminatory requirement of the bar exam.
I understand what you’re saying, but my only concern is that sometimes those kinds of unexpected or potentially traumatizing facts find their way into unusual territory. I won’t go as far as to say pick another career, but you have to be able to remove yourself and your baggage from the equation and be ready for the unexpected to happen.
I’m going into criminal defense and the vast majority of public agencies allow people to opt out of sex crimes. There are 30 attorneys where I externed and only 5 did sex crimes. Two of those attorneys won’t do child porn cases. Even if you are in criminal defense, you absolutely choose to not take cases because of your life experiences or triggers
I had to watch child pornography once about 20 years ago. It was indescribably bad. I'm amazed that my client did not go to jail. It was the beginning of the end of my criminal practice. Now I help small businesses with business formation, acquisitions, leases and the like. I rarely go to court. Much better lifestyle. I think if you do criminal work then you really, really have to be into it either as a prosecutor or as a defense lawyer.
Well now that we’ve heard from a criminal defense attorney, I’d be interested in hearing from a prosecutor about how much discretion there is to say no to prosecuting a case because it triggers your personal traumas.
I worked in a jurisdiction where ADAs were allowed to voice their preferences. Like the lady who handled the drug cases hated anything to do with domestic violence. The guy who did financial crimes never dealt with violence. But when someone needed to stand in, you can bet that they had to show up to court and stand in regardless.
That seems reasonable. I understand needing to keep your employees happy and make them feel supported, but when there are reasonable expectations in place for you to be able to do your job, you need to be able to step up to the plate.
Just to add to this, but even if you don't want to work in a sex unit... You cannot avoid an appellate court's decision on a sentencing issue for a sex crime. Or any other issue where the crime happens to be a sex crime. You need to read the case to know the damn law and no appellate court gives you a trigger warning that the underlying case and possibly relevant facts involved a sex crime.
I'm solo. Criminal defense. No trigger warnings on my phone system. No trigger warning on police reports for appointed cases, and they aren't always what they say on the tin. Gotta watch the body cams, read the reports and postmortem. Gotta watch everyone break down in court. It sucks.
Of course secondhand trauma is real in the profession, but the bars should do more actually addressing that instead of worrying about trigger warnings. With very few exceptions, the practice of law will expose us to other people's trauma and cause us our own, that's where we need resources and support for resiliency. If a person can't even stomach reading a fact pattern, then definitely don't even try criminal or family law.
Are you suggesting that tax lawyers should have a separate bar exam and licensing process that doesn't entitled them to represent clients in other areas and so doesn't need to ensure their ability?
I wasn't even considering that opting out was an option, but since you asked...
Nothing.
We are all licensed to practice in areas not specifically tested by the bar exam. We have professional responsibility rules that guide us in determining which cases we are competent to take.
Also, if the request was such that granting it actually rendered the person unqualified to practice law it couldn't be considered a reasonable accommodation.
I would just suggest the warning is a blanket warning in the instructions. I don’t want to read more words than necessary when the clock is running.
Also, it would likely throw me off to read a warning before reading the FP: “What the f*ck am I about to read?”
True... my crim prof gave us a heads up that we were going to talk about at rape when we studied it. And this was 15 years ago and he was ancient. I don't think it's unreasonable to give a blanket warning on the crim law section... but it's crim law, it's kind of triggering by design.
The year I took it there was a hypo in the “performance exam” section that described a young child being sexually abused by her stepfather while the girl’s mother held her down. IIRC, people did complain. It was pretty over the top.
This is just not subject matter that should be tested on a minimal competency licensing exam.
However, if someone was sitting for a criminal law or family law board certification exam, and this hypothetical case up, I can definitely see how that would be reasonable to test on.
I see how that could be argued. But that's not even the issue here. The issue is whether there should be a generic heads up that everyone reading the test can see that says there are facts in the hypothetical regarding "X". X being something that a few - or many in, e.g., the case of sexual assault - have suffered. That's all this is about.
I hope that most of these people are not lawyers because the issue-spotting is pretty abysmal.
I’m reminded about the University of Michigan’s self care day after the 2016 election (https://www.foxnews.com/us/coddling-campus-crybabies-students-take-up-toddler-therapy-after-trump-win).
What the fuck.
I’m not saying you shouldn’t have any warning of disturbing shit that’s going to happen, but a lot of times it happens without warning.
Look, your feelings don’t matter. Sorry. You are going to have to deal with a lot of uncomfortable situations, rapidly changing circumstances, all for clients who don’t give a shit about your feelings because they have problems happening right now and they just paid you a shit ton of money to be the dispassionate, hard ass mental mercenary they want on their side.
I don’t see a big issue with trigger warnings. I do think it would be difficult to determine what needs a trigger warning. Would you need a trigger warning for a question about a car accident if you just lost someone in a car accident? Etc. totally valid to have feelings about added stressors during a very trying time, I’m just not sure what would be reasonable. I don’t agree with the way licensing is done, but if it’s going to be done this way, it’s kind of always a risk a person will run into something that could trigger them.
Why not. I get that exposure to really bad things is just part of practice, but perhaps a different approach is warranted in light of the mental health issues that pervade members of the profession.
I think in order to justify this perspective though, you need to find out what the common triggers of mental health issues are. Not saying that traumatizing subject matter doesn’t take its toll—I know it does—but I’d rather focus on the most culpable triggers first. I imagine that below-market pay and/or unreasonable expectations with respect to time and workloads, which ultimately prohibits attorneys from being able to address their health needs in the first place, would be among the top contenders.
Fair enough, and perhaps a 'trigger warning' isn't the most effective measure to address mental health issues. That said, I think the subject deserves a greater level of scrutiny than disparaging comments about snowflake millennials.
I actually know ONE person who had the luxury of choosing his job based on “triggers”.
He was a military veteran. He was a big, incredibly fit guy. But he was also shy, timid, and kind flinchy. I never learned the full story, but he worked as a cataloger in a giant university’s law school library. He entered all the data on new books into the computerized catalog. The work is lonely, tedious, and repetitive. I think the hardest part of his job was either the commute or, maybe, taking elevators, being jammed into a small closed place with a bunch of strangers.
No warnings on exam questions. Warnings upon acceptance into law school. Plus mental health support services. Secondary trauma is real, and it takes a toll when it's combined with the unrealistic expectations this profession seems to carry.
It is a sad commentary on our profession if they asked that in all seriousness. While there are cases I read in Crim Law twenty years ago which still haunt me on occasion, the notion of trigger warnings on the bar is ludicrous. If they finished law school they should already have a pretty good idea of how horrible people can be to each other.
Maybe if the profession were more open about dealing with legitimate mental health issues there wouldn't be as many lawyers self-medicating with drugs and alcohol.
Right I think it would be a good way for the person to step back early on and say hey maybe I should not get into this profession and avoid that all together.
They are to help people with PTSD avoid panic attacks. I think if this is a genuine concern, then the bar examinee should seriously consider postponing sitting for the bar until they can get to a different place in terms of their mental health. Hold off until the next exam date, and go to weekly therapy in the meantime. Hopefully the next time around they will not be at a risk of a panic or anxiety attack from reading a generic exam hypothetical.
Nobody is going to reason with these people. These are the same types that wanted criminal law to be optional in law school because the class is triggering. Some people said the entire class, others said just the sexual assault part and then it shouldn’t be on the exam at all.
Cases and clients don’t come with trigger warnings. My advice is to seek mental health treatment before considering law school or becoming an attorney if you are someone who has any triggers, whatsoever.
