The letter expresses reservations about adopting the Uniform Bar Examination (UBE) in New York State. It argues that the UBE would lead to unchecked reciprocity between New York and other UBE states, allowing out-of-state attorneys to freely practice in New York's lucrative legal market without sufficient knowledge of New York law. This could negatively impact attorneys already practicing in New York and not actually help address the legal needs of underserved communities. The letter recommends maintaining New York's existing bar exam and admissions process instead of adopting the UBE.

1. To PresidentRosenblattandMembersof the RocklandCountyBarAssociation,
I am writingtoexpressgrave reservationsaboutintroductionof the UniformBarExamination(“UBE”)
that has beenproposedforadoptionforNew YorkState.New York,like all otherstatesuntil the very
recentpast,has developedandmanageditsownBar ExaminationandAttorneyAdmissionsystem
independentof otherjurisdictions.Thatsystemtypicallypermittedanoverall barpassrate of 70 to 85%.
It was believedthatthe Board of Law Examinerswouldmodifythe testtomake itmore,or in some
yearsslightlyless,difficulttomanage the numberof attorneysbeingadmittedtopractice inthisstate.
Introductionof the UBE promisestomake unquestioned,unfilteredreciprocityof practice inNew York
and otherstatesadministeringthe UBE,the rule.Withouta doubt,membersof otherUBE state bars,
particularlythose incontiguousornearbystates,will freelyexploreandutilizeopportunitiesforpractice
inthe lucrative legal marketplace of New York.Some UBEproponentsmightargue thatmore attorneys
practicinginNewYork State meansthe legal needsof underservedNew Yorkresidentswillbe better
met.Thisis a fallacy.Attorneys physically situatedintheirhome stateswill merelylookuponthe open
door policyforNewYorkpractice as an invitationto pursue largerfeesathigherhourlyrates.Out-of-
state attorneyscan hardlybe expectedtoshow concernforthe trulyunderservedportions of NewYork
State’scitizenry,particularlyinupstate populations removed fromthe financial powercenterof New
York Cityand immediate environs.
Permittingpotentiallythousandsof newly“admitted”attorneystodescendonNew YorkCity,Long
Islandandthe lowerHudsonValleytotroll forclients will create anevenharsher,crowdedfieldinan
alreadyovercrowded market.Moreover,theseaggressivelymarketingout-of-state attorneysmaybe
savvyand have the energytocompete forclientsinNew YorkState,but theywill be trulyignorantof
the overwhelmingbodyof NewYorkcommonlaw,statutoryandregulatoryguidelines.Withthe UBE
offeringunfiltered,unregulatedadmissionintoNew YorkState practice,there isnoincentivefortheir
acquiringat leasta passingknowledge of New Yorklaw.Norhave UBE proponentsputmuchdiscussion
intothe problemof attorneydiscipline andjurisdictional issuesinherentindevelopingasystemwhere a
large bodyof attorneyssituatedfarfromthe bordersof New York have harmedclientsorcommitted
malpractice ina NewYork State venue.
NewYork State permitsprohac vice admissions,asdootherjurisdictions.Inaddition,itpermits
admissionwithoutexaminationtoattorneysof otherstateswithsimilarreciprocityrules,whohave
practicedinsuch state for five of the lastsevenyearspriorto applyingforadmissiontoNew York.This
processisprobablyunderused,butisavailable forqualified,experiencedattorneyswhotrulyhave a
desire tomove theirpractice,oradd New York State to theirpractice.Thisprocess represents a
measured,sensibleapproachtothe questionof admissiontoNew Yorkpractice fromother jurisdictions.
It requiresfarmore thoughtandplanningthanmerelycheckingabox ona (UBE) bar examform.
In short,the economicpressure the UBE wouldplace onattorneyspracticinginNew York,particularlyin
the lowertwelve counties,andthe issue of managinganddiscipliningill-trainedattorneysscattered
across far- flungjurisdictions,renderthe implementationof the UBE inNew York a debacle waitingto
happen.Onthe otherhand,I see no advantage of any kindtoNew York citizensorbar members.The
UBE-empoweredattorneyisnotcomingtoNew York to seekouta lowerpayingor stipendpositionto
help,e.g.,unrepresentedtenantsinhousingcourt,ora poor family facingforeclosure.Theyare here
only to cherry-picklucrative clientsandsituations.

2. NewYork State shouldresolve tovote againstthe UBE.It will trulybe an abominationforall those
presentlywithinitsboundaries.
Respectfullysubmitted,
TimothyG. McNamara, Esq.