Mental Illness Disclosure Requirements on State Bar Moral Character and
Fitness Applications: A Qualitative Survey
Theresa Esquerra*
INTRODUCTION
Perhaps no other profession stigmatizes mental illness as much as the legal services
industry. Only recently have members of the legal community come forth with their stories
about struggling with serious mental illnesses.1 Professor Elyn Saks’ memoir, The Center
Cannot Hold: My Journey Through Madness, chronicles her experiences with schizophrenia
while she attended Yale Law School and throughout her professional career as a law professor at
the University of Southern California. Her book stands out as one of the first works to break the
silence about lawyers who suffer from mental illnesses.2
Early in their careers, lawyers discover as law students that suffering from a mental
illness can be a liability and that it might prevent them from obtaining their license to practice
law. Each of the fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the United States territories requires
bar applicants to pass a moral character and fitness exam as a condition of being admitted to the
bar. The purpose of these exams is to protect the public from unethical lawyers who may suffer
from any number of problems including, but not limited to, financial irresponsibility and prior
*The research and writing of this article was supported by the 2009 Scattergood Emerging Scholars Fellowship
administered by Active Minds, Inc. The author is a LL.M. candidate at The George Washington University Law
School (’10). She received her Juris Doctorate degree in 2008 from University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of
Law, and an A.B. in 1997 from Harvard College.
1
See ELYN SAKS, THE CENTER CANNOT HOLD: MY JOURNEY THROUGH MADNESS (2007) (recounting a female law
professor’s personal experience with schizophrenia); James T.R. Jones, Walking the Tightrope of Bipolar Disorder:
The Secret Life of a Law Professor, 57 J. LEGAL EDUC. 349 (2007) (explaining a male law professor’s personal
struggles with bipolar disorder).
2
It is worth noting that Professor Saks and Professor Jones are uniquely positioned to write about their personal
experiences with bipolar disorder. Both are tenured law professors who cannot be discharged from their jobs for
writing about their experience with a stigmatic mental illness. Unfortunately, other members of the legal profession,
such as employees of private law firms, are unable to self-disclose without risking their relationships with clients
and employers.
1
convictions.3 Despite the Americans with Disabilities Act’s protection against discrimination for
people with mental illnesses, many moral character and fitness exams ask about the applicant’s
mental health. Depending on the state, bar examiners may make broad inquires into whether the
applicant has ever been diagnosed or treated for a mental condition, or they may make more
narrowly tailored investigations about whether the condition currently affects the applicant’s
ability to practice law. For law students aware of potentially having to answer such questions
about their mental health, this can have the unfortunate deterrent effect of not seeking otherwise
needed psychological counseling and treatment.
In 1994, responding to the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act4, the American
Bar Association issued a resolution recommending that state bars narrowly tailor the questions
asked about an applicant’s mental health on moral character and fitness exams.5 At that time, the
majority of states asked broad questions about whether the applicant had ever received treatment
and counseling for mental health problems.6 In 2009 the author conducted a qualitative survey
of the mental illness disclosure requirements in fifty-four United States jurisdictions, in order to
assess if the aspirational goals of the ABA’s resolution have been met nearly fifteen years later.
This article will discuss the author’s findings and recommend a future course of action.
3
National Conference of Bar Examiners, Comprehensive Guide to Bar Admission Requirements vii-ix (2009).
Available at http://www.ncbex.org/fileadmin/mediafiles/downloads/Comp_Guide/CompGuide.pdf.
4
Clark v. Va. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs, 880 F.Supp. 430, 441 (E.D. Va. 1995).
5
H. Rutherford Turnbull, III, Robert A. Stein & Carl C. Monk, American Bar Association Bar Admissions
Resolution: Narrow Limits Recommended for Questions Related to the Mental Health and Treatment of Bar
Applicants, 18 MENTAL & PHYSICAL DISABILITY L. REP. 597 (1994) [hereinafter 1994 ABA Resolution]
6
Clark v. Va. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs, 880 F.Supp. at 439-441.
2
I. THE 2009 QUALITATIVE SURVEY OF THE MENTAL ILLNESS DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS ON
STATE BAR MORAL CHARACTER AND FITNESS EXAMS
A. A History
By 1970 the American Bar Association identified a nexus between a lawyer’s mental
health and ethical behavior. Some scholars argue that this new concern with a lawyer’s mental
illness arose from the New York City Bar Association’s statements made in 1969 explaining an
increase in the number of lawyers with mental illnesses and recommending how these lawyers
should be disciplined.7 As a possible result of these statements, the 1970 ABA Model Code of
Professional Responsibility section concerning “Ethical Considerations” addressed this issue. 8
Ethical Consideration 1-6 explained that a bar applicant might be unfit for admission to the bar
because of “mental or emotional instability.”9 The “Ethical Considerations” section served as
aspirational goals for the ABA organization and its members.
