GENERAL RULES FOR GOOD, LEGAL & PROFESSIONAL LIVING (SEE BELOW FOR DETAILS)

By : Mr. Mr. Thomas O. Otherthan, Esq., Attorney-at-Law, Otherthan, Onalesser & Maybee, Attorneys and Counselors at Law Specializing in Property Law (Except Personal Property) Rated “Highly Qualified” and “Highly Ethical,” The Abraham Lincoln Association of Fair-Dealing Law Practitioners

As an attorney, it is essential to maintain healthy rules for good living. But it is also essential to maintain meaningful exceptions thereto, subject to law, notice and good cause shown. In general, I live a healthy life. But in no event do I live healthily when “healthy living” would materially interfere with firm financial objectives or client confidentiality. Except as otherwise provided, I concentrate my practice on real property matters, provided in all events that I do not represent both the buyer and seller of a single piece of real property in the same transaction, unless such buyer and seller consent thereto in a writing subject to applicable ethics rules. To be blunt, I take my responsibilities as a professional seriously, except on Friday afternoons.

I legally support my wife and my children in all events, subject to qualifications under law. I love my wife, unless and until my wife acts in a manner inconsistent with my personal taste or mood, in which case I do not love my wife. To the extent permitted by applicable family law standards, I detest my wife consistent with the level of inconvenience she inflicts upon me. I support my children to the extent necessary to satisfy applicable family law standards, including, and strictly limited to: the provision of housing, clothing, nourishment and financial support until age 18. I honor semi-monthly conjugal duties on my wife’s behalf, except when fulfillment of such duties would pose a public health hazard and/or aesthetic risk. Fulfillment of aforesaid family support obligations under law satisfies my legal duties and thereby absolves me from all other duties to my wife and children, whether spiritual, emotional or otherwise.

I tell the truth in all matters in which it is both legally necessary and pragmatic to tell the truth. When it appears as a matter of professional judgment that telling the truth would harm client goals or injure firm financial integrity, I do not tell the truth; provided in all events that it appears to a reasonable certainty that no enforcement authority would ever know the difference between the truth and a lie. It is essential for lawyers to tell the truth, unless it would harm their business to tell the truth. Except as allowed under law and modified by opportunity, I am an ethical lawyer. In general, I maintain appearances sufficient to satisfy all applicable legal and professional standards. Pursuant to law, I do not engage in sexual intercourse with clients unless such sexual intercourse predates the formation of the attorney-client relationship. In all ethical questions, I consult the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and tailor my behavior to comply in good faith therewith. In all cases not covered by the Rules of Professional Conduct, I act in a manner consistent with client objectives and firm financial goals, but not on Fridays.

I am a competent attorney specializing in property law, but not personal property law. In all cases involving purchase money mortgages, I defer to my colleague, Mr. Byron H. Onalesser, Esq. But I do not defer to my colleague, Mr. Byron H. Onalesser, Esq., in any case involving both purchase money mortgages and contract questions in the State of Missouri. Pursuant to said qualification, Mr. Byron H. Onalesser, Esq. handles all real property cases involving purchase money mortgages to the extent permitted by law. In real property cases other than purchase money mortgage cases not involving contract questions in the State of Missouri, Mr. Byron H. Onalesser, Esq. is competent to offer reliable representation. Except as otherwise provided by agreement, executive decree, judicial order or statute, I observe such rules.

I respect grammar as disclosed in Barken’s Manual on Legal Writing (4th Ed. 2007), except in such cases as variation is appropriate under law, but not on Fridays. Consistent with aforesaid Manual, I use the word “pursuant” in all cases in which I mean “according to,” notwithstanding the syntactical and grammatical identity between aforesaid words. But I use the words “according to,” not the word “pursuant” on weekends. In the spirit of general practice, I use the word “pursuant” to mean “according to” even in nonprofessional settings, including, but in no wise limited to, family dinners and outings. For example, when recounting an anecdote, I do not say: “According to your uncle, e&c, e&c.” Rather, I say: “Pursuant to your uncle, &c, &c.” In my view, and subject to both law and fact, consistency is essential in grammar and life; provided in all events that consistency does not materially interfere with client objectives or firm financial goals, ethical considerations notwithstanding.

