What About the Bar Exam After the 2020 Dust Settles?

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

Illinois law dean and professor Vikram David Amar comments on some of the questions commentators and analysts are, or will soon be, asking—specifically why we have bar exams for legal licensure, and, assuming we retain them, what they should look like going forward. Amar observes the limitations of the so-called diploma privilege advocated by some and suggests that states adopt greater interstate uniformity in their bar exams, shift toward more performance (as opposed to memorization) exams, and move away from being so time pressured.

Read More

Parkford Owners for a Better Community v. County of Placer

Docket: C087824(Third Appellate District)

Opinion Date: September 16, 2020

Judge: Harry E. Hull, Jr.

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use

Plaintiff Parkford Owners for a Better Community (Parkford), appealed a judgment entered in favor of defendants, Placer County and Placer County Community Development Resource Agency (collectively, the County), and real parties in interest, Silversword Properties, LLC (Silversword), K.H. Moss Company, and Moss Equity (collectively, Moss). Silversword owned property upon which Moss operated a commercial self-storage facility (Treelake Storage). Parkford’s lawsuit challenged the County’s issuance of a building permit for construction of an expansion of Treelake Storage, claiming the County failed to comply with both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Planning and Zoning Law. The trial court concluded: (1) the County’s issuance of the building permit was ministerial rather than discretionary, and therefore CEQA did not apply; and (2) Parkford’s challenge under the Planning and Zoning Law was barred by the statute of limitations. Real parties in interest, joined by the County, argued the trial court correctly decided each of these issues, and in the alternative, urged the Court of Appeal to affirm the judgment because Parkford’s challenge to the building permit became moot prior to the entry of judgment, when construction on the expansion project was completed. The Court concluded Parkford’s claims were moot and dismissed the appeal.

People v. D.C.

Docket: F078629(Fifth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: September 16, 2020

Judge: Rosendo Peña, Jr.

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Defendant petitioned to seal his arrest record pursuant to Penal Code section 851.91 after pleading no contest to possession of a controlled substance and successfully completing treatment and probation pursuant to section 1210.1. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order denying defendant's petition where the court cannot conclude that "no conviction occurred" such that defendant should be entitled to relief under section 851.91, subdivision (a)(1)(B)(i). The court explained that while defendant's arrest and conviction are deemed never to have occurred for most purposes, it is not the equivalent of a defendant who was arrested but never convicted. Rather, because defendant's arrest and conviction still exist for some purposes, he is in a markedly different position from someone who was never convicted at all.