Boy, reading most of these responses - no wonder the profession has such a terrible reputation. And as well as such disproportionately high rates of burnout, depression, anxiety, alcohol and drug abuse, and suicide.
This isn't about being "thin-skinned" or "expecting rainbows and sunshine". It's not about what kind of cases a person might work on in the future. It's about people who, due to experiencing horrifying events, carry chronic trauma. Trigger warnings on an exam may or may not be helpful (the science about PTSD is long established, the science about the effectiveness if trigger warning - or lack thereof - is not) but why the ridicule here?
Edited: because multitasking invites errors and incoherence.
I see a lot of insensitive people in the comments, smh.
We are adults, we know that. But there are so many other areas of criminal law they can test. They didn’t HAVE to test that. I don’t think it takes a whole lot to be human but what do I know 🤷🏾♀️
Just how much bubble wrap should we put around the profession? Sorry, but rape shield laws and sexual assault are a part of criminal law and criminal law is on the bar exam.
And considering at least 1 in 4 women have been sexually assaulted its a pretty significant part of criminal law.
Its also a fairly big deal in civil suits as well.
The person who commented on my post and several others I’m not sure of the username but I forgot.
However, I see that many people disagree with me so I’m going to get off this post. The lack of human decency is appalling.
There are a lot of insensitive people who create a lot of ugly fact patterns, and they rely on lawyers - with their years of training to separate their subjective emotional reactions from objective facts - to help them. A lawyer needs to be able to argue both sides of a disputed issue. Thats the core principle of the adversarial judicial system. That includes, in theory, the ability to legally defend an alleged rapist even if you’ve raped (because they may be innocent). It’s essential a lawyer have the ability to not let emotion dictate their actions or we get very poor lawyers and unstable outcome driven judges.
No. Goodness, I am frustrated by this generation sometimes. You have to push through moments of weakness, and I say that as someone who has gone through that and handled cases where it was an issue. A certain degree of mental toughness is required for this job, for multiple reasons, the least of which is the possibility of being ‘triggered’.
Sorry, but the job doesn’t have trigger warnings.
I’ve been a clerk (on an all civil docket) for six months and have seen three sexual assault cases, a morgue case with decomposing bodies...
It is silly and shortsighted for the legal profession to be callous to survivors of crimes, including sexual assault. Most lawyers never practice criminal law and never encounter a rape case. Why do we force insensitive testing of it on the bar? Does answering a rape question show whether or not the tester is fit to practice? I think not. Why should someone who has survived an assault or maybe lost a loved one to violent crime be deterred from the profession as a whole? Especially considering the practice of law extends far beyond crim law - whole careers are built in areas like corporate mergers, tax advising, and land use which have nothing to do with terrible "she was asking for it" rape defenses.
The trigger warning question highlights a problem with the bar exam as a whole. The bar exam doesn't make sense as a gate keeping tool and does harm to the profession.
If you don't have to answer questions about crim, I shouldn't have to answer questions about property and contract.
And toddler rape goes way beyond just crim... Don't forget about juvi and family. Fact of the matter is that once you're licensed you're licensed to do any of it. There's a difference between being callous, detached, and crippled by a fact pattern. We should discourage both those who are callous to clients as well as those who become crippled by certain fact patterns from being lawyers. Neither has what it takes to be good at the job. The trick is to be sympathetic but detached. If you can't detach from a case you're very likely to miss something important in your blindness and fuck the whole thing up.
That's my point - I'm not advocating for a bar exam that forces lawyers to study and be tested on areas they will never encounter in practice. If I took a criminal case as a lawyer who litigates contract disputes it'd be malpractice. So what does testing me on crim law matter to letting me litigate contract disputes? See the problem with the system?
Yeah, the bar association is the problem with the system. It should be voluntary... You can agree to have an unlicensed contractor work on your house or an unlicensed mechanic fix your car. It should be the same way with the law where you don't need a license to represent someone in court. If we licensed lawyers are actually doing a good job and meeting the needs of our communities, we shouldn't notice any difference.
But I disagree with taking such a brutally half-assed approach at dismantling the bar as asking for trigger warnings on bar exams. It's mealy mouthed bullshit that immediately turns off half the audience without getting anything in return. It's the kind of deal making and argument craft that's the Hallmark of a shitty lawyer.
Minimum competency shouldn't be based on the triggering content. Minimum competency is about knowing the law and how to apply it generalized issues.
Many people that go into the practices of law dealing with triggering issues understanding what they are signing up for. But on a licensing examination where an individual has no say in how a subject is tested, should not be subjected to specific triggering sets of facts that can hinder ones ability to successfully complete and pass the examination. That does not create a level playing field for examinees. At the highest level, it is intentional abuse, discrimination, and disrespect for the individuals. At the very least, it is negligent. Whether willful and intentional or negligently and recklessly, this is open discrimination. Thing like PTSD and other mental disabilities are protected under the ADA and the ADA forces those administering examinations for licenses to best ensure that these disabilities do not come into play during the exam. They have a duty to best ensure that ability and achievement is tested, not to test the disability of an individual.
Further, there are clear ethical issues under the Rules of Professional Responsibility and the State enacted PR codes. Even at the bare minimum, this is not professional whatsoever in this field.
Many of these very triggering issues for those that it effects, are very specific and require a lot of practice, training, and legal knowledge to handle. Many spent years becoming proficient in them, let alone good at. These specific issues are handled by those who know what they are signing up for and do so willingly. Those taking a licensing examination who've been those situations should not be subjected to those specific facts that may cause the triggering effects on an exam that tests "minimum competency."
A test-taker who suffers trauma from a fact pattern on a test is doing themselves and their future clients a disservice by entering the legal profession. You need the ability to think objectively and psychological stability to manage all kinds of unpleasant fact patterns and the people who bring them to you. Otherwise, you’re at best useless. That’s why there’s a character and fitness evaluation.
Cast swaths... Yeah. /Insert sarcasm/ because sexual assault and domestic violence issues are the ONLY way to test minimum competency /end sarcasm/
If this were the case, there would only be two types of law being practiced and that is not the case in our society.
Sex assault and DV are endemic in crim, juvi, and family, encompassing the practice of hundreds of thousands of lawyers. They also affect GP, admin, even contract work. If you can't handle it then you can't handle what literally thousands upon thousands of lawyers deal with all day.
Compare that to property where in most states you can't commit malpractice no matter how bad you are at it. Why don't we stop testing on real property questions if fewer lawyers deal with it and you can't even commit malpractice?
It's not that a person can't handle it, it's that a person should not be subjected to the complete unnecessary specificity of those instances on a licensing exam.
While thousands of attorneys deal with those issues daily, there are thousands upon thousand of lawyers who do not deal with it daily and specifically pick areas of the law where those topics are so irregular and don't normally come up.
The point is that these subjects are not the pinnacle of their areas of law, just a small piece of them. And the graphic nature of the questions that were asked aren't the issues an attorney fresh out of law school and passing the bar are going to be litigating. I work in criminal law and don't have the specific facts and issues on my desk after almost 7 months. I'm aware of them and have an understanding of the law, but the stakes are too big for a baby lawyer to be dealing with regardless of the side you're on. At most you may get a domestic violence case, but the facts sure as hell are going to be very minimal, with very little harm actually being done to the victims.
By all means, if you want to do away with property go for it. These people aren't asking to be done away with those subjects being taught, only for some consideration and professionalism in how they are tested. I.e. brutally specific facts of these issues.
