1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Law grads with past substance-use disorders…

Disability Law

Law grads with past substance-use disorders suffered disability bias in quest for license, DOJ says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 6, 2025, 3:15 pm CST

Would-be Tennessee lawyers encountered unlawful disability discrimination when they were required to submit to “burdensome examinations” and conditions triggered by their past diagnosis or treatment for a substance-use disorder or a mental health disorder, the U.S. Department of Justice has concluded.

The Tennessee Board of Law Examiners and the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program violated Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act, which protects people with from being excluded from programs of state and local governments, according to a letter of findings released Dec. 17.

The DOJ investigated after receiving complaints from two bar applicants, “D.S.” and “C.B.,” who were previously treated for substance-use disorders related to prescription drugs. Both suffered “significant economic harm,” including loss of jobs because of delays in obtaining a law license and costs incurred in complying with required evaluations by treatment facilities.

The conditions for obtaining a law license were “burdensome, intrusive and unnecessary,” the letter said.

NBC News has identified D.S. as Derek Scott, who was taking buprenorphine, a Food and Drug Administration-approved medication that his doctor prescribed, to treat the opioid-use disorder that he developed after becoming addicted to painkillers. The network chronicled Scott’s battle for a law license.

Scott, now an attorney in Clarksville, Tennessee, has been treated continuously for opioid-use disorder since 2012. He graduated from the University of Tennessee College of Law in 2019. On his bar application, Scott disclosed charges that were later dismissed, most of which happened when his addiction to painkillers was untreated.

Because Scott was taking buprenorphine, he was required to undergo a multiday assessment at an addiction-recovery facility that cost him $2,000. No drugs were found in his system other than buprenorphine. No cognitive impairment was found. The facility nonetheless recommended a six-month inpatient treatment program that would cost Scott $30,000, an amount lowered to $15,000 with credit for the $2,000 already spent because of scholarship money from the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program.

Scott’s treating physician “emphatically” disagreed with the need for inpatient treatment to stop a medication that was effectively treating his disability, the DOJ letter said. If he didn’t comply, Scott was told, he wouldn’t get a law license.

“Thus, D.S. was left with the choice of continuing the treatment that is successful for him in treating his [opioid-use disorder] or obtaining his license to practice law,” according to the letter of findings.

The law firm that had employed Scott as a law clerk fired him in November 2021 because of his inability to get a law license.

Scott sought a second evaluation by another facility and was granted permission. A psychiatrist there found that the drug therapy had been successful, and there were no legal, educational or occupational deficiencies. The medical report nonetheless concluded that Scott was not fit to practice law, and that abstinence treatment at a facility should be considered.

After the DOJ notified the Tennessee agencies in September 2023 that it was investigating, Scott received his law license.

The other lawyer, C.B., had completed an inpatient rehabilitation program in 2010 and graduated from law school in 2020. C.B. informed the Tennessee Board of Law Examiners that several misdemeanor arrests happened while he was abusing alcohol and Xanax, which is often used to treat anxiety disorders and anxiety caused by depression. A board interviewer concluded that C.B. had no mental or psychological disorder that would affect his ability to practice law.

C.B. was nonetheless referred to the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program for evaluation and was required to pay $6,000 for a psychological and drug assessment. The medical report found that C.B. was fit to practice law but recommended abstinence-based outpatient therapy for substance-use management and physical therapy for pain. He should also quit smoking and get his cholesterol checked, the report said.

The Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program said C.B. should get outpatient treatment in a drug program four days per week. C.B. lost his job and moved from Ohio to Tennessee to attend a seven-week program. He was then allowed to obtain a law license as long as he entered a five-year monitoring contract and submitted to random drug tests.

The restrictions and conditions imposed on Scott and C.B. “were based on speculation about their disabilities that were contrary to demonstrated conduct, and as to D.S. in particular, they were based on stigma and stereotypes about his prescribed treatment,” the letter said.

Scott told NBC News that he felt validated by the findings.

“I felt like they had put up an obstacle that they knew I couldn’t overcome,” he said.

Scott works as a lawyer primarily handling criminal defense cases, according to NBC News. He continues to take his medication.