In response to the ABA’s statements, by the 1970s state bars began asking applicants
about their mental health on moral character and fitness exams.10 The bar examiners often
adopted broad questions that inquired about whether an applicant had ever been treated or
diagnosed with a mental illness or disorder. By the mid-1990s thirty-two states asked broad
questions.11 Thirteen of those states limited their questions to specific diagnoses that would
affect the applicant’s ability to practice law.12 These conditions ranged from general inquires
about any “mental illness” to more serious conditions such as bipolar disorder, a major
7
Michael J. Place & Susan L. Bloom, Mental Fitness Requirements for the Practice of Law, 23 BUFF. L. REV. 579,
580 (1973-1974) (quoting Committee Reports, 24 Record of N.Y.C.B.A. 31 (Supp. No. 7, Oct. 1969)).
8
ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility, “Preliminary Statement” (1970). Available at
http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/mcpr.pdf.
9
ABA Mode Code of Professional Responsibility, EC (Ethical Consideration) 1-6. Available at
http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/mcpr.pdf
10
Ann Hubbard, Improving the Fitness Inquiry of the North Carolina Bar Application, 81 N.C. L. REV. 2179, 2199
(2003).
11
Clark v. Va. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs, 880 F.Supp. at 439-440.
12
Id. at 439.
3
depressive mood disorder, schizophrenia, paranoia, or other psychotic disorder.13 In addition,
eighteen of those states asked broad questions about whether an applicant had ever or within the
past ten years been treated for a mental illness or disorder.14
The ABA took notice the American with Disabilities Act and the bar examiners’ broad
questions about the applicant’s mental health. At the 1994 Annual Meeting, the ABA adopted a
resolution recommending that state bars work to narrowly tailor the otherwise broad inquiries
being asked about a bar applicant’s mental condition.15 The resolution identified the need to
balance the bar applicant’s privacy rights against the bar examiner’s interest in protecting the
public from unfit lawyers.16 The resolution proposed that questions about an applicant’s mental
health be narrowly tailored. The ABA provided specific guidelines for how to achieve this. It
recommended that the questions should focus on the applicant’s current conduct and behavior
and whether this current conduct affects the applicant’s ability to practice law.17 Many state bars
adopted these recommendations and amended the broad questions to focus on the applicant’s
current behavior and whether it affected his or her ability to practice law.
B. The 2009 Qualitative Survey
No comprehensive survey of the mental illness disclosure requirements on state bar moral
character and fitness applications has been undertaken in over twelve years.18 From February
through May of 2009, the author conducted research primarily through the internet of the mental
13
Id.
Id. at 440.
15
1994 ABA Resolution at 597.
16
Id.
17
Id.
18
Based on the research and information available to the author, the last comprehensive study of the mental illness
disclosure requirements on moral character and fitness exams was conducted by Professor Stanley S. Herr in
September 1996. Stanley S. Herr, Questioning the Questionnaires: Bar Admissions and Candidates with
Disabilities, 42 VILL. L. REV. 635, 646-655 (1997).
14
4
illness disclosure requirements in fifty-four jurisdictions, including each of the fifty states, the
District of Columbia, Guam, the Northern Marianas Islands, and the Virgin Islands.19 The
author’s analysis of this data showed a general trend toward narrowly tailored disclosures but
identified eight states with overly broad disclosure requirements.20
Many states provide prefatory remarks about why and what kind of information they are
seeking from the mental health disclosure section. Forty jurisdictions provide these “Preamble”
sections. The “Preamble” often explains that the bar examiners are not interested in “situational
counseling,” such as “stress counseling, domestic counseling, grief counseling, and counseling
for eating or sleeping disorders.”21 The “Preamble” also explains to applicants that the bar
examiners often grant licenses to applicants with mental health problems “who have
demonstrated personal responsibility and maturity in dealing with mental health … issues.”22
However, the “Preamble” also admonishes applicants that they may be denied licensure for “a
lack of candor” in their responses.23 Overall, the “Preamble” section is somewhat helpful in
explaining the scope of the bar examiners’ inquiry.
19
Every state with the exception of Oregon, Nevada, and New Mexico, provides a copy of their moral character and
fitness exam on the internet. The author was unable to locate the mental illness disclosure requirement for Puerto
Rico.
20
It is beyond the scope of this article, but it is worth noting that each state uses different procedures to investigate
candidates that affirmatively disclose their mental illnesses. It may very well be the case that states that have narrow
disclosure requirements may require applicants who answer affirmatively to submit to a private hearing before the a
special committee and be asked in detailed questions about their condition. For example, Jon Bauer provides three
cases studies of the harsh treatment three applicants to the Connecticut Bar received upon disclosing their mental
illnesses. Jon Bauer, The Character of the Questions and the Fitness of the Process: Mental Health, Bar Admissions
and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 49 UCLA L. REV. 93 (2001). Further study of the actual procedures state
bars use to investigate candidates who affirmatively disclosure their mental illnesses is necessary.
21
Twenty-one of the jurisdictions adopting the model form provided by the National Conference of Bar Examiners
use this language. These jurisdictions include Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, Northern Marianas Islands, Ohio, Oregon,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.
22
Id.
23
Id.
