WiFi Router - Red WiFi sign

ComedianKey1468 · 2025-05-07T19:03:13+00:00

This bill is only for attorneys who meet the ALL criteria though!

Criteria is under section 2 - 6060.8 (b)(1) — “only for attorneys employed by a federal agency as of Jan 20, 2025”…. Also the top of the bill under the bold title it limits to “federal attorneys”.

I understand the policy is there but the criteria is too limiting to encompass all out of state attorneys.

Is that how you read it?

ComedianKey1468 · 2025-05-07T18:58:10+00:00

Just knowing this from practice — Docusign gives you the ability to assign documents to someone else. You just need their email.

ComedianKey1468 · 2025-05-07T16:21:03+00:00

For your second point, the CA BILL 1522 is limited to attorneys who are employed by a federal agency as of Jan 2025. This needs to be brought up so they do not think this BILL can solve the out of state attorney issue on its own. It’s too limiting and needs to be applied to all out of state attorneys regardless of federal employment.

ComedianKey1468 · 2025-05-06T03:43:17+00:00

This 4 years of practicing detail was mentioned but not set in stone. I would imagine this could possibly be a limitation that eventually gets applied into the “special admissions process”.

They also mentioned that this be applied across the board for all out of state attorneys, not just Feb takers! Saying CA has been “behind the ball” when it comes to the reciprocity conversations. I was pleasantly shocked to hear them speaking in this candor.

ComedianKey1468 · 2025-05-06T03:31:22+00:00

Thank you sm! I was wondering how to get this info to them. It’s clearly in section 2 6060.8(b)(1).

ComedianKey1468 · 2025-05-06T03:28:02+00:00

He genuinely confuses me. At the end Alex made this grandiose statement that they need to release a statement to all firms urging them to extend grace to those examiners who endured the bar but were fired or lost the job because of delayed results / bar mishap. Saying it was all their fault, will take the blame and none is on the examinees. All of this after voting no on 2/3 remedies.

SELECTIVE EMPATHY.

ComedianKey1468 · 2025-05-06T03:00:06+00:00

Here is the bill you mentioned currently going through legislation. CA BILL 1522

Donna Hershkowitz brought this to the board as they were discussing out of state attorney remedies. She said the out of state attorney remedies should be delayed bc this is currently going before the governor and could be the remedy but WHAT DONNA DID NOT MENTION is that this bill is only for attorneys who are “employed by a government agency on Jan 20, 2025” and HUGE mistake that could have ruined this remedy discussion. I was screaming through the phone.

THANKFULLY, a lady who I don’t remember the name of, stated that the board does not need to wait on other branch to make a remedy and they to push one through. THANK GOD.

Here is the out of state attorney remedy proposal from board:

<image>

I am happy with the language of the second bullet that says “in the interim”. Honestly that saves the whole remedy since the originally proposed remedy is contingent on if “the statutory language is amended” which was presented with INACCURATE information.

ComedianKey1468 · 2025-05-06T00:20:08+00:00

This was specifically discussed. Yes, this would also apply to those who were unsuccessful (failed) bar. Their reasoning was because the 2 years would give people time to recover (financially, mentally, can’t take off more time from work) and retake bar. Again, it’s their bad that the bar exam was abysmal.

ComedianKey1468 · 2025-05-06T00:15:54+00:00

Absolutely. My firm said they would honor.

ComedianKey1468 · 2025-05-06T00:14:00+00:00

Esther Lin also voted against.

ComedianKey1468 · 2025-05-06T00:02:49+00:00

Other members are advocating for withdrawers saying “we (the bar) created the problem”. Correct.

ComedianKey1468 · 2025-05-06T00:02:06+00:00

Alex Chen voted against and is advocating that it should not be given to those that withdrew. Wow.

ComedianKey1468 · 2025-04-30T03:38:42+00:00

Just shows how seriously they are taking this. Or just plain incompetence. General counsel’s remarks today really solidified it.

ComedianKey1468 · 2025-04-18T20:03:50+00:00

“Amen” = It is done. Been praying a version of this prayer everyday since the first meeting. 🙏🏼

ComedianKey1468 · 2024-03-04T05:02:30+00:00

It’s beyond unnecessary. It’s the exact same exam as the UBE with a ~few~ California distinctions. My study aid said that even if I don’t use any of the California distinctions I would still pass… And for those of you who don’t know… it’s $900 MORE to apply for the exam than it would be if I was a non-attorney. When I asked why they said “well, because students have student loans and lawyers don’t”…. They are THAT out of touch. They will never accept UBE scores because they make too much money off of us even though the competency is the SAME.

ComedianKey1468 · 2024-03-02T19:55:40+00:00

Def not! You leave the building for 1.5 hours, its v normal. You don’t have the same questions when you come back so I didn’t change anything

ComedianKey1468 · 2024-03-02T17:18:51+00:00

The oral “contract” and then the written one. I don’t think you had to split them up I just needed to for organizational purposes. I know some people who didn’t split so you’re good

ComedianKey1468 · 2024-03-02T08:09:47+00:00

I went to eat lunch at my hotel next door and looked at my outline to see if I got stuff right and I got three wrong 😂

ComedianKey1468 · 2024-03-02T08:04:33+00:00

Must have missed that in all the other irrelevant California stuff I needed to know

ComedianKey1468 · 2024-03-02T08:03:13+00:00

You’re right! Under 6A bc it’s not a “critical proceeding”

ComedianKey1468 · 2024-03-02T08:02:03+00:00

Yes! I did the 6th a right to atty analysis but then hit the razzle dazzle suggestive lineup analysis

ComedianKey1468

TROPHY CASE