Editorial On South Carolina Bar Controversy

An editorial in Tuesday’s edition of TheState.com takes the South Carolina Supreme Court to task for its conduct in the recent controversy over the decision to admit 20 applicants who had been notified that they had failed the bar exam. The editorial accepts the court’s explanation as proof that the decision was not made in order to benefit well-connected applicants:

“after the results had been posted, an examiner wrapping up his workdiscovered he had transposed the numbers in one person’s grade,changing a failing score to a passing score; that the court decided theonly fair thing to do was to throw out that section so everybody whofailed it received the same benefit as the inadvertent lawyer.

… we find the explanation entirely believable, because it is socompletely in keeping with the cultural tradition that runs deepthrough our state and, apparently, our court — a tradition of bendingthe rules so as not to offend, of smoothing things over, of notadhering to the highest standards. It is a tradition that holds usback, in countless ways…

…By choosing the worst possible option, the court has failed in its roleas a gatekeeper for the legal profession. And since most of the 20lawyers who shouldn’t be lawyers haven’t been overtly identified, thedecision casts a shadow over the competence of every lawyer sworn inthis month.” (Mike Frisch)