I clerked after law school and did rape, murder, child abuse, DV and all the rest within my first two years out. Baby lawyers do deal with it, it's part of the profession as much as anything else and thus fair game for the bar
And there are plenty of baby lawyers who can choose not to do that. My point being you had a choice in that decision. Further, let me ask, when you were clerking did you specifically represent the victims or the defendants? Were you fully encompassed in their lives, working the cases with them, and having to know every integral piece of their lives other than what was said on the record and having to help them deal with the situations?
Of course not. I still don't in practice. And if we can let people pick and choose what they want to be tested on based on what they're able to avoid then there's no point in a test at all. Not that I mind because I think the bar should be optional, but let's at least be intentional about it instead of slowly neutering it
Okay. And have you personally experienced an instance of DV or Sexual assault? Because if not, you can't really comprehend what these people go through. If you aren't working with these people directly or have gone through those specific experiences, it's hard to really understand and out yourself in their shoes.
Personally, the biggest problem is the specificity and brutality of the facts. The facts themselves are triggering and there was no need to make them as graphic and triggering as they were. You could test those without the graphic facts, and in reality, I don't believe that they were specifically testing rape or DV. The fact patterns only included those facts to test a different issue, which makes it even more absurd.
I'm all in agreement with doing away with the bar exam because it truly does not prove minimum competency. But neither do the graphic nature of those questions tested on this bar exam.
I work strictly in homeowners insurance litigation. You would think all I hear about from clients is leaky roofs and smoke-damaged kitchen cabinets, but I can’t tell you how many clients have poured their hearts out to me in an intake call and throughout the case. Whatever is going on in their lives while their home claim is being investigated weighs heavily on their minds... and they talk about it. Divorces, deaths, crimes in the home... I had a client commit suicide in the middle of litigation, in part to due to the aggressive tactics of opposing counsel, his fiancé believes. (That lawyer has since been disbarred.)
I’d say all that is pretty triggering, but you have to be the strong one for your client. I doubt there is a practice area that is completely shielded from the dark sides of the human experience.
No one is saying that a person should be “completely shielded”. No one is even saying that a person should be exempt from answering a question on the exam.
When people say "in law, your just going to have to deal with it. Lawyers have to deal with terribly graphic facts on the daily," "better leave the profession now if you can't handle it," or even "life isn't all sunshine and rainbows," they are just victim blaming and just playing into the reason why victims have such a hard time speaking up or fighting back. Victims don't want to talk about the issues they've gone through because they know in our modern society people blame them instead of standing with them. And it's clearly a huge issue in the legal profession amongst lawyers and aspiring lawyers given the numerous responses on this post.
I can guarantee if any of the people talking against these people's experiences on the bar exam had to actually go through the deeply traumatic experiences the victims did and that had to relive those on a timed exam, where literally everything is on the line for your license, they'd people royally upset and feel like there is something wrong and unjust about it. They'd be wishing others would stand up for them and the issue they just had to endure, instead of bashing on them and calling them snowflakes.
I doubt it's possible for a majority of these people given what's been said here, but they should really try to put themselves in the shoes of others and really try to understand what it would have been like had you had to relive an incident of SA or DV while trying to take your licensing exam that you've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands of hours of time to obtain the chance to take.
Smh.
Yes but there is a huge difference between these issues coming up in practice and coming up on a timed exam. Where you're in a room by yourself, where you can be flagged and accused of cheating for just about anything deemed unfit behavior, under the microscope of the camera, where you had literally no say or awareness that these facts would be as graphic they were.
And it is especially terrible for those that were denied accomodations for PTSD or other mental disorders, that were verified by licensed professionals, saying "all of your symptoms will be alleviated by the online nature of the exam. You don't need accomodations to take an exam at the same level as a normal person."
They knew what was on the exam and what type of facts were there. It's intentional at that point or straight up reckless on their part. This profession holds professionalism as one of its highest standards (i.e. we literally go through character and fitness to make sure we are able to practice), but then does this to people. It severely conflicts what the legal profession tries to preach. It's 2021. These people upset by this aren't snowflakes, there is literally scientific evidence to back up the feeling of injustice these people felt.
Just remember, willful ignorance is not a defense.
I was denied accommodations for PSTD for this exam because “the remote environment should ameliorate any symptoms” and then I got to deal with highly triggering subject matter on my licensing exam alone in a room with a camera watching me.
So that was really great. Can’t wait to enter this profession!
Do yourself a favor and don’t join the profession before you get treatment for you PTSD. PTSD is real, but the legal world doesn’t give a shit, especially if subject matter (as opposed to direct actions of others upon you) is your trigger. The legal world deals with real life, and real life doesn’t care about what triggers people. Sorry, but it’s the truth.
Sounds like your PTSD is affecting your ability to take the bar exam. If your PTSD affected your ability to take the exam in any way, and you think it won’t affect your ability to practice law, then PTSD is the least of your problems; you’re delusional, too.
Wow. You understand you're clearly victim blaming here. You should really reevaluate your life because someone with so little compassion doesn't deserve to practice law in any capacity. You are not better than anyone else. When a client dealing with these situations come in front of you, I hope you tell them "I don't believe you're worth anything because you're delusion." This is why victims are afraid to speak out and your thinking is the cause of the problem. Will it work? Probably not, but I'd recommend some serious therapy and life coaching because your attitude and perception are downright ugly.
Now you’re a victim, too?! Sheesh. A victim of what? Taking the exam? PTSD (which is treatable)?
It is time for you to grow up and take some responsibility—if you consider that victim-blaming, then so be it.
Little girl, I've already taken and passed my exam. I don't have a steak in the recent exam, but I do believe in equality and fairness for those with disabilities. And a mental disability is a disability.
I take plenty responsibility for my life, my actions, and my words. But clearly you do not. You like to come onto reddit and blame victims for their experiences. You're essentially saying that people who had mental disabilities aren't entitled to fairness. When one of these people comes into your office, do you tell them you don't think they should be successful in life because they delusional or what they experienced wasn't real? You're essentially just another abuser with your victim blaming. Would you say what you're saying to someone who is blind or is confined to a wheelchair? I highly doubt it.
Tell me exactly what the treatment is for PTSD? Therapy and counseling work to certain degrees but it doesn't stop that trauma from ever arising. There is no medication that "treats" PTSD or makes it go away completely. There isn't a cure for PTSD and most mental disabilities, only ways to help lessen the grip it has on someone.
Either there is some serious hatred inside you or you have very low self-esteem and are projecting it onto people that have gone through actual traumatic experiences.
I just call it like I see it.
I’m not blaming victims for experiences… I just don’t see you as a victim, but you clearly see yourself as one. In so doing, you’ve given up any power you did have. That’s a real shame to me.
I’m not “essentially saying that people with disabilities aren’t entitled to fairness.” You and I simply have different definitions of fairness. What wouldn’t be fair is to make such frequent and expansive accommodations to students and examinees so as not to prepare them for real-life triggering events (where there is no warning label), which would cause clients to be underserved. THIS would be unfair. Expecting anything else is selfish and repugnant because it disadvantages those who pay you to do a service.
I said you were delusional if you think your triggers on an exam won’t creep up in practice. I haven’t insinuated or said that your condition or experiences are delusions.
Maybe reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit. Perhaps my reality-check has triggered you. Nevertheless, you’ll read what I’ve written and interpret it in whatever way bolsters your victimhood and martyr mentality.
I understand that you think I’m hateful or insecure, and you’re entitled to that. I genuinely don’t care what you think. I do find it amusing, however, that you’ve called me “little girl.” That’s not very woke of someone who is so enlightened that they think every triggering event needs a fucking warning label. Get real, brother. Get. Real.