I take my continuing legal education responsibilities seriously to the extent necessary to fulfill annual filing requirements. Pursuant to rules promulgated by the Supreme Court, I attend all required lectures and retain all attendance receipts as required by law for the applicable filing period; but in every case permitted by the regulations, I purchase lecture CDs in lieu of actual attendance, then claim (under oath) to have listened to aforesaid lectures. My general rule is compliance; I comply with all professional rules, regulations and requirements, even if such compliance undermines the philosophical intent behind such rules, regulations and requirements. Unless compelled by threat of force or property deprivation, I comply with minimal effort and time expenditure; and I always comply pursuant to law, no further.

As a general matter, I enjoy weekends and vacations on the beach, but never on cold days, or on Fridays, whichever comes first. I enjoy weekends and vacations on the beach on the strict condition that: (1) all reasonably attainable firm financial goals have been met; and (2) a reasonable degree of client satisfaction has been reached (subject to law). I enjoy weekends and vacations on the beach so long as aforesaid conditions (1) and (2) have been unconditionally satisfied, except in cases of war (but not African war), famine (but not among African-Americans), piracy (except in Las Vegas), civil unrest (but not among Hispanics), terrorism (not committed by Buddhists, Shikhs or the Portuguese) or rebellion (other than slave rebellions). Subject to said conditions, exceptions and qualifications, I enjoy weekends and vacations on the beach; provided in all events that such enjoyment is consistent with State, Federal and local law, other than municipal ordinances hitherto deemed unconstitutional on or before July 15, 1877.

I have beliefs, thoughts, opinions and desires to the extent permitted by law and firm financial goals. To the extent that such beliefs, thoughts, opinions and desires contravene and/or are inconsistent with law and firm financial goals, I hereby expressly disavow any such belief, thought, opinion or desire as if I had never held such belief, thought, opinion or desire, so help me God. Under oath, and under penalty of perjury, I hereby solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never held any belief, thought, opinion, desire or expressed any conscientious sentiment that has—or in any way could have been construed to have—violated law, good manners or adversely affected firm financial goals. I hereby solemnly swear (or affirm) that I am a “good person” as defined by the Committee on Character & Fitness of the Bar of this State, except to the extent disclosed by evidence never brought before aforesaid committee. In general, I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I lead my life in the appropriate manner, subject to all applicable rules, regulations, ordinances or injunctions (whether mandatory or preliminary, equitable or constructive); provided in all events that “appropriate living” does not include all conduct taking place outside the country; or on Fridays. Subject to these qualifications, limitations and restrictions, I hereby swear (or affirm) that I am a “good person” as construed by the Committee on Character & Fitness of the Bar of this State, pursuant to all admissible evidence under applicable law, the truth of the matter notwithstanding, and making no allowance for common decency, honor or courtesy. It is my contention that such matters as “decency,” “honor” or “courtesy” cannot be definitively proved without reference to subjective taste, and consequently cannot be admitted as evidence of “good” or “bad” character in Character & Fitness evaluations. In short, I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have “good character” and I am “fit” consistent with all rules, regulations and judicial decrees legally applicable thereto (but no more).

Except as provided hereinabove, I declare that I adhere to all these rules. As an attorney, it is important to be flexible, except in cases where flexibility is forbidden by law, or where flexibility would materially impact firm financial interests. I am a consistent practitioner and a good person unless circumstances require me to be otherwise. Good rules require good exceptions; but a good exception always requires a good proviso. Subject to all qualifications, restrictions, provisos, limitations and caveats provided herein, I am a consistent and good legal practitioner. Without waiving any defense at law or equity, and reserving all legal rights appurtenant hereto, I declare that I always comply with applicable law. In short, the law guides me, unless it would be profitable and pragmatic to ignore it.

STATEMENT ON CHARACTER & FITNESS FROM THE BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS

By : E. Pearson Firmingham, Esq., Chairman, Committee on Character & Fitness, New York State Board of Bar Examiners

Practicing law requires impeccable moral fitness. Although legal doctrine may require intellectual exertion and reasoning skill, legal practice requires an even temperament, good character, decency, propriety and appropriate living. Many applicants to the Bar believe that their academic achievements in law school demonstrate their fitness to practice law in our State. They are wrong. Our State does not condition law practice on intelligence alone; rather, it also conditions law practice on being a respectable person. This requirement perplexes many young applicants. For that reason, today we present a primer to guide hopeful applicants as they navigate their way through the bar application requirements.

