Is American Bar Association Confirming Public’s Worst Fears of Lawyers?

By JERRY WOLFFE
Of The Oakland Press

Published: Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Attorneys throughout the country need to ask if the American Bar Association still has the moral authority to lead the legal profession.

The federal civil rights action against the ABA is about more than a brilliant blind West Bloomfield man being able to go to law school.

It’s about the ABA’s essence in whether it believes in equal opportunity and legal protections for all and the future of civil rights in America.

Angelo Binno, 28, of West Bloomfield, had a lawsuit filed on his behalf by blind attorney Richard Bernstein, charging that the ABA discriminates against the blind because a test all law school applicants must take — the Law School Admission Test — is biased against the blind and visually impaired.

In his lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in May, Bernstein said an entire section of the LSAT requires test takers to draw pictures and diagrams in space provided on the test.

That, in itself, is discriminatory since a blind person is placed at a competitive disadvantage.

The ABA contends that is does not offer the LSAT even though it requires it for all U.S. law schools to maintain their accreditation.

It’s a disingenuous argument and unworthy of an organization that has the authority to give accreditation to law schools. The U.S. Department of Education delegatied its authority to the Chicago-based ABA to accredit law schools.

“The ABA is not disputing that the LSAT is discriminatory,” Bernstein said. “It is arguing that even though the ABA requires law school applicants to take the LSAT, it does not offer the test.

“This is an outrageous argument,” he added. “The ABA is fighting over a legal technicality.”

Any law school applicant must go through the Law School Admissions Council, a private entity which administers the LSAT for admittance to a law school.

The LSAC website says “all applicants to an accredited U.S. law school are required to complete the LSAT,” Bernstein said.

If a law school waives the LSAT requirement, the ABA will withdraw that law school’s accreditation, he added.

And if a law school is not accredited by the ABA, a law school graduate cannot sit for the bar exam in nearly every state.

So it is obvious that the ABA has direct control over the Law School Admissions Council as well as accreditation of law schools. So it directly ties into requiring law schools and the LSAC to give the discriminatory LSAT to blind and visually impaired students.

“My position is if you require a test you are offering it,” said Bernstein. “And if you are offering it, you are responsible for the content.”

Why is the ABA making blind people draw pictures and diagrams?

Probably the LSAT score is the key variable in law school admission of a student.

The ABA should show it endorses fairness and justice and tell law schools that the LSAT is no longer a requirement of law school applicants.

Instead of dealing with the merits of the case, the ABA is playing games with the truth. The point is that the LSAT is discriminatory and no one, including the ABA, has disputed that in court records.

Its entire case is based on how the word “offer” will be interpreted by the court.

This is why people have low opinions of attorneys because such arguments hide the truth.

The ABA is doing a tremendous disservice to the practice of law by playing word games which will deny the disabled such as Binno the chance to fulfill his dream and work in the legal profession as an attorney.

Attorneys across the country need to evaluate whether the ABA should continue to have the moral authority to represent the legal profession and indirectly the future of civil rights of all Americans, not only the disabled.