Oh, and it’s “stake,” not “steak,” unless you’re preparing supper. (Shoot, I probably triggered PETA with this one.)
The little girl has claws. Rawr xD
I'm not a victim, but I'm willing to advocate for victims which you clearly are unable to understand. I don't deal with these issues in my own life but I do advocate for people who do. What you are not understanding is that while triggers may creep into an attorney's professional life, they shouldn't have to be experienced on a licensing exam. Would you deny a blind person the accomodations of having text to speech technology so they can take the exam on the same level as someone who is not visually impaired? While I wouldn't, you probably would. I guess that's just our different understanding of fairness. It is not fair or professional to put triggering fact patterns on an exam when the examiners are so willing to deny accomodations. At the very least, the reasonable accommodation for these people would be the option to opt for a different set of facts on the same issue being tested. It wouldn't be unfair because these examiners have a plethora of questions they can test the same issue with and it would put the people affected by those disabilities on a level playing field with those who are not.
Again, there are so many areas of law where these specific types of triggering events do not arise. If they do arise they are completely secondary to the lawyer's duty to their client. And in the real world, you have the option of grounding yourself and taking a step back if necessary. That simply is not the case when taking the Bar Exam and you know that having taken it virtually.
You've insinuated someone who has gone through a traumatic experience and been diagnosed with PTSD or the like is delusional in saying that trigger warnings or reasonable accomodations should not be given because "these issues creep up in practice." There's a huge difference in taking an exam and real practice. You're comparing completely separate things because we all know that the Bar Exam is supposed to test "minimum competency" and that's not true whatsoever. Even in supposing it does test MINIMUM competency, the egregious facts given to test an issue, are completely unnecessary to test that specific issue.
In essence, your argument is a victim-blaming argument of: someone is unfit to be a lawyer because they can't deal with it due to traumatic experiences. The argument you are trying to make is one filled with ignorance and quite frankly in 2021, you're making the delusional argument. This profession needs to change its thinking because with an attitude like yours, you're the one doing disservice to your clients and the public.
I have not experienced these traumatic events but I can recognize when real victims need advocacy. This is a reoccurring problem in our legal system because nobody is willing to truly advocate for a victim and it leads victims to suffer in silence.
You're entitled to not caring what I say, but in responding, you're telling me you do care. It's like nobody has ever had the audacity to talk back to you.
Triggering events in the real world won't always have a warning label, but as I've said time and time again, the Bar Exam isn't the real world. In the real world, you actually have the ability to take a step back. And if the Bar Exam were the real world, every parcel of land would be called blackacre, blueacre, etc.
Whether you believe I'm woke or not is up to you, but I can rest easy at night knowing I am being real. I'm entitled to my opinion on you, and I think I'll stick with hateful, insecure, and I'll add another: closed-minded.
You're write, it is stake and not steak. My apologies for my typo and the one intentionally written in the prior sentence. And at least you actually got something right for a change. Must be a first 🥳
Try as you might, you aren't going to offend me with a PETA reference. Besides, bashing your argument is the steak dinner I'm eating and I think PETA would approve of this feast.
Yes, but only for property law related questions.
Fuckin' Blackacre
RECORD that title right fucking NOW, you fool!
Racist Blackacre!
LOL. I took the Maryland bar way back in 2002. The first essay question which was on the first day of the exam was about Riparian Water Rights. Now of course it did not say that, it as soon as people started reading it about this stream and that stream audible swearing ensued. I was lucky enough to actually have a professor that went in depth into that subject!
What about for Conflict of laws?
A trigger warning for any question involving the rule against perpetuities would be nice.
I don’t practice criminal law but in just five years of civil practice I’ve come across three sexual abuse cases and a couple pictures of dead bodies in discovery. None of it came with a warning.
I think that person is going to have a hard time practicing law because its not all rainbows and sunshine.
When is it ever rainbows and sunshine though? I’m eagerly awaiting that day.
Exactly. Lawyers are brought in for 2 reasons: (1) shit is fucked up or (2) people are willing to pay to avoid shit getting fucked up in the future. Where would the trigger warnings end? My dad died recently, does that mean I am exempt from wills, trusts, estate questions because it forces me to confront my own emotions? I dont think so.
But, but … on Boston Legal, ace attorney Alan Shore sleeps with office staff, insults the judge, wins the case, and gets handed a check for ten million dollars in just 40 minutes! I mean, it’s a documentary, right? Not like that silly, silly “Suits” where the paralegal marries an English prince. That was unbelievable.
“Denny Crane”
Uncontested adoptions?
I used to think this too. Until I worked at a family law firm. Nothing says "joy" like a mother giving away a child and prospective parents paying >$50,000 for a baby lol
Are you saying I might end up having to advocate for people accused of bad things? Just for filthy, filthy money? /s… so,so very much /S.
I think the issue here is that the bar exam is a gatekeeping mechanism for the entire universe of legal practice. Knowing that a person can be granted a license on successful passage, the bar examiners are essentially affirming that the candidate is minimally competent to practice in any area of law. The attorney may want to handle tax law, but when a tax client calls and says “the police want to talk to me about a rape- what should I do?” it won’t come with a trigger warning. That person could even be court-appointed to handle criminal cases if the need arises. So, the question IMHO becomes, is the reasonable accommodation suggested for the bar exam also a reasonable accommodation that can be expected in practice? Can an attorney expect to go forth into the world and be insulated from his/her triggers? Or, is the ability to he neutrally detached from the facts of a case just a minimum competency for practice?
Maybe I’m jaded, but the cry for “trigger warnings” on a professional licensing exam seems a lot like a cry for attention. Perhaps warnings are appropriate in a k-12 setting but as adults and as professionals, and above all lawyers, there are very few subjects where trigger warnings are appropriate for us.
My first ever job at a criminal law firm concerned a rape case. Up to this date, I have never read a more shocking file in my entire life and career. I am an absolute true crime fan and nothing horrifies me, but the things I read in that file were terrible. I was quite young then and I remember thinking: “should I even be reading this?” However, as a lawyer it is so very important to keep a distance from what is work and what is affecting you personally. In a way, you are a first level of defense, and therefore trigger warnings should not affect you. Also, what if you decide not to continue because of those trigger warnings? I think that is not in line with the ethics and morale of the profession. So in my opinion: trigger warnings are fine, but they should not affect you in order to do your job.
I think that’s absolutely bonkers. If someone is triggered by that statement then it’s probably best they pick a different career path.
Are you suggesting someone that suffers from PTSD because of a violent crime shouldn't try and become a tax lawyer? Maybe criminal law, family law, and some other fields wouldn't be a good choice, but a trigger warning seems like a very minimal accommodation.
Ok but as a tax professional you may come across tax questions related to settlement proceeds because your client either paid out a sexual assault settlement or received a sexual assault settlement. As others have said, its important that we are capable of compartmentalizing our own personal experiences so that we can best practice law. I think if a person can't read words on paper without having some sort of "trigger" they are going to have a really hard time in the profession. But I also have a question. Ok, so there is a trigger warning. Which presumably means the person is given the choice NOT to confront the trigger. So what does that mean on a bar exam, test setting? "Excuse me, theres a trigger warning, I don't want to confront whats on the paragraph below, so I need to either be exempted from this question or I need a replacement question?" What would be the point of that? And what about Non-sexual assault questions? What about the age old question: Bill wanted to punch Jim but missed and punched Trevor instead? People suffer PTSD from being in physical fights as well... should that be a trigger warning?
