Connecticut Adds Depression Question to Bar Application
If Abraham Lincoln were alive, he would encounter several difficulties gaining admittance to the Connecticut Bar -- assuming he deserved his reputation both for honesty and for 'melancholia.'
That's because the state's Bar Examining Committee has re-introduced depression as one of the conditions listed on the mental health section of the bar application. Depression made the list in July 2000, but public outcry led to its removal -- until now.
The amended question 35 for the July 2006 application is one of several changes that has reignited a fiery reaction from opponents, who view the wording of the CBEC's mental health inquiry -- which includes a request for psychiatric records -- as an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.
"I was really shocked when I saw these new questions," said Jon Bauer, a clinical law professor at the University of Connecticut. "This could be a major disincentive for people to seek treatment" for health matters, out of fear of repercussions following disclosure.
A 12-year effort to align the state's bar application questions with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act hit a snag when, on March 3, the full CBEC voted to add to the current list of conditions requiring disclosure.
By adding depression to an inquiry that identifies mental health and chemical or psychological dependency matters, the CBEC has broadened rather than narrowed the scope of an already too extensive set of 50 questions, Bauer said.
This is pretty amazing. I wonder what was the crying need for this change.
posted by Unknown at
9:37 AM
4 Comments:
It turns out that there is some comedy in this situation. Referring to the full article in the link provided by Sam, we find that:
"…Phone calls to the three members of a CBEC subcommittee -- Appellate Judge Anne C. Dranginis (chair), Alix Simonetti and Gail McTaggart -- who studied the application questions were unreturned or deferred to CBEC Chairman Raymond W. Beckwith for comment. Calls to two other CBEC members -- Superior Court Judge Barbara M. Quinn, the committee's vice chair, and Denise Martino Phelan -- were also unreturned or deferred to Beckwith.
Beckwith himself said he has "no real recollection" of specifically discussing the re-introduction of depression into the inquiry. He added that minutes of the meeting do not exist because the committee's secretary was home sick on the night of the meeting….”
So, the subcommittee makes a major (controversial) change, and apparently the Chairman himself can’t recall it! The CBEC made this decision after an open-meeting during the first week of February 2006, which I attended. Professor Jon Bauer, of UConn Law, answered questions on this topic for the Board for a period of a few hours that day. Subsequently, the Board made the decision to add depression questions, apparently after reviewing a confidential legal opinion about the potential liability of going back to such questions. The opinion was crafted for-the-Board’s-eyes-only.
Thus, though the decision has been made in the last 70 days or so, “no real recollection” smacks of insincerity at the best and a dereliction of duties at the worst.
Having said that, Connecticut does not appear to be that far outside of what at least one other state is doing in this area. For example, on page 15 of the Ohio Bar Application, applicants are asked:
26.A. “Within the last ten years, have you suffered from, been diagnosed with, or been treated for bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, delusional disorder (paranoia), or any other psychotic disorder? Yes or No”
26.B. “Within the last ten years, have you suffered from, been diagnosed with, or been treated for any physical condition (e.g., stroke, head injury, dementia, brain tumor, heart disease) that has resulted in significant memory loss, significant loss of consciousness, or significant confusion? Yes or No”
Thankfully, this issue has not escaped the watchful eyes of the American Bar Association. I have received the below correspondence earlier this month from the ABA's Director of the Commission on Mental and Physical Disability Law.
"Dear Christopher:
I received a copy of your letter to ABA President
Greco about intrusive
disability-related questions on the bar admissions
process, and he asked
me to respond.
>
In 1994, our Commission, along with the ABA's
Section on Legal Education
and Admissions to the Bar put forward a resolution
to the ABA's House of
Delegates. The ABA House of Delegates passed that
> resolution making it
> official ABA policy. The resolution states that we
> (the ABA)
>
> Recommend that when making character and fitness
> determinations for the
> purpose of bar admissions, bar examiners (1)
> consider the privacy
> concerns of bar admission applicants; (2) tailor
> questions concerning
> mental health and treatment narrowly in order to
> elicit information
> about current fitness to practice law; and (3) take
> steps to ensure that
> their processes do not discourage those who would
> benefit from seeking
> professional assistance with personal problems and
> issues from doing so.