In New York, lawyers must be both smart and decent. Anyone can pass law school tests and write essays. Being smart is the easy part. But not everyone can be decent. As Bar Examiners, we have a duty to the People of the State of New York to ensure that only the brightest and most moral men and women represent them in legal matters. We do not want our citizens to fall victim to intelligent—but morally bankrupt—attorneys. If we had to choose between a smart lawyer and a decent lawyer, we would choose the decent one every time.

Still, we recognize that New York lawyers must possess some basic intellectual skill. To that end, our Bar Examination tests an applicant’s rudimentary legal knowledge. Our examinations determine whether an applicant knows the elements of a contract, whether res judicata applies to a subsequently-filed lawsuit and whether the parol evidence rule bars contemporaneous oral statements during a contract dispute. Additionally, our examinations test an applicant’s ability to spot key words in page-long multiple-choice questions that enable him or her to correctly—and instinctively—mark the answer in 1.8 minutes or less. Our examinations demonstrate an applicant’s legal intelligence. Applicants should study hard to show their intelligence. We are confident that successful applicants possess the intelligence to skillfully represent their clients in any legal matter.

But intelligence and legal knowledge mean nothing without good character. An applicant may answer every question correctly on the Bar Examination, but if he is a bad person, he will not receive admission to the Bar. To avoid unnecessary exertion, we do not allow applicants to demonstrate their intelligence to us until they have demonstrated their character. Because character is more important than intelligence, we must certify an applicant’s character before allowing him or her to sit for the Bar Examination.

One cannot study how to be a good person. One either lives correctly or one does not. Our Bar Examiners determine whether an applicant has decent character. They know whether an applicant is fit to practice law in our State. Yet many applicants do not know how to demonstrate their good character. They know how to study evidence exceptions and civil procedure rules, but they do not know how to prove that they are decent people. In New York, we want our lawyers to be moral, decent, upstanding, forthright, honest and loyal. We believe our young applicants should know how to demonstrate these qualities to us. Below, we enumerate qualities that demonstrate the “character and fitness” necessary to practice law. We also discuss why these qualities matter in legal practice.

Good lawyers are honest. Our Bar Examiners will look to see that an applicant has lived his or her life with proper regard for truth in his written and oral representations. To that extent, we want to see lawyers who have lied on their resumes, lied to their employers and deceived their creditors. We want to see lawyers who have committed criminal fraud and stolen from their friends. In short, we want to see applicants who know how to bend the truth in every situation. A good lawyer respects the truth. That means the ability to convincingly lie, misrepresent, mislead, distort and deceive.

On the other hand, we do not look with favor upon applicants who “never tell lies” or who maintain a principled devotion to the truth in every situation. In our State, lawyers must be flexible in client service. No one wins when everyone tells the truth. In fact, people do not expect lawyers to tell the truth. Employers, too, do not want the truth every time. They want to hear about successes, and great success is rarely possible through truth alone. Additionally, no one even makes it into law school without having lied a few times along life’s way. To that extent, our Examiners carefully screen out applicants who demonstrate an unhealthy devotion to absolute honesty.

Good lawyers are responsible. Our Bar Examiners scrutinize an applicant’s personal and financial history to determine whether the applicant respects his or her obligations. We also look to see whether the applicant lives a decent, conventional lifestyle that inspires trust. Good applicants respect those to whom they owe obligations. We especially prize applicants who have lived at more than 35 addresses over the past 10 years. We also prize applicants with poor credit scores and numerous outstanding debts. Reproductive activity also indicates responsibility. We positively regard Applicants who do not practice birth control. We especially prize unwed fathers who neglect their child support obligations. We favorably review applicants who quit jobs without notice, leaving their employers to scramble for replacements. We also appreciate individuals who rack up substantial credit card debt with several accounts in collection houses. We accord respect to applicants who receive invoices and never pay them. These applicants demonstrate proper regard for responsible living. By accumulating obligations and skillfully living their lives to avoid them, they show their dedication to responsibility as a lifestyle. By certifying our applicants as “responsible people,” we ensure that our future lawyers will do the right thing when representing clients.