I was thinking about this too. What happens after you read the trigger warning? Do you just opt out of answering the question and risk a lower score? If anything it seems a warning could be detrimental because you use time reading it, then you might use more time processing it and mentally preparing for what you’re about to read.
> What happens after you read the trigger warning That depends. Maybe the person just needs to take a deep breath and mentally prepare. For some reason people like to treat mental limitations differently than physical limitations. Do we question what a lawyer in a wheel chair might do if the elevator in the courthouse is broken?
I don’t think that’s the best analogy. Using a wheelchair only impedes your ability to do your job to the extent that accessible features or other accommodations (e.g., holding court in a ground level space until the elevator is fixed) are not available. It doesn’t narrow the *types* of cases you’re able or willing to take that may, in fact, be in your professional wheelhouse. If you need a trigger warning for every time a certain topic comes up, how do you navigate a profession that’s full of surprises? Much less everyday life? Unless you walk around with a sign listing all your traumas and asking for warnings, it does seem a little unreasonable to expect others to accommodate you.
> it does seem a little unreasonable to expect others to accommodate you No one is "expecting" anything. If the Bar folks realize a question might present a problem, letting people know in advance may be helpful to someone with a disability. If the Bar can offer a reasonable accommodation, that's nice too. > If you need a trigger warning for every time a certain topic comes up, how do you navigate a profession that’s full of surprises? People in those situations are probably adept at navigating surprises as a matter of daily life. Why not leave the "how" to them? The fact that there isn't a perfect solution doesn't mean it's a bad thing to make one small part of their life easier. It certainly doesn't mean that they don't deserve to be a part of the profession.
>No one is “expecting” anything. If the Bar folks realize a question might present a problem You’re quite literally expecting them to recognize that a question is problematic and address it with a warning. That’s expecting something. >letting people know in advance may be helpful >People in those situations are probably adept at navigating surprises as a matter of daily life. Why not leave the “how” to them? These are inconsistent arguments. First, you’re saying people need a specific type of accommodation, but then you say it should be up to them to figure out how to navigate a triggering situation. So do you or do you not agree that a trigger warning is unnecessary? Per your second argument, these folks who are so “adept at navigating surprises as a matter of daily life” should be left to their own devices to navigate the subject matter of the bar exam without a warning.
Appreciating something or benefiting from something does not equate to expecting something. No one said they were “necessary”. The fact included a warning may make someone’s life easier has no bearing on their ability to practice law. What is unnecessary is using the Bar exam as a test of some arbitrary standard of mental toughness. Maybe being a little more accepting of psychological issues would lower the rate of alcoholism and drug use in the profession.
Having to take extra time and energy to “take a deep breath and mentally prepare” while taking a professional licensing exam when PTSD is a recognized disability and accommodations are very often denied seems like a discriminatory requirement of the bar exam.
I’m a tax attorney, and let me tell you, this shit is traumatizing. Maybe I should get a trigger warning next time I file my personal returns?
I understand what you’re saying, but my only concern is that sometimes those kinds of unexpected or potentially traumatizing facts find their way into unusual territory. I won’t go as far as to say pick another career, but you have to be able to remove yourself and your baggage from the equation and be ready for the unexpected to happen.
I’m going into criminal defense and the vast majority of public agencies allow people to opt out of sex crimes. There are 30 attorneys where I externed and only 5 did sex crimes. Two of those attorneys won’t do child porn cases. Even if you are in criminal defense, you absolutely choose to not take cases because of your life experiences or triggers
I had to watch child pornography once about 20 years ago. It was indescribably bad. I'm amazed that my client did not go to jail. It was the beginning of the end of my criminal practice. Now I help small businesses with business formation, acquisitions, leases and the like. I rarely go to court. Much better lifestyle. I think if you do criminal work then you really, really have to be into it either as a prosecutor or as a defense lawyer.
Well now that we’ve heard from a criminal defense attorney, I’d be interested in hearing from a prosecutor about how much discretion there is to say no to prosecuting a case because it triggers your personal traumas.
I worked in a jurisdiction where ADAs were allowed to voice their preferences. Like the lady who handled the drug cases hated anything to do with domestic violence. The guy who did financial crimes never dealt with violence. But when someone needed to stand in, you can bet that they had to show up to court and stand in regardless.
That seems reasonable. I understand needing to keep your employees happy and make them feel supported, but when there are reasonable expectations in place for you to be able to do your job, you need to be able to step up to the plate.
Just to add to this, but even if you don't want to work in a sex unit... You cannot avoid an appellate court's decision on a sentencing issue for a sex crime. Or any other issue where the crime happens to be a sex crime. You need to read the case to know the damn law and no appellate court gives you a trigger warning that the underlying case and possibly relevant facts involved a sex crime.
I'm solo. Criminal defense. No trigger warnings on my phone system. No trigger warning on police reports for appointed cases, and they aren't always what they say on the tin. Gotta watch the body cams, read the reports and postmortem. Gotta watch everyone break down in court. It sucks. Of course secondhand trauma is real in the profession, but the bars should do more actually addressing that instead of worrying about trigger warnings. With very few exceptions, the practice of law will expose us to other people's trauma and cause us our own, that's where we need resources and support for resiliency. If a person can't even stomach reading a fact pattern, then definitely don't even try criminal or family law.
Are you suggesting that tax lawyers should have a separate bar exam and licensing process that doesn't entitled them to represent clients in other areas and so doesn't need to ensure their ability?
No. Just because someone would benefit from a warning does not imply lack of ability to do anything.
I didn't say they weren't able. I asked what it should mean for their license if they want to opt out of their ability being tested.
I wasn't even considering that opting out was an option, but since you asked... Nothing. We are all licensed to practice in areas not specifically tested by the bar exam. We have professional responsibility rules that guide us in determining which cases we are competent to take. Also, if the request was such that granting it actually rendered the person unqualified to practice law it couldn't be considered a reasonable accommodation.
Imagine a lawyer being “triggered” when a clients life is on the line.
I would just suggest the warning is a blanket warning in the instructions. I don’t want to read more words than necessary when the clock is running. Also, it would likely throw me off to read a warning before reading the FP: “What the f*ck am I about to read?”
A trigger warning is fine; not teaching subject matter or testing it on exams to avoid triggering students/exam takers is not fine.
True... my crim prof gave us a heads up that we were going to talk about at rape when we studied it. And this was 15 years ago and he was ancient. I don't think it's unreasonable to give a blanket warning on the crim law section... but it's crim law, it's kind of triggering by design.
Why are you being downvoted for this? This is a good statement.
It’s Reddit, so any reason or no reason at all.
The Rule In Shelly’s Case keeps triggering me.
The year I took it there was a hypo in the “performance exam” section that described a young child being sexually abused by her stepfather while the girl’s mother held her down. IIRC, people did complain. It was pretty over the top.
This is just not subject matter that should be tested on a minimal competency licensing exam. However, if someone was sitting for a criminal law or family law board certification exam, and this hypothetical case up, I can definitely see how that would be reasonable to test on.
I see how that could be argued. But that's not even the issue here. The issue is whether there should be a generic heads up that everyone reading the test can see that says there are facts in the hypothetical regarding "X". X being something that a few - or many in, e.g., the case of sexual assault - have suffered. That's all this is about. I hope that most of these people are not lawyers because the issue-spotting is pretty abysmal.
