Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Court hears five proposed Bar Examiners rule changes on portal use, MBE timing and student practice certificates
Loading...
Summary
The court heard five proposed amendments from the South Dakota Board of Bar Examiners to encourage portal filing, clarify when MBE scores are treated as outdated for transfers, and permit the board (not a law school dean) to extend student practice certificates for graduates awaiting character-and-fitness review.
The court conducted a rules hearing on several proposals from the South Dakota Board of Bar Examiners that, taken together, would modernize filing practices and clarify eligibility timing for recent law graduates.
Anne Mines Bailey, speaking for the Board of Bar Examiners, told the court "Before the court are several proposals, that actually fall into 3 categories." She said the first package of changes is meant "to streamline and encourage use of our bar portal to to move us more towards paperless." The Board proposes updating rules to make greater use of the electronic bar portal and reduce reliance on paper filings.
Bailey said the second set of changes addresses timeliness and what should be treated as outdated material, specifically noting questions about what constitutes a qualifying Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) score for transferring scores between jurisdictions. The third proposed change would address a recurring "limbo period" when applicants have passed the bar exam but are awaiting a character-and-fitness review and whose student practice certificates expire after three months. Bailey said the Board wants to allow the Board of Bar Examiners, rather than an individual law-school dean, to extend student practice certificates for those graduates.
Neil Fulton, dean of the University of South Dakota Knudson School of Law, told the court he "echo[es] what Anne has said about the rules and fully support[s] rules 1 through 5," singling out his particular support for what the parties labeled "number 5." Fulton said, as dean he is sometimes asked to certify matters (such as supervising attorneys for out-of-state students) he does not always have full information on and supported placing the extension authority with the Board.
The court asked follow-up questions about historical practice for dean certification; Fulton said he did not know the full history but recalled deans have a role verifying student status and that he was unsure whether the post-graduation extension had historically rested with the dean.
No formal objections were offered in the hearing record and Bailey reported receiving one set of comments from Fulton that were favorable. The court closed discussion on the Board of Bar Examiners proposals and moved to the next items on the agenda.
The next procedural step for these proposals was not recorded in the hearing transcript.