Relates to making technical corrections to ensure gender neutrality for the admission to practice law and preventing required disclosure of prior interaction…

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Luis R. Sepúlveda says this is needed

New York State's application for admission to the Bar must be revised to eliminate impermissible questions about criminal justice involvement so that it conforms to the requirements for licensing agencies set forth in the New York Human Rights Law and Family Court Act. The four departments of the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, pursuant to the authority granted in C.P.L.R. 9404, use question- naires to screen the character and fitness of applicants seeking admis- sion to practice law in New York State. Criminal justice involvement must be disclosed in response to several questions, including Question 26, which currently asks: "Have you ever, either as an adult or a juvenile, been cited, ticketed, arrested, taken into custody, charged with, indicted, convicted or tried for, or pleaded guilty to, the commission of any felony or misdemeanor or the violation of any law, or been the subject of any juvenile delin- quency or youthful offender proceeding? Traffic violations that occurred more than ten years before the filing of this application need not be reported, except alcohol or drug-related traffic violations, which must be reported in all cases, irrespective of when they occurred. Do not report parking violations." These questions are inconsistent with Section 296(16) of the New York Human Rights Law, which provides, "It shall be an unlawful discriminato- ry practice, unless specifically required or permitted by statute ... for any person, ... including the state and any political subdivision thereof ... to make any inquiry about, whether in any form of applica- tion or otherwise, .. . any arrest or criminal accusation of such indi- vidual not then pending against that individual which was followed by a termination ... in favor of such individual ... or by a youthful offen- der adjudication ..." The bar application questions are also improper under Section 380.1 of the New York Family Court Act which provides, "Except where specifically required by statute, no person shall be required to divulge information pertaining to the arrest of the (juve- nile) respondent or any subsequent proceeding under this article." Neither the Human Rights Law nor the Family Court Act exempts from the prohibition against criminal record inquiries any of the administrative agents of the New York Supreme Court who handle the licensing of attor- neys. Requiring disclosure of criminal justice involvement on the bar applica- tion has an adverse impact on the representation of people of color in New York law schools, which require disclosure on their application forms to conform to the bar application's required disclosure. According to recent New York State Bar Association Report, criminal record screen- ing has a chilling effect on college and law school applicants from communities of color due to the greater likelihood that they will be arrested, and if arrested convicted, than their similarly-situated white counterparts. The Report noted with concern that of the approximately 4,500 students admitted in 2021 to the 15 law schools in New York, fewer than 400 identified as African American, Native American, Alaskan or Pacific Islander. This disturbing under-representation of students of color in law schools is reflected in the well-documented under-represen- tation of people of color among lawyers admitted to practice in New York. The Report also noted that criminal record screening does not protect the public from lawyers who go on to violate the ethical requirements of the profession. The most prominent academic study of the effect of crim- inal record screening in Connecticut on the rate of lawyer discipline shows that such screening has no statistically-significant protective effect for the members of the public who seek legal services. That conclusion has not been contradicted by any data or study from the New York Office of Court Administration. Consistent with the findings and recommendations of the NYSBA, this bill would confor

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.