>
>
>
> Recommend that fitness determinations may include
> specific, targeted
> questions about an applicant's behavior, conduct or
> any current
> impairment of the applicant's ability to practice
> law.
>
>
>
> The Ohio bar admissions language that you referenced
> in your letter does
> not seem to be within the spirit of the ABA
> resolution in three ways.
> First, the questions are not specifically targeted
> to the applicant's
> ability to practice law, but rather reference
> specific conditions
> regardless of the level of actual impairments
> involved that might
> negatively affect the applicant's ability to
> practice law. Second, the
> time limit of ten years does not relate to the
> current fitness of the
> applicant to practice law. Third, because the
> questions are not
> narrowly targeted, the mandatory request for
> confidential information is
> overly broad as well.
>
>
>
> The Commission has a Subcommittee on Lawyers with
> Disabilities. I will
> refer my response to the Chair of the Subcommittee,
> Bernie Hurwitz, and
> Jonathan Simeone, staff to the Subcommittee for
> their consideration.
> Also, if you could pass on to them an electronic
> version of your letter,
> they can both better understand the points you were
> making. This is an
> issue that the Subcommittee and the Commission,
> through the
> Subcommittee, may want to revisit.
>
>
>
> Thank you for your intelligent discussion of the
> legal issues set out in
> your letter.
Sincerely,
> John Parry
> Director, Commission on Mental and Physical
> Disability Law
> (202) 662-1574"
=================
My hope is that the ABA takes this issue up on May 22-23 during its first "National Conference on Employment of Lawyers with Disabilities." Time shall tell...
-christopher
It turns out that there is some comedy in this situation. Referring to the full article in the link provided by Sam, we find that:
"…Phone calls to the three members of a CBEC subcommittee -- Appellate Judge Anne C. Dranginis (chair), Alix Simonetti and Gail McTaggart -- who studied the application questions were unreturned or deferred to CBEC Chairman Raymond W. Beckwith for comment. Calls to two other CBEC members -- Superior Court Judge Barbara M. Quinn, the committee's vice chair, and Denise Martino Phelan -- were also unreturned or deferred to Beckwith.
Beckwith himself said he has "no real recollection" of specifically discussing the re-introduction of depression into the inquiry. He added that minutes of the meeting do not exist because the committee's secretary was home sick on the night of the meeting….”
So, the subcommittee makes a major (controversial) change, and apparently the Chairman himself can’t recall it! The CBEC made this decision after an open-meeting during the first week of February 2006, which I attended. Professor Jon Bauer, of UConn Law, answered questions on this topic for the Board for a period of a few hours that day. Subsequently, the Board made the decision to add depression questions, apparently after reviewing a confidential legal opinion about the potential liability of going back to such questions. The opinion was crafted for-the-Board’s-eyes-only.
Thus, though the decision has been made in the last 70 days or so, “no real recollection” smacks of insincerity at the best and a dereliction of duties at the worst.
Having said that, Connecticut does not appear to be that far outside of what at least one other state is doing in this area. For example, on page 15 of the Ohio Bar Application, applicants are asked:
26.A. “Within the last ten years, have you suffered from, been diagnosed with, or been treated for bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, delusional disorder (paranoia), or any other psychotic disorder? Yes or No”
26.B. “Within the last ten years, have you suffered from, been diagnosed with, or been treated for any physical condition (e.g., stroke, head injury, dementia, brain tumor, heart disease) that has resulted in significant memory loss, significant loss of consciousness, or significant confusion? Yes or No”
Thankfully, this issue has not escaped the watchful eyes of the American Bar Association. I have received the below correspondence earlier this month from the ABA's Director of the Commission on Mental and Physical Disability Law.