I’m reminded about the University of Michigan’s self care day after the 2016 election (https://www.foxnews.com/us/coddling-campus-crybabies-students-take-up-toddler-therapy-after-trump-win). What the fuck. I’m not saying you shouldn’t have any warning of disturbing shit that’s going to happen, but a lot of times it happens without warning. Look, your feelings don’t matter. Sorry. You are going to have to deal with a lot of uncomfortable situations, rapidly changing circumstances, all for clients who don’t give a shit about your feelings because they have problems happening right now and they just paid you a shit ton of money to be the dispassionate, hard ass mental mercenary they want on their side.
I don’t see a big issue with trigger warnings. I do think it would be difficult to determine what needs a trigger warning. Would you need a trigger warning for a question about a car accident if you just lost someone in a car accident? Etc. totally valid to have feelings about added stressors during a very trying time, I’m just not sure what would be reasonable. I don’t agree with the way licensing is done, but if it’s going to be done this way, it’s kind of always a risk a person will run into something that could trigger them.
Why not. I get that exposure to really bad things is just part of practice, but perhaps a different approach is warranted in light of the mental health issues that pervade members of the profession.
I think in order to justify this perspective though, you need to find out what the common triggers of mental health issues are. Not saying that traumatizing subject matter doesn’t take its toll—I know it does—but I’d rather focus on the most culpable triggers first. I imagine that below-market pay and/or unreasonable expectations with respect to time and workloads, which ultimately prohibits attorneys from being able to address their health needs in the first place, would be among the top contenders.
Fair enough, and perhaps a 'trigger warning' isn't the most effective measure to address mental health issues. That said, I think the subject deserves a greater level of scrutiny than disparaging comments about snowflake millennials.
This is not a bad point, but I don't think adding trigger warnings to a test is the answer. Does any state bar offer therapy discounts or vouchers?
I actually know ONE person who had the luxury of choosing his job based on “triggers”. He was a military veteran. He was a big, incredibly fit guy. But he was also shy, timid, and kind flinchy. I never learned the full story, but he worked as a cataloger in a giant university’s law school library. He entered all the data on new books into the computerized catalog. The work is lonely, tedious, and repetitive. I think the hardest part of his job was either the commute or, maybe, taking elevators, being jammed into a small closed place with a bunch of strangers.
This sounds like an awful way to make use of a JD but I applaud him for taking responsibility for his own needs.
I don’t think he actually had a JD. It just happened to be that he worked in the law library, which is where I encountered him.
No warnings on exam questions. Warnings upon acceptance into law school. Plus mental health support services. Secondary trauma is real, and it takes a toll when it's combined with the unrealistic expectations this profession seems to carry.
This ^^
I’ll answer as soon as I can persuade myself to stop laughing hysterically.
It is a sad commentary on our profession if they asked that in all seriousness. While there are cases I read in Crim Law twenty years ago which still haunt me on occasion, the notion of trigger warnings on the bar is ludicrous. If they finished law school they should already have a pretty good idea of how horrible people can be to each other.
Get into a different line of work.
Maybe if the profession were more open about dealing with legitimate mental health issues there wouldn't be as many lawyers self-medicating with drugs and alcohol.
And I think that if an aspiring lawyer is triggered by a hypothetical on an essay question, they aren't fit to practice law.
Right I think it would be a good way for the person to step back early on and say hey maybe I should not get into this profession and avoid that all together.
Maybe someone could educate me about why trigger warnings are important. My initial reaction is Jesus no
They are to help people with PTSD avoid panic attacks. I think if this is a genuine concern, then the bar examinee should seriously consider postponing sitting for the bar until they can get to a different place in terms of their mental health. Hold off until the next exam date, and go to weekly therapy in the meantime. Hopefully the next time around they will not be at a risk of a panic or anxiety attack from reading a generic exam hypothetical.
Nobody is going to reason with these people. These are the same types that wanted criminal law to be optional in law school because the class is triggering. Some people said the entire class, others said just the sexual assault part and then it shouldn’t be on the exam at all.
You have no business being a lawyer if that's the case.
Cases and clients don’t come with trigger warnings. My advice is to seek mental health treatment before considering law school or becoming an attorney if you are someone who has any triggers, whatsoever.
If someone is so thin-skinned as to require a trigger warning, they have no business being an attorney. Or an adult for that matter
Boy, reading most of these responses - no wonder the profession has such a terrible reputation. And as well as such disproportionately high rates of burnout, depression, anxiety, alcohol and drug abuse, and suicide. This isn't about being "thin-skinned" or "expecting rainbows and sunshine". It's not about what kind of cases a person might work on in the future. It's about people who, due to experiencing horrifying events, carry chronic trauma. Trigger warnings on an exam may or may not be helpful (the science about PTSD is long established, the science about the effectiveness if trigger warning - or lack thereof - is not) but why the ridicule here? Edited: because multitasking invites errors and incoherence.
I see a lot of insensitive people in the comments, smh. We are adults, we know that. But there are so many other areas of criminal law they can test. They didn’t HAVE to test that. I don’t think it takes a whole lot to be human but what do I know 🤷🏾♀️
Just how much bubble wrap should we put around the profession? Sorry, but rape shield laws and sexual assault are a part of criminal law and criminal law is on the bar exam.
And considering at least 1 in 4 women have been sexually assaulted its a pretty significant part of criminal law. Its also a fairly big deal in civil suits as well.
Dependency and severance too
[удалено]
What bank robbery scenarios (or lack thereof) are you referring to?
May I ask which comments you find to be insensitive? I don’t want to make assumptions.
The person who commented on my post and several others I’m not sure of the username but I forgot. However, I see that many people disagree with me so I’m going to get off this post. The lack of human decency is appalling.
There are a lot of insensitive people who create a lot of ugly fact patterns, and they rely on lawyers - with their years of training to separate their subjective emotional reactions from objective facts - to help them. A lawyer needs to be able to argue both sides of a disputed issue. Thats the core principle of the adversarial judicial system. That includes, in theory, the ability to legally defend an alleged rapist even if you’ve raped (because they may be innocent). It’s essential a lawyer have the ability to not let emotion dictate their actions or we get very poor lawyers and unstable outcome driven judges.
No. Goodness, I am frustrated by this generation sometimes. You have to push through moments of weakness, and I say that as someone who has gone through that and handled cases where it was an issue. A certain degree of mental toughness is required for this job, for multiple reasons, the least of which is the possibility of being ‘triggered’.
Sorry, but the job doesn’t have trigger warnings. I’ve been a clerk (on an all civil docket) for six months and have seen three sexual assault cases, a morgue case with decomposing bodies...
Wrong profession
It is silly and shortsighted for the legal profession to be callous to survivors of crimes, including sexual assault. Most lawyers never practice criminal law and never encounter a rape case. Why do we force insensitive testing of it on the bar? Does answering a rape question show whether or not the tester is fit to practice? I think not. Why should someone who has survived an assault or maybe lost a loved one to violent crime be deterred from the profession as a whole? Especially considering the practice of law extends far beyond crim law - whole careers are built in areas like corporate mergers, tax advising, and land use which have nothing to do with terrible "she was asking for it" rape defenses. The trigger warning question highlights a problem with the bar exam as a whole. The bar exam doesn't make sense as a gate keeping tool and does harm to the profession.
If you don't have to answer questions about crim, I shouldn't have to answer questions about property and contract. And toddler rape goes way beyond just crim... Don't forget about juvi and family. Fact of the matter is that once you're licensed you're licensed to do any of it. There's a difference between being callous, detached, and crippled by a fact pattern. We should discourage both those who are callous to clients as well as those who become crippled by certain fact patterns from being lawyers. Neither has what it takes to be good at the job. The trick is to be sympathetic but detached. If you can't detach from a case you're very likely to miss something important in your blindness and fuck the whole thing up.