NBC News spoke with civil rights attorney David Sinkman, who handles substance-use bias cases, about the DOJ letter. He was not involved in the case.

“This is a powerful finding by the Department of Justice that applies beyond admission to practice law in Tennessee, since there are similar licensing restrictions in other states and for other professions,” Sinkman said.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Utah considers allowing law grads to choose…

Bar Exam

Utah considers allowing law grads to choose apprenticeship rather than bar exam

By Debra Cassens Weiss

November 7, 2024, 1:21 pm CST

The Utah Supreme Court is seeking comment on a proposal to allow law grads to become lawyers without taking the bar exam.

The plan released Monday gives law graduates two options to obtain a law license: They can pass the bar exam, or they can complete “alternate path” requirements. Both options also require a passing score on the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam.

Those who choose the alternate path must have graduated from an ABA-accredited law school within the last five years, must have successfully completed several listed law school courses, and must complete 240 “supervised practice hours” under a supervising attorney.

The Utah Supreme Court is inviting comments through Dec. 19, Reuters reports. The state supreme court acted in response to a 2023 proposal of its Bar Admissions Working Group.

One of the working group members is Catherine Bramble, a professor at Brigham Young University’s law school. She told Reuters that she hopes that the alternate path program “could be implemented as soon as next summer.”

Other states with apprenticeship pathways are Oregon, Washington and Arizona, according to Reuters.

See also:

Examining the Bar: Should law grads need to pass the bar to practice? Some say there is a better way

Bar exam does little to ensure attorney competence, say lawyers in diploma privilege state

Judicial task force will take deep look at legal ed, bar admissions

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. 2 federal judges who boycotted Columbia law…

Judiciary

2 federal judges who boycotted Columbia law grads didn’t commit misconduct, review panel says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

September 17, 2024, 10:10 am CDT

Two federal judges who said they wouldn’t hire future law grads from Columbia University did not commit misconduct, according to a review panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Atlanta’s judicial council.

The review panel appeared to be referring to U.S. Circuit Judge Elizabeth Branch and U.S. District Judge Tilman E. Self III of the Middle District of Georgia, the only judges who signed a letter announcing the boycott within the 11th Circuit.

Law360, Reuters and Bloomberg Law covered the Aug. 12 order released last week.

Branch and Self were among 13 federal judges who signed the letter pledging not to hire future Columbia grads for clerkships because of the school’s handling of campus disruptions. All 13 judges were appointees of former President Donald Trump.

The judges’ May 2024 letter deemed Columbia to be “an incubator of bigotry” and said the university should embrace viewpoint diversity and impose serious consequences for students and faculty who participate in campus disruptions and violate university rules.

The no-misconduct finding follows an August 2024 decision drawing the same conclusion by a review panel of the 5th Circuit at New Orleans’ judicial council. The 5th Circuit review panel found no ethics violations by eight federal judges within the 5th Circuit, including, apparently, Circuit Judge James C. Ho.

The 11th Circuit review panel affirmed a decision by the 11th Circuit Chief Judge William H. Pryor Jr. The order included Pryor’s June 2024 decision dismissing the complaint.

There is no basis for a finding of misconduct, Pryor had said.

“Federal judges routinely hire law clerks and must consider applicants’ educational backgrounds in determining whether an applicant is qualified for and will succeed in the job. As part of that consideration, judges are permitted to make reasonable conclusions regarding the value and quality of a school’s educational program,” he wrote.

A person who filed a complaint against the judges with the 11th Circuit said there is every reason to think that judges who are willing to punish a university and its graduates “will skew their judicial rulings in a similar manner.”

“It is no stretch of the imagination,” the complainant wrote, to conceive that the judges will “attempt to discern the political views of the parties and counsel before them and discriminate and retaliate against them.”

The complainant also called for an investigation into whether “outside organizations or foreign governments” orchestrated the judges’ letter.

Pryor responded that that the complainant’s claims lack sufficient evidence, including insufficient evidence to show that the judges “treated or will treat individuals in a demonstrably egregious and hostile manner.”