"> Dear Christopher:
>
>
>
> I received a copy of your letter to ABA President
> Greco about intrusive
> disability-related questions on the bar admissions
> process, and he asked
> me to respond.
>
>
>
> In 1994, our Commission, along with the ABA's
> Section on Legal Education
> and Admissions to the Bar put forward a resolution
> to the ABA's House of
> Delegates. The ABA House of Delegates passed that
> resolution making it
> official ABA policy. The resolution states that we
> (the ABA)
>
>
>
> Recommend that when making character and fitness
> determinations for the
> purpose of bar admissions, bar examiners (1)
> consider the privacy
> concerns of bar admission applicants; (2) tailor
> questions concerning
> mental health and treatment narrowly in order to
> elicit information
> about current fitness to practice law; and (3) take
> steps to ensure that
> their processes do not discourage those who would
> benefit from seeking
> professional assistance with personal problems and
> issues from doing so.
>
>
>
> Recommend that fitness determinations may include
> specific, targeted
> questions about an applicant's behavior, conduct or
> any current
> impairment of the applicant's ability to practice
> law.
>
>
>
> The Ohio bar admissions language that you referenced
> in your letter does
> not seem to be within the spirit of the ABA
> resolution in three ways.
> First, the questions are not specifically targeted
> to the applicant's
> ability to practice law, but rather reference
> specific conditions
> regardless of the level of actual impairments
> involved that might
> negatively affect the applicant's ability to
> practice law. Second, the
> time limit of ten years does not relate to the
> current fitness of the
> applicant to practice law. Third, because the
> questions are not
> narrowly targeted, the mandatory request for
> confidential information is
> overly broad as well.
>
>
>
> The Commission has a Subcommittee on Lawyers with
> Disabilities. I will
> refer my response to the Chair of the Subcommittee,
> Bernie Hurwitz, and
> Jonathan Simeone, staff to the Subcommittee for
> their consideration.
> Also, if you could pass on to them an electronic
> version of your letter,
> they can both better understand the points you were
> making. This is an
> issue that the Subcommittee and the Commission,
> through the
> Subcommittee, may want to revisit.
>
>
>
> Thank you for your intelligent discussion of the
> legal issues set out in
> your letter.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> John Parry
>
> Director, Commission on Mental and Physical
> Disability Law
>
> (202) 662-1574"
=====================
My hope is that the ABA takes this issue up on May 22-23 during its first "National Conference on Employment of Lawyers with Disabilities." Time shall tell...
-christopher
First, anybody interested in issues about the ADA and mental health questions on bar exam applications should read Jon Bauer's definitive article, THE CHARACTER OF THE QUESTIONS AND THE FITNESS OF THE PROCESS: MENTAL HEALTH, BAR ADMISSIONS AND THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 49 UCLA L. Rev. 93 (2001). Jon has been challenging these questions from the beginning. He achieves judicial or political changes, but the bar examiners are repeat offenders.
Second, Christopher, I'd appreciate copies of your correspondence on the Ohio bar questions. I'm at University of Cincinnati College of Law and would like to get involved. I worked on bar application reform in North Carolina, where the bar examiners only this year eliminated several "have you ever" questions, which the late Stanley Herr thought were "easy targets" for ADA challenges. Happily, we were able to achieve at least this first step without litigation. I hope that holds true for continued progress.
Best,
Ann
I want to point out that I am eligible to take the bar exam, but during my 2nd year, I went to a psychologist to get help with my stress levels and sleeping patterns and I was diagnosed as bipolar.
I am very interested in practicing in Connecticut, but I have elected NOT to apply for admission in that state. I do not feel that the bar examiners have a right to judge my fitness as a laywer based on a condition that may or may not be a proper diagnosis. Plus, the only reason this condition was discovered is because I sought medical help to focus better in law school. Now I have a bipolar diagnosis and I don't know what to do. I am not sick, nor am I a bad person.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home