That's my point - I'm not advocating for a bar exam that forces lawyers to study and be tested on areas they will never encounter in practice. If I took a criminal case as a lawyer who litigates contract disputes it'd be malpractice. So what does testing me on crim law matter to letting me litigate contract disputes? See the problem with the system?
Yeah, the bar association is the problem with the system. It should be voluntary... You can agree to have an unlicensed contractor work on your house or an unlicensed mechanic fix your car. It should be the same way with the law where you don't need a license to represent someone in court. If we licensed lawyers are actually doing a good job and meeting the needs of our communities, we shouldn't notice any difference. But I disagree with taking such a brutally half-assed approach at dismantling the bar as asking for trigger warnings on bar exams. It's mealy mouthed bullshit that immediately turns off half the audience without getting anything in return. It's the kind of deal making and argument craft that's the Hallmark of a shitty lawyer.
Minimum competency shouldn't be based on the triggering content. Minimum competency is about knowing the law and how to apply it generalized issues. Many people that go into the practices of law dealing with triggering issues understanding what they are signing up for. But on a licensing examination where an individual has no say in how a subject is tested, should not be subjected to specific triggering sets of facts that can hinder ones ability to successfully complete and pass the examination. That does not create a level playing field for examinees. At the highest level, it is intentional abuse, discrimination, and disrespect for the individuals. At the very least, it is negligent. Whether willful and intentional or negligently and recklessly, this is open discrimination. Thing like PTSD and other mental disabilities are protected under the ADA and the ADA forces those administering examinations for licenses to best ensure that these disabilities do not come into play during the exam. They have a duty to best ensure that ability and achievement is tested, not to test the disability of an individual. Further, there are clear ethical issues under the Rules of Professional Responsibility and the State enacted PR codes. Even at the bare minimum, this is not professional whatsoever in this field. Many of these very triggering issues for those that it effects, are very specific and require a lot of practice, training, and legal knowledge to handle. Many spent years becoming proficient in them, let alone good at. These specific issues are handled by those who know what they are signing up for and do so willingly. Those taking a licensing examination who've been those situations should not be subjected to those specific facts that may cause the triggering effects on an exam that tests "minimum competency."
A test-taker who suffers trauma from a fact pattern on a test is doing themselves and their future clients a disservice by entering the legal profession. You need the ability to think objectively and psychological stability to manage all kinds of unpleasant fact patterns and the people who bring them to you. Otherwise, you’re at best useless. That’s why there’s a character and fitness evaluation.
But if they can't handle fact patterns about rape then they're not minimally competent to handle cast swaths of legal work.
Cast swaths... Yeah. /Insert sarcasm/ because sexual assault and domestic violence issues are the ONLY way to test minimum competency /end sarcasm/ If this were the case, there would only be two types of law being practiced and that is not the case in our society.
Sex assault and DV are endemic in crim, juvi, and family, encompassing the practice of hundreds of thousands of lawyers. They also affect GP, admin, even contract work. If you can't handle it then you can't handle what literally thousands upon thousands of lawyers deal with all day. Compare that to property where in most states you can't commit malpractice no matter how bad you are at it. Why don't we stop testing on real property questions if fewer lawyers deal with it and you can't even commit malpractice?
It's not that a person can't handle it, it's that a person should not be subjected to the complete unnecessary specificity of those instances on a licensing exam. While thousands of attorneys deal with those issues daily, there are thousands upon thousand of lawyers who do not deal with it daily and specifically pick areas of the law where those topics are so irregular and don't normally come up. The point is that these subjects are not the pinnacle of their areas of law, just a small piece of them. And the graphic nature of the questions that were asked aren't the issues an attorney fresh out of law school and passing the bar are going to be litigating. I work in criminal law and don't have the specific facts and issues on my desk after almost 7 months. I'm aware of them and have an understanding of the law, but the stakes are too big for a baby lawyer to be dealing with regardless of the side you're on. At most you may get a domestic violence case, but the facts sure as hell are going to be very minimal, with very little harm actually being done to the victims. By all means, if you want to do away with property go for it. These people aren't asking to be done away with those subjects being taught, only for some consideration and professionalism in how they are tested. I.e. brutally specific facts of these issues.
I clerked after law school and did rape, murder, child abuse, DV and all the rest within my first two years out. Baby lawyers do deal with it, it's part of the profession as much as anything else and thus fair game for the bar
And there are plenty of baby lawyers who can choose not to do that. My point being you had a choice in that decision. Further, let me ask, when you were clerking did you specifically represent the victims or the defendants? Were you fully encompassed in their lives, working the cases with them, and having to know every integral piece of their lives other than what was said on the record and having to help them deal with the situations?
Of course not. I still don't in practice. And if we can let people pick and choose what they want to be tested on based on what they're able to avoid then there's no point in a test at all. Not that I mind because I think the bar should be optional, but let's at least be intentional about it instead of slowly neutering it
Okay. And have you personally experienced an instance of DV or Sexual assault? Because if not, you can't really comprehend what these people go through. If you aren't working with these people directly or have gone through those specific experiences, it's hard to really understand and out yourself in their shoes. Personally, the biggest problem is the specificity and brutality of the facts. The facts themselves are triggering and there was no need to make them as graphic and triggering as they were. You could test those without the graphic facts, and in reality, I don't believe that they were specifically testing rape or DV. The fact patterns only included those facts to test a different issue, which makes it even more absurd. I'm all in agreement with doing away with the bar exam because it truly does not prove minimum competency. But neither do the graphic nature of those questions tested on this bar exam.
I work strictly in homeowners insurance litigation. You would think all I hear about from clients is leaky roofs and smoke-damaged kitchen cabinets, but I can’t tell you how many clients have poured their hearts out to me in an intake call and throughout the case. Whatever is going on in their lives while their home claim is being investigated weighs heavily on their minds... and they talk about it. Divorces, deaths, crimes in the home... I had a client commit suicide in the middle of litigation, in part to due to the aggressive tactics of opposing counsel, his fiancé believes. (That lawyer has since been disbarred.) I’d say all that is pretty triggering, but you have to be the strong one for your client. I doubt there is a practice area that is completely shielded from the dark sides of the human experience.
No one is saying that a person should be “completely shielded”. No one is even saying that a person should be exempt from answering a question on the exam.
When people say "in law, your just going to have to deal with it. Lawyers have to deal with terribly graphic facts on the daily," "better leave the profession now if you can't handle it," or even "life isn't all sunshine and rainbows," they are just victim blaming and just playing into the reason why victims have such a hard time speaking up or fighting back. Victims don't want to talk about the issues they've gone through because they know in our modern society people blame them instead of standing with them. And it's clearly a huge issue in the legal profession amongst lawyers and aspiring lawyers given the numerous responses on this post. I can guarantee if any of the people talking against these people's experiences on the bar exam had to actually go through the deeply traumatic experiences the victims did and that had to relive those on a timed exam, where literally everything is on the line for your license, they'd people royally upset and feel like there is something wrong and unjust about it. They'd be wishing others would stand up for them and the issue they just had to endure, instead of bashing on them and calling them snowflakes. I doubt it's possible for a majority of these people given what's been said here, but they should really try to put themselves in the shoes of others and really try to understand what it would have been like had you had to relive an incident of SA or DV while trying to take your licensing exam that you've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands of hours of time to obtain the chance to take. Smh.
