Tag Archives: minnesota state bar association

Admission to the MN Bar changes

On January 17, 2013, the Minnesota Supreme Court has affirmed changes to the admission to the Bar.  The amendments that changed the Rules of Admission are:

Definitions:  Rule 2A(12) definition of Uniform Bar Examination.  Under the new amendment, UBE is “an examination prepared by the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE), comprised of six Multistate Essay Examination questions, two Multistate Performance Test questions, and the Multistate Bar Examination.  See amendments to Rule 7C (Admission by UBE score).

Requirements for Admission:  Rule 4A(4) was amended to state that an eligible applicant must provide satisfactory evidence of a passing score on the written examination under Rule 6 and is not eligible for admission under Rules 7A (Eligibility by Practice), 7B (Eligibility by MBE), 7C (Eligibility by UBE), 8, 9, or 10.

Requirements for Admission:  Rule4B was stricken.  Rule4B previously stated that the applicant had to be a resident of Minnesota or maintain an office in Minnesota or designate the Clerk of Appellate Courts as agent for service of process for all purposes.

The Examination:  Rule 6E(1) Essay Questions was amended to delete the following subjects:

  1. Civil Procedure (but note that the amendment added a Federal Civil Procedure subject);
  2. Ethics and Professional Responsibility;
  3. Federal Individual Income Taxation;
  4. Uniform Commercial Code Art. 1 &2 (but note that under the Contracts subject, the amendments include the UCC; as well as the new subject of Negotiable Instruments); and
  5. Wills, Estates and Trusts (but note that there is a new subject of Trusts and Estates).

The Examination:  Rule 6E(1) Essay Questions added the following subjects:

  1. Conflict of Laws;
  2. Federal Civil Procedure;
  3. Negotiable Instruments (Commercial Paper) under the UCC;
  4. Secured Transactions under the UCC; and
  5. Trusts and Estates.

The Examination:  Rule 6E(1) Essay Questions further stated what topics where covered under the following subjects:

  1. Business Associations – the subject no longer includes proprietorships;
  2. Contracts – the amendment stated the subject includes contracts under the UCC; and
  3. Trusts and Estates – the subject includes Decedents’ Estates, and Trusts and Future Interests

The Examination: Rule 6E(2) Multistate Performance Test stated there will be two 90-minute questions.  The prior rule stated one or two.

Admission Without Examination:  Rule 7A(C) Eligibility by UBE score was added to the ways an applicant may be admitted.  Rule 7A(C) states that the applicant might have received a certified scaled score of 260 or higher.  Rule 7A(C) also states the application must be completed within 36 months of the date of the examination.

Admission Without Examination:  Rule 7A(D) Transfer of MBE or UBE score was amended to add UBE.

Confidentiality and Release of Information:  Rule 14C(4) Examination of Data now includes the disclosure of the UBE.  In addition Rule 14C(5) specifies that the director may release copies of unsuccessful examinee’s answers to MEE and MPT questions.

via STATE OF MINNESOTA. (published by Minnesota Lawyer – subscription required).

Leave a comment

Filed under Law Schools, law students, Minnesota, rules

Dayton’s budget includes a legal services tax

Like Governor Pawlenty, Governor Dayton now wants to create a legal services tax.  The effect of such a bill would mean that the next time you or your client wants to seek a lawyer’s aid, in addition to paying the attorney’s fees, the client will need to pay a burdensome tax on legal services.

To reduce the budget deficit, this is what Governor Dayton proposed:

  • Reducing corporate income tax from 9.8% to 8.4%.  A huge drop of 1.4%.
  • Governor Dayton stated that he wants to tax clothing that costs more than $100.
  • Governor Dayton wants to tax the following services: legal, accounting, architecture, specialized design, computer, management consulting, advertising, employment and business support services.

Taxing legal services is a bad idea, which would significantly impact a population that cannot afford to get hit.  And why is that?  The legal services tax will be paid by the client.

So say, you are trying to fight foreclosure.  The owner of the home will have to pay that tax.  Or say, you are trying to fight a custody battle.  The parent will have to pay that tax.

Imposing such a severe burden on the middle-class, as well as the lower-class, will inevitably have a chilling effect.  In other words, the vast majority of Americans will no longer have a viable resource when exercising their constitutional rights.

The Minnesota State Bar Association shares this same viewpoint.  In addition, the MSBA has also stated that the tax would be next to impossible to administer.

via Dayton unveils a legal services tax to fill budget deficit – MinnLawyer Blog.

Leave a comment

Filed under civil rights, fees, Minnesota, Pending Legislation