Good lawyers do not break the law. Lawyers have a public duty to enforce the law by example. They also must recognize that the law holds them to a higher standard than laymen. To whom much is given, much is expected. In order to support these ideals, applicants to the Bar in this State must demonstrate proper regard for legal authority and the moral rules that sustain our society. In that light, we favorably regard applicants with substantial prison history for violent crimes and sexual predation. Lawyers with firsthand experience in the criminal justice system will better represent clients in similar positions. Additionally, we look to see whether applicants get into brawls, fights or beat their spouses. Violent, abrasive, contentious and strident personalities befit the legal profession. In the law, clients seek favorable results through adversary justice. Applicants with a history of violence, discord and pugnacity will best serve clients. Our committee accords great respect to applicants with lengthy criminal records. Although applicants with convictions for violent crime tend to be more successful than applicants convicted for nonviolent crime, any crime is better than none. Additionally, conviction for nonviolent crimes such as fraud, theft, burglary, money laundering or fortune telling serve as probative evidence that the applicant is fit in other character areas, such as honesty and responsibility. A convicted securities fraudster, for instance, shows that he is both honest and responsible.

On the other hand, applicants without criminal records face a difficult road. Our committee seeks applicants who respect the law. If an applicant does not break the law, he tells us that he fears the law rather than respects it. Lawyers in our State must be willing to take chances in life. Those who do not break the law mark themselves as cowards who do not live properly. Our reviewers do not look favorably upon individuals who have not served time in prison. Without a felony criminal record, applicants must show their good character in other ways, such as substantial outstanding debt, crude disrespect for parents or teachers, gross irresponsibility, failure to pay child support, residence at over 50 addresses in 5 years, brazen contempt for the police or numerous misdemeanor violations, such as public urination, drunk driving, indecent exposure, disturbing the peace or lewdness. In short, applicants must show their respect for the law by demonstrating that they know how to break it.

Good lawyers must be sober, thoughtful and temperate. To ensure that our State admits only good people to the Bar, our committee carefully examines every possible source to determine that applicants regularly drink alcohol and use prohibited drugs. Citations for underage drinking are especially helpful in this regard, since they indicate that the applicant has imbibed regularly since before age 21. Evidence tending to show that applicants shoot heroin, smoke crack or marijuana, snort cocaine, pop prescription painkillers or ingest mind-altering chemicals strongly weighs in an applicant’s favor. Applicants can provide this evidence by securing sworn affidavits from acquaintances testifying that they saw the applicant using drugs at a particular time and place. Hearsay statements or rumors will not suffice to prove that the applicant properly abuses drugs or alcohol, although an applicant’s own sworn statement that he drinks at least two (2) six-packs of beer (not light beer) per weeknight will satisfy our examiners. In short, good attorneys maintain their composure with drugs and alcohol. Our citizens deserve legal representation through attorneys who know how to drink. Our committee ensures that only the drunkest advocates represent their legal interests before the courts of the State of New York.

Tea-totaling applicants face a difficult application challenge. Our committee does not look favorably upon attorneys who do not drink or use drugs. Practicing law is stressful. Drugs and alcohol ease stress, allowing attorneys to better serve their clients. Additionally, drugs and alcohol ease social inhibitions. Our committee certifies that future attorneys are jovial, outgoing, gregarious and charming. Alcohol enables lawyers to project the proper energy on their clients’ behalf. On the other hand, nondrinkers are generally stodgy, ill-humored, cold, distant, tongue-tied and uninteresting. Good lawyers must retain the ability to speak fluently and charmingly. Alcohol and drugs ensure their fluency and charm. When we say “character and fitness,” we mean that our applicants must be “fun, entertaining, fast-talking” characters. In our State, we do not want “Stick-in-the-Mud” characters; we want dynamic, outgoing and rambunctious characters.

Good lawyers must be respectful, polite and courteous. Our committee examines evidence tending to show that our applicants curse, scream, jump up and down, whine, bicker, spit, backbite, slander, gossip and raise their voices unnecessarily. Good lawyers must possess the character necessary to browbeat and verbally intimidate their opponents to win their cases. Evidence tending to show an applicant to be an ornery, irascible, argumentative, discordant and unpleasant person carries special weight in our application process. Our citizens want determined legal representation. We certify that lawyers in our State will be angry, combative people likely to kick and scream, as well as to present cogent points based in logic and law.

