Law school is a tough challenge even for the bright students who gain admission. In America, a good student will complete over 4,000 hours of lectures, classes and scholarship. Law books are long and law libraries are large. Law school probably isn’t the best choice for anyone unable to pay attention to something for longer than a few minutes at a time. Matthew Scott Jones, however, is inviting a different view. He is suing the Law School Admissions Council (LSAC) because it won’t grant him special conditions for his attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Last September, Mr Jones applied to take the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) which all law schools approved by the American Bar Association require. The examination includes five 35-minute multiple-choice tests and a 35-minute essay. It is designed to test candidates’ abilities in understanding complex texts, the organisation and management of information, the ability to draw reasonable inferences, critical thinking, and the analysis and evaluation of other people’s reasoning. Mr Jones asked for double the time to take the tests because of his attention deficit condition and his request was declined.
Mr Jones is keen to become a lawyer but whether his lawsuit is a good tactic is open to question. He alleges in his claim that his clinically diagnosed ADHD impairs his reading and his ability to concentrate so much that his competence in those key legal fields is “below that expected in comparison to most people”. Mr Jones has also asked the court to rule that his LSAT results (which are sent to the law schools to which he has applied) must not be flagged as “not taken under standard conditions”.
In the lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas, Mr Jones claims that his rights have been violated as LSAC “has illegally refused and is illegally refusing” to accommodate his disability by giving him double the normal time to sit his exams. The court will soon have to decide whether being unable to pay sustained attention is a valid reason for being awarded extra time in law exams, and, if so, whether people relying on the exam results – like law school admissions tutors – are entitled to know if someone has passed an exam in that way. If Mr Jones wins, one question for future courts will be whether the same thing applies to people sitting Air Traffic Control or medical exams.
The US system of regulating the education and practice of lawyers is rigorous. American attorneys – of whom there were 1,180,386 at the last count - are strictly trained and monitored. The American system, in fact, got off to a very strict and no-nonsense start. In 1639, Thomas Lechford, the first lawyer to practise in New England, was disbarred for malpractice. He was found guilty of “embracery” (pleading with the jury out of court). Still, as Americans might delicately observe, Lechford had been trained in England as a solicitor.
Gary Slapper is Professor of Law at The Open University. His new book Weird Cases is published by Wildy, Simmonds & Hill.