On the heels of thinking about how to handle the July 2020 bar exam and alternative solutions, some states (led by New York) are moving to postponing the bar exam in light of the coronavirus pandemic. I imagine many states will follow this proposal (even if it’s of limited effectiveness).

But state bar licensing authorities should also be thinking of small accommodations that can help ease test-takers’ concerns in times of heightened uncertainty—if the state bar chooses to administer a traditional exam.

First, state bar licensing authorities should offer the ability of prospective test-takers to seek a refund up until the day of the exam itself if those test-takers choose not to take the bar. Just as California recently allowed for refunds after it accidentally disclosed exam topics ahead of the exam, states can offer a generous refund policy like, ideally, hotels and airlines are doing. That would ease concerns for test-takers who are uncertain about how their study habits, family responsibilities, or health will fare in the months ahead. (Admittedly, I understand this is a cost to licensing authorities that are renting out space for test-takers. But it’s one, I think, they should bear here.)

Second, state bar licensing authorities should allow for a later registration deadline for test-takers without a late fee attaching. For example, if registration is usually twelve weeks before the exam, make it ten or eight weeks. Understandably again, state bars look to reserve space based on registered test-takers. But there might be higher levels of uncertainty looking at the fall, so test-takers might hesitate—particularly those who have jobs in another state that may not pan out in an economic downturn, or practicing attorneys in another jurisdiction weighing whether to take an additional bar exam this fall or postpone until a later date.

Third, state bar licensing authorities should offer reduced prices for repeaters in the February 2021 exam. This is a concession to some applicants that they may not be as prepared as they would otherwise be for the fall 2020 test. This, I think, would be a modest gesture to help on a global level for all those who may fail the fall 2020 exam.

Fourth, state bar licensing authorities should expedite grading. To be honest, this is something that state bar licensing authorities should be working on anyway (so I shouldn’t treat this as a coronavirus pandemic-related concern). That’s especially true in California, which recently reduced its exam from three days (two days of essays) to two days (one day of essays), but still takes until late November to release results. States like Maryland and Rhode Island, or others that also have November release dates or even late October, should consider adding graders or thinking how to expedite the grading process to push out results earlier to test-takers. That would minimize the job-related effect on test-takers in the event the exam is pushed to the fall.

These are modest decisions, but they all cost the state bar licensing authority money. But if budget concessions can be made, and if reduced costs with vendors (say, sites hosting the bar exam) can be negotiated, these would help all test-takers in the fall 2020 administration of the bar exam.