By contrast, we look with disfavor upon tranquil applicants who politely treat others with unequivocal respect. In this profession, winning matters. In our adversary system, there is no room for quiet respect. To that extent, we frown upon applicants with a proven record of collegiality, warmth, compassion and grace. These qualities reflect a character unfit to practice law.

We hope that these explanations provide suitable guidance for prospective applicants to our Bar. We recognize that the Character & Fitness portion of the New York State Bar Examination may seem daunting. But we encourage you to stay the course. Please ensure that you carefully assemble all the tangible evidence necessary to show your honesty, integrity, loyalty, decency, normalcy, sobriety and good morals. An organized applicant will always receive certification more readily than applicant who cuts corners when submitting necessary evidence. In that light, we encourage you to secure your relevant criminal records, leases from past addresses, employer complaints, negative credit reports, subzero bank statements, forged checks, affidavits disclosing drug use, Personal Statement of Sufficient Alcohol Consumption (PSAC), domestic disturbance citations, child support default judgments and other written materials substantiating your good character.

We wish you luck as you make your way through the application process.

A BETTER BAR EXAM MEANS BETTER LAWYERS

By : Mr. Cleophas G. Hoistwell, Esq., L.L.M., National Association of Bar Examiners

Our Nation depends on skilled lawyers. We live in a constitutional democracy in which reasonable laws maximize the public good. We eschew arbitrary rule by individual men for rational, collective, republican government. The law orders our society. It gives predictability to our commerce. It provides a voice to express the majority’s morals. And it protects all good citizens from the violence of dangerous deviants. In short, the law both drives and guides our American civilization.

Lawyers serve the law in America. Without good lawyers, Americans would not be able to secure justice through the law. In less orderly societies, aggrieved individuals resort to private vendettas, feuds and crude revenge to win justice. But in America, citizens trust the law to exact revenge on those who act wrongly. Rather than seeking private revenge on a merchant who breaks his promise, a private seller in America goes to a lawyer to seek legal revenge for his injury. At the same time, the accused merchant seeks his own lawyer to advocate his perspective. A neutral court weighs both sides and decrees a just result. That is the heart of American justice: Fairness, impartiality and reason under neutral laws. In this country, creditors do not bludgeon debtors to death when they fail to pay their bills. Instead, they invoke fair legal principles to compel adherence to just rules. In the process, we give everyone a chance to be heard. Lawyers allow us to hear everyone’s voice. That, in turn, allows our courts to render fair, just decisions to resolve disputes.

Our society depends on skilled lawyers for the same reason it depends on an orderly legal system. An orderly legal system provides effective redress for public and private injuries in society. People trust lawyers to secure that redress. Throughout our history, lawyers have done an admirable job. With dogged advocacy, imaginative argument and courage, lawyers have done their part for justice in America. By zealously advancing their clients’ causes under law, lawyers have forged a pathway to truth; and truth illuminates the pathway to justice. We salute our legal profession for its commitment to justice. In even the smallest cases, a lawyer’s work reinforces respect for a legal system in which the People put their trust.

We live in rapidly changing times. Thankfully, the law stands as a familiar bulwark against the forces of change: What was larceny in 1800 remains larceny today. Nonetheless, there is a widening gap between legal theory and professional practice. In decades past, lawyers attended law school to learn legal principles that served them well in their professional careers. State governments recognized that the public needs good lawyers. For that reason, they conditioned a license to practice law upon proven legal ability through a Bar Examination. Bar Examinations serve as a gateway mechanism that assures the public that only skilled lawyers will represent them. For generations, this gateway mechanism proved successful: Lawyers showed their skill by answering essays and reciting legal rules, just as their fathers and grandfathers did before them. Upon passage, successful examinees joined the profession; and the State felt satisfied that its lawyers “knew the law.”

We support the Bar Exam tradition. Our legal system depends upon the past. Legal rules derive their strength from past decisions. Lawyers must constantly look to the past for guidance in the present. Their analytical work is backward-looking: They see what happened yesterday, then attempt to match their arguments to analogous situations today. To do this effectively, lawyers must know how to read rules and memorize them. After all, without an ability to rapidly memorize old rules, a lawyer could not effectively match his case to an old one. The Bar Exam is an excellent way to measure a lawyer’s ability to memorize thousands of ornate legal rules. Although many of these rules have no application at all to modern legal practice, lawyers demonstrate their mental devotion by learning them anyway. Furthermore, lawyers must respect tradition and order. By learning immense amounts of inapplicable legal doctrine before test day, they show that they are willing to accede to any demand made by the State. Lawyers must obey the State that sustains the law. The Bar Exam enforces obedience at the same time it tests loyalty and mental discipline. In short, we will never abolish the Bar Exam, no matter how inapplicable it may be. We believe that the Bar Exam trains lawyers to follow instructions and submit to authority. To that extent, it is eminently applicable: It cultivates values that drive the legal profession.

