« Ind. Courts - "Disciplinary charges against suspended LaPorte Superior Court Judge Jennifer L. Koethe" | Main | Law - "Legal Heavies Tackle the First-Year Associate Dilemma" »

Thursday, December 10, 2009

nd. Courts - Still more on "ACLU Lawsuit claims Indiana law examiners violate the ADA "

Updating this August 16, 2009 ILB entry, and this July 9th, 2009 entry which quoted from a National Law Journal story that reported:

The ACLU filed the lawsuit on July 7 on behalf of a woman licensed in Illinois who is seeking admission to the Indiana State Bar Association. Identified as "Jane Doe" in the action, the plaintiff seeks an injunction prohibiting the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners from asking certain questions about mental fitness. She also seeks a declaratory judgment that the questions on the application and the board's follow-up procedures violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The case mirrors actions in other states that have challenged certain questions regarding mental health on professional license applications. Similar challenges have resulted in the removal or modification of such questions in Maine, New Jersey and Rhode Island.

The Indiana application asks, among other questions, whether an applicant has been treated or diagnosed "for any mental, emotional or nervous disorders" at any time from age 16 to the present. It requires applicants who answer affirmatively to provide detailed information about the type of problem and in some cases to submit to evaluation by the Indiana Supreme Court's Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program.

On Nov. 30, 2009, the Board of State Examiners filed a motion for a protective order in the case:
Defendants now file a Motion for Protective Order concerning the same disputed discovery requests. The disputed interrogatories request data on Indiana bar applicants responding affirmatively to bar application questions relating to mental health. The interrogatories also request information concerning any actions taken with respect to those affirmative responses. Defendants objected to the interrogatories for two reasons. First, the interrogatories request information which is deemed confidential by Rule 19 adopted by the Indiana Supreme Court. In addition, the interrogatories are unduly burdensome in terms of the time it would take to respond to them. These objections are discussed in more detail below.
Here is the supporting memorandum filed by the Board.

And here is "Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order," with appendices, filed Dec. 1st, 2009.

From an opinion column today in the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel, it appears the Board of Law Examiners is also being sued in the ND Indiana, in this case by a named plaintiff, represented not by the ACLU, but by himself. Here are just some of the quotes from Kevin Leininger's story, quoting the complaint:

Bryan Brown is a conservative, activist and unapologetic Christian. Of that there is no doubt.

But does that mean he is also mentally ill? Too ill even to be a lawyer?

The bureaucracy that controls access to Indiana's legal profession believes that very thing, according to a lawsuit in which Brown alleges that he was subjected to a series of hostile religious and political questions during a review of his fitness to practice law - a review that subsequently rejected him on mental-health grounds.

The lawsuit, filed by Brown himself this week in U.S. District Court in Fort Wayne, contends the Indiana Board of Law Examiners, created by the state Supreme Court in 1931 to screen bar applicants for character and fitness, ordered Brown - for reasons unknown - to appear before representatives of the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program (JLAP) in January 2008. According to its Web site, the program “offers to help judges, attorneys and law students who experience physical or mental disabilities.” * * *

Fort Wayne psychologist Steven Ross, Brown claims, used a test including such questions as: Do you believe that you should be punished for your sins? Do you believe the husband should be the head of the family? Do you have strong political opinions? Do you believe that a multitude of people are involved in sexual sins? Have you ever had a vision?

Ross initially concluded that he had found nothing that “should preclude Mr. Brown from taking the bar exam,” but JLAP Clinical Director Tim Sudrovech allegedly added the conclusion that Brown's religious fervor “suggests a sub-clinical level of bipolar disorder which would warrant further consideration by a psychiatrist.”

The JLAP then referred Brown to Indianapolis psychiatrist Elizabeth Bowman, who concluded he suffered from a personality disorder after questioning him about the Arch Angel Institute's religious beliefs and his own “religious arrogance.” Bowman mocked his Christian “pro-life zeal,” Brown claims, and questioned his interpretation of Scripture. “If admitted to the Indiana bar he would likely continue his anti-abortion activities,” according to a portion of her report quoted in the lawsuit.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on December 10, 2009 01:09 PM
Posted to Indiana Courts