To President Rosenblatt and Members of the Rockland County Bar Association, I am writing to express grave reservations about introduction of the Uniform Bar Examination (“UBE”) that has been proposed for adoption for New York State. New York, like all other states until the very recent past, has developed and managed its own Bar Examination and Attorney Admission system independent of other jurisdictions. That system typically permitted an overall bar pass rate of 70 to 85%. It was believed that the Board of Law Examiners would modify the test to make it more, or in some years slightly less, difficult to manage the number of attorneys being admitted to practice in this state.

Introduction of the UBE promises to make unquestioned, unfiltered reciprocity of practice in New York and other states administering the UBE, the rule. Without a doubt, members of other UBE state bars, particularly those in contiguous or nearby states, will freely explore and utilize opportunities for practice in the lucrative legal marketplace of New York. Some UBE proponents might argue that more attorneys practicing in New York State means the legal needs of underserved New York residents will be better met. This is a fallacy. Attorneys physically situated in their home states will merely look upon the open door policy for New York practice as an invitation to pursue larger fees at higher hourly rates. Out-of-state attorneys can hardly be expected to show concern for the truly underserved portions of New York State’s citizenry, particularly in upstate populations removed from the financial power center of New York City and immediate environs.

Permitting potentially thousands of newly “admitted” attorneys to descend on New York City, Long Island and the lower Hudson Valley to troll for clients will create an even harsher, crowded field in an already overcrowded market. Moreover, these aggressively marketing out-of-state attorneys may be savvy and have the energy to compete for clients in New York State, but they will be truly ignorant of the overwhelming body of New York common law, statutory and regulatory guidelines. With the UBE offering unfiltered, unregulated admission into New York State practice, there is no incentive for their acquiring at least a passing knowledge of New York law. Nor have UBE proponents put much discussion into the problem of attorney discipline and jurisdictional issues inherent in developing a system where a large body of attorneys situated far from the borders of New York have harmed clients or committed malpractice in a New York State venue.

New York State permits pro hac vice admissions, as do other jurisdictions. In addition, it permits admission without examination to attorneys of other states with similar reciprocity rules, who have practiced in such state for five of the last seven years prior to applying for admission to New York. This process is probably underused, but is available for qualified, experienced attorneys who truly have a desire to move their practice, or add New York State to their practice. This process represents a measured, sensible approach to the question of admission to New York practice from other jurisdictions. It requires far more thought and planning than merely checking a box on a (UBE) bar exam form.

In short, the economic pressure the UBE would place on attorneys practicing in New York, particularly in the lower twelve counties, and the issue of managing and disciplining ill-trained attorneys scattered across far- flung jurisdictions, render the implementation of the UBE in New York a debacle waiting to happen. On the other hand, I see no advantage of any kind to New York citizens or bar members. The UBE-empowered attorney is not coming to New York to seek out a lower paying or stipend position to help, e.g., unrepresented tenants in housing court, or a poor family facing foreclosure. They are here only to cherry-pick lucrative clients and situations.

New York State should resolve to vote against the UBE. It will truly be an abomination for all those presently within its boundaries.

Respectfully submitted,Timothy G. McNamara, Esq.