New lawyers must pass the Bar Exam because old lawyers passed the Bar Exam. It would insult past generations if we allowed new generations to escape this highly significant rite of passage. It does not matter that the legal rules at issue in the Bar Exam do not apply in professional life. Lawyers are a brotherhood with distinct traditions, ceremonies and hierarchies. It would undermine our values to abolish a tradition that forges identity from adversity. No one asks the Army to abolish boot camp. So too should no one ask the legal profession to abolish the Bar Exam. The Bar Exam is the ultimate challenge. It is the ultimate ordeal. It demonstrates the applicant’s endurance, dedication and courage under stress. By dutifully learning inscrutable legal formulas that mean absolutely nothing in everyday life, lawyers show their mental toughness. They show their willingness to do anything for the profession. They build their characters by confronting seemingly insuperable difficulty. We insist that our traditions remain intact. Ceremony matters in both law and life. If we abolish the Bar Exam, which ceremony will be next to fall? The Presidential Inauguration? The fraternity hazing? The first communion?

By passing the Bar Exam, lawyers prove their worth. And because the Exam ultimately protects the public by creating obedient, disciplined lawyers, it would be foolish to eradicate it. It must persist.

We recognize that lawyers must accommodate changing times. Critics say that the Bar Exam should adapt to test more “pragmatic” aspects of legal practice. Currently, the Exam only asks timed essay and multiple choice questions on subjects from every legal field. Some States also require the applicant to compose a “practice-oriented” legal scribbling, such as an office memo or contract. Yet nothing in the Bar Exam directly targets the practice experience. We believe that the public deserves lawyers who more effectively understand how to serve clients. To that extent, we support including new sections in the Bar Exam that test an applicant’s ability to handle “real-life” practice situations.

In practice, lawyers must speak on the phone. They must ask questions. They must gather facts to flesh out their legal theories. They must listen to their bosses. They must review millions of documents to search for damaging admissions or inconsistencies. We support new Bar Exam sections that test an applicant’s ability to handle such practice pressures. The National Association of Bar Examiners has established a committee to determine which aspects of everyday practice best typify the lawyer’s everyday existence. After many months of hard work, we have drafted a new Bar Exam section entitled: “Preparation for Professional Life.” Beginning in 2010, applicants to the Bar of each State will be required to pass the new section. It will comprise 25% of the total test score; failure to pass it will result in overall test failure. Below, we discuss the substantive material at issue in the new section.

In Bar Exam tradition, applicants must answer questions without really thinking about the answers. They must be reflexive. Analysis does not matter as much as rote response. If an applicant can answer a criminal law question about “voluntary intoxication” by immediately choosing an answer that involves “a defense to specific intent crimes,” he will have proved his worth. After all, the Bar Exam tests dedication and memorization. And when an applicant has memorized the material, he knows answers without even looking at the questions. It takes time to reach such automatic facility with material. That is dedication. And that is the mark of a good lawyer. The public does not want original thought; it wants reflexive, responsive service.

In the first new section (“The Drinking Ordeal”), the Association continues the tradition of reflexive knowledge under merciless time pressure. To pass the first part of the “Preparation for Professional Life” Exam, applicants must drink five (5) U.S. gallons of beer or wine within 90 minutes under close supervision by other licensed attorneys. By this ordeal, we will test the applicant’s ability to drink copious amounts of alcohol quickly: A true hallmark of professional practice. Lawyers not only know how to analyze statutes and draft wills; they also know how to imbibe more—and more efficiently—than any layman. By requiring applicants to drain five (5) U.S. gallons of beer or wine within strict time constraints, we also test effective time management. Lawyers must drink; but they also must find time to do so. As many practicing lawyers know, this is no easy task. The new section tests a future lawyer’s ability to drink quickly and efficiently while balancing other responsibilities. By requiring supervision by other attorneys, we guarantee that no applicant can get away with drinking less than the prescribed five (5) U.S. gallons. If an applicant fails to drink the prescribed five (5) U.S. gallons within the allotted time, loses consciousness, undresses, dances on a test table, wets himself, vomits or dies, he fails. The Association recommends that the Drinking Ordeal be administered before all other Bar Exam sections, so that applicants will be forced to write essays and answer multiple-choice questions while completely intoxicated. This mirrors professional practice. Lastly, applicants must pay the State Bar Examination Board for the alcohol used in this section. This not only generates extra revenue for the State Bar Examination Board, but it also teaches a valuable practice lesson: In professional life, you have to buy your own beer.