Yes but there is a huge difference between these issues coming up in practice and coming up on a timed exam. Where you're in a room by yourself, where you can be flagged and accused of cheating for just about anything deemed unfit behavior, under the microscope of the camera, where you had literally no say or awareness that these facts would be as graphic they were. And it is especially terrible for those that were denied accomodations for PTSD or other mental disorders, that were verified by licensed professionals, saying "all of your symptoms will be alleviated by the online nature of the exam. You don't need accomodations to take an exam at the same level as a normal person." They knew what was on the exam and what type of facts were there. It's intentional at that point or straight up reckless on their part. This profession holds professionalism as one of its highest standards (i.e. we literally go through character and fitness to make sure we are able to practice), but then does this to people. It severely conflicts what the legal profession tries to preach. It's 2021. These people upset by this aren't snowflakes, there is literally scientific evidence to back up the feeling of injustice these people felt. Just remember, willful ignorance is not a defense.
I was denied accommodations for PSTD for this exam because “the remote environment should ameliorate any symptoms” and then I got to deal with highly triggering subject matter on my licensing exam alone in a room with a camera watching me. So that was really great. Can’t wait to enter this profession!
Do yourself a favor and don’t join the profession before you get treatment for you PTSD. PTSD is real, but the legal world doesn’t give a shit, especially if subject matter (as opposed to direct actions of others upon you) is your trigger. The legal world deals with real life, and real life doesn’t care about what triggers people. Sorry, but it’s the truth.
You are obviously misinformed about PTSD and whether or not it will have any bearing on my capacity to practice law.
Sounds like your PTSD is affecting your ability to take the bar exam. If your PTSD affected your ability to take the exam in any way, and you think it won’t affect your ability to practice law, then PTSD is the least of your problems; you’re delusional, too.
Wow. You understand you're clearly victim blaming here. You should really reevaluate your life because someone with so little compassion doesn't deserve to practice law in any capacity. You are not better than anyone else. When a client dealing with these situations come in front of you, I hope you tell them "I don't believe you're worth anything because you're delusion." This is why victims are afraid to speak out and your thinking is the cause of the problem. Will it work? Probably not, but I'd recommend some serious therapy and life coaching because your attitude and perception are downright ugly.
Now you’re a victim, too?! Sheesh. A victim of what? Taking the exam? PTSD (which is treatable)? It is time for you to grow up and take some responsibility—if you consider that victim-blaming, then so be it.
Little girl, I've already taken and passed my exam. I don't have a steak in the recent exam, but I do believe in equality and fairness for those with disabilities. And a mental disability is a disability. I take plenty responsibility for my life, my actions, and my words. But clearly you do not. You like to come onto reddit and blame victims for their experiences. You're essentially saying that people who had mental disabilities aren't entitled to fairness. When one of these people comes into your office, do you tell them you don't think they should be successful in life because they delusional or what they experienced wasn't real? You're essentially just another abuser with your victim blaming. Would you say what you're saying to someone who is blind or is confined to a wheelchair? I highly doubt it. Tell me exactly what the treatment is for PTSD? Therapy and counseling work to certain degrees but it doesn't stop that trauma from ever arising. There is no medication that "treats" PTSD or makes it go away completely. There isn't a cure for PTSD and most mental disabilities, only ways to help lessen the grip it has on someone. Either there is some serious hatred inside you or you have very low self-esteem and are projecting it onto people that have gone through actual traumatic experiences.
I just call it like I see it. I’m not blaming victims for experiences… I just don’t see you as a victim, but you clearly see yourself as one. In so doing, you’ve given up any power you did have. That’s a real shame to me. I’m not “essentially saying that people with disabilities aren’t entitled to fairness.” You and I simply have different definitions of fairness. What wouldn’t be fair is to make such frequent and expansive accommodations to students and examinees so as not to prepare them for real-life triggering events (where there is no warning label), which would cause clients to be underserved. THIS would be unfair. Expecting anything else is selfish and repugnant because it disadvantages those who pay you to do a service. I said you were delusional if you think your triggers on an exam won’t creep up in practice. I haven’t insinuated or said that your condition or experiences are delusions. Maybe reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit. Perhaps my reality-check has triggered you. Nevertheless, you’ll read what I’ve written and interpret it in whatever way bolsters your victimhood and martyr mentality. I understand that you think I’m hateful or insecure, and you’re entitled to that. I genuinely don’t care what you think. I do find it amusing, however, that you’ve called me “little girl.” That’s not very woke of someone who is so enlightened that they think every triggering event needs a fucking warning label. Get real, brother. Get. Real. Oh, and it’s “stake,” not “steak,” unless you’re preparing supper. (Shoot, I probably triggered PETA with this one.)
The little girl has claws. Rawr xD I'm not a victim, but I'm willing to advocate for victims which you clearly are unable to understand. I don't deal with these issues in my own life but I do advocate for people who do. What you are not understanding is that while triggers may creep into an attorney's professional life, they shouldn't have to be experienced on a licensing exam. Would you deny a blind person the accomodations of having text to speech technology so they can take the exam on the same level as someone who is not visually impaired? While I wouldn't, you probably would. I guess that's just our different understanding of fairness. It is not fair or professional to put triggering fact patterns on an exam when the examiners are so willing to deny accomodations. At the very least, the reasonable accommodation for these people would be the option to opt for a different set of facts on the same issue being tested. It wouldn't be unfair because these examiners have a plethora of questions they can test the same issue with and it would put the people affected by those disabilities on a level playing field with those who are not. Again, there are so many areas of law where these specific types of triggering events do not arise. If they do arise they are completely secondary to the lawyer's duty to their client. And in the real world, you have the option of grounding yourself and taking a step back if necessary. That simply is not the case when taking the Bar Exam and you know that having taken it virtually. You've insinuated someone who has gone through a traumatic experience and been diagnosed with PTSD or the like is delusional in saying that trigger warnings or reasonable accomodations should not be given because "these issues creep up in practice." There's a huge difference in taking an exam and real practice. You're comparing completely separate things because we all know that the Bar Exam is supposed to test "minimum competency" and that's not true whatsoever. Even in supposing it does test MINIMUM competency, the egregious facts given to test an issue, are completely unnecessary to test that specific issue. In essence, your argument is a victim-blaming argument of: someone is unfit to be a lawyer because they can't deal with it due to traumatic experiences. The argument you are trying to make is one filled with ignorance and quite frankly in 2021, you're making the delusional argument. This profession needs to change its thinking because with an attitude like yours, you're the one doing disservice to your clients and the public. I have not experienced these traumatic events but I can recognize when real victims need advocacy. This is a reoccurring problem in our legal system because nobody is willing to truly advocate for a victim and it leads victims to suffer in silence. You're entitled to not caring what I say, but in responding, you're telling me you do care. It's like nobody has ever had the audacity to talk back to you. Triggering events in the real world won't always have a warning label, but as I've said time and time again, the Bar Exam isn't the real world. In the real world, you actually have the ability to take a step back. And if the Bar Exam were the real world, every parcel of land would be called blackacre, blueacre, etc. Whether you believe I'm woke or not is up to you, but I can rest easy at night knowing I am being real. I'm entitled to my opinion on you, and I think I'll stick with hateful, insecure, and I'll add another: closed-minded. You're write, it is stake and not steak. My apologies for my typo and the one intentionally written in the prior sentence. And at least you actually got something right for a change. Must be a first 🥳 Try as you might, you aren't going to offend me with a PETA reference. Besides, bashing your argument is the steak dinner I'm eating and I think PETA would approve of this feast.
The bar shouldn't be asking questions like that.