In the second new section, the Association tests applicants’ humility and obedience. In professional life, new lawyers start low—very low. They do not start out trying cases or meeting with high-grade clients. Rather, they join a hierarchy; more specifically, they join at the lowest possible rung. They may know legal rules. They may be enthusiastic and bright. But that does not increase their political status as the weakest of the weak. Additionally, new lawyers must know their place within the hierarchy. To do that, the second new Bar Exam Section (“The Emasculation Ceremony”) requires applicants to submit to verbal abuse at the hands of senior partners. Applicants will have 120 minutes to complete an impossible task, such as finding a case that does not exist or a statute that has been repealed. When they have exhausted every source to find the nonexistent law, they must go before the managing partner, who will loudly call them “idiots, morons, losers, disgraces” and “incompetent assholes” who “don’t deserve a cent of my money.” The partner will also yell at the applicants and explain that their failure is costing the firm money, and that they have committed legal malpractice. The partner will scream various personalized insults at the applicant, such as: “You fat ass punk, I wanted this shit done yesterday. And fuck you, too.” He will also falsely tell the applicant that every other associate in the firm does their job correctly, but the applicant does not. If the applicant becomes defiant, talks back, makes excuses such as “I’m new at this,” argues or cries during his Emasculation Ceremony, he will fail the section. If he agrees with the partner’s assessment, apologizes profusely and says: “It was all my fault; I will do better next time,” he will pass. This section tests the applicant’s ability to calmly absorb criticism and blame from superiors, an essential skill in professional life. In the Association’s view, defiant lawyers have no place in the profession. Rather, competent lawyers know their place and willingly accept treatment commensurate with their low station.

In the final new Bar Exam section, applicants must demonstrate their ability to accomplish tedious, time-intensive tasks. In modern-day professional practice, law firms achieve financial success by billing as many hours as they can on particular matters. The Association decided that it would test applicants’ ability to practice that skill. To do this, the third new Bar Exam section (“The Sanity Test”) requires applicants to sit alone in a small room in front of a computer screen for 12 hours straight without rising from a very uncomfortable, hard-backed office chair. All the while, rotating supervisors will enter the room to ensure that the applicant does not get up. If an applicant gets up, speaks, turns around, falls asleep, cries out or urinates, he will fail the test. This section tests an applicant’s mental determination to methodically attend to the most mind-numbing tasks for long hours. In the Association’s view, modern legal practice involves many such time-consuming, apparently pointless tasks. Yet these tasks are very important to the firm, because they form the basis for robust billing. In the end, lawyers must understand that they are economic entities, no matter how many legal principles they memorize. The Sanity Test drives that message home.

In sum, the Association believes that these new sections will adequately prepare new lawyers for their careers in the legal profession. As lawyers, we respect tradition and we draw our strength from the past. At the same time, we recognize that we live in a changing legal climate that demands more from practitioners than ever before. By requiring new applicants to pass the new Bar Exam sections on Drinking, Emasculation and Sanity, we are confident that future lawyers will be better prepared for professional life. They will not only master timeless legal esoterica such as third-party beneficiary law and the Rule Against Perpetuities; rather, they will also effortlessly learn to balance alcohol with work, absorb punishing workplace abuse and resolutely attend to the most inconsequential, counterintuitive and meaningless tasks for hours on end. By mastering such technical skills, lawyers will better represent clients. And when lawyers better represent clients, justice prevails.

We are fully confident that the new Bar Exam will secure justice for all by producing perpetually drunk, abusive legal technicians who can stare at computer screens longer than any layman—for reasonable fees. And they will know how to recite the Holder in Due Course Rule, too. If that does not secure greater access to competent legal counsel in America, nothing will.