5
1. “Currently” Language and the Problem of Vagueness
A majority of states adopted the recommendations made in the ABA’s 1994 resolution
and have worked towards narrowly tailoring their disclosure requirements. In 2009 the most
common question asked by 39 jurisdictions is whether the applicant “currently” suffers from a
condition or impairment that would affect his or her “ability to practice law.” The question
generally takes the following form, “Do you currently have any condition or impairment
(including, but not limited to, substance abuse, alcohol abuse, or a mental, emotional, or nervous
disorder or condition) which in any way currently affects, or if untreated could affect, your
ability to practice law in a competent and professional manner?”24 Although this question is
more narrowly tailored than the language of broad disclosures which asks whether an applicant
has “ever” suffered from a mental illness, this narrowly tailored inquiry presents its own set of
problems and concerns.
The primary problem with questions involving the applicant’s current fitness is how to
interpret the term “currently.” Not all jurisdictions define the term “currently.” Of the thirtynine jurisdictions that have adopted the “currently” language, twenty-nine also provide a
definition of the term. However, even in those jurisdictions that define the word, the meaning
remains vague and confusing. Currently is most commonly defined as “…. recently enough so
that the condition could reasonably have an impact on your ability to function as a lawyer.”25 It
is not clear from this definition the scope of how recently the condition could have existed.
California’s definition explains that “”Currently” does not mean on the day of, or even in the
weeks or months preceding, the completion of the application. Rather, it means recently enough
so that you believe that the mental condition may have an ongoing impact on your functioning as
24
25
See, for example, Alabama’s Question 26.A.
See supra note 20.
6
an attorney.”26 The vagueness of this standard prevents an applicant from knowing if he or she is
answering the question in good faith.
In order to avoid the vagueness associated with the word “currently,” some jurisdictions
state a specific time frame in which they are looking for mental conditions that could affect the
applicant’s ability to practice law. In Minnesota, instead of using “currently,” the state asks if
within the past two years has the applicant had a “mental, emotional, or behavioral illness or
condition” that impairs his or her ability “to meet the Essential Eligibility Requirements for
practice.”27 Similarly, in Rhode Island the state does not use “currently” but instead asks if
within the past three years the applicant has “any condition or impairment … that in any way
impairs your judgment or, if untreated, could affect your ability to practice law in a competent
and professional manner.”28 Even though these questions provide a more concrete and certain
standard for applicants, they are probably overly broad and run afoul of the ABA’s 1994
resolution.
Maine and New Jersey ask questions that are outliers of the “currently” inquiry. In
Maine, the question reads, “Within the last three (3) years have you had any condition or
impairment (including, but not limited to, substance abuse, alcohol abuse, or a mental,
emotional, or nervous disorder or condition) which in any way currently affects, or if untreated
could affect, your ability to practice law in a competent and professional manner?”29 It is not
entirely clear how this question is to be understood. On the one hand, it may be asking about any
condition the applicant may have had in the past three years, but only if the condition currently
26
The State Bar of California, Moral Character Determination, Preamble to Question 13.1.
Minnesota State Board of Law Examiners, Application For Admission to the Bar of Minnesota, Question 4.34.
Available at http://www.ble.state.mn.us/App_fill-in_format_7-08_w_additions.doc.
28
Petition/Questionnaire for Admission to the Rhode Island Bar, Question 33. Available at http://www.courts.ri.
gov/supreme/bar/Bar-07bar_application-B_and_C_private.pdf.
29
State of Maine Board of Bar Examiners, Application to Take Bar Examination, Question 26.A. Available at
http://www.mainebarexaminers.org/MBBE-NA%2002.09.pdf.
27
7
affects the applicant’s ability to practice law. On the other hand, an applicant may misinterpret
the question as requiring an affirmative disclosure of any mental condition she or he had in the
past three years regardless of whether it currently affects his or her ability to practice law. The
Maine question should be redrafted to provide more clarity for applicants.
New Jersey’s disclosure is unique. Similar to other states, the second part of New
Jersey’s Question XII-B asks whether the applicant currently suffers from an “emotional, mental,
or nervous disorder” that would impair his or her ability to practice law.30 However, the bar
examiners ask in the first part of Question XII-B if the applicant has been diagnosed or treated in
the past year for a serious mental illness such as “schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder,
bipolar or major depressive mood disorder.”31 The New Jersey questions make no inquiry into
whether the condition has been ameliorated by medication or other treatments. The first section
of Question XII-B appears to negate the first part of the question. Moreover, a person who is
being successfully treated for such a serious condition is required to answer yes to the question in
good faith.
Bar examiners could make the questions about current behavior clearer by defining the
term “ability to practice law.” Only nine jurisdictions explicitly define the term.32 This would
help applicants identify the type of work that they are expected to be capable of performing.
Unlike the “currently” word, the term “ability to practice law” has been defined more clearly and
with greater precision in some jurisdictions. Of the nine states that define the term, six rely on
30
New Jersey, Committee on Character, XII. Health (2009). Available at http://www.njbarexams.org/app/
application.pdf.
31
Id.
32
The nine states that define “ability to practice law” are Alaska, California, Iowa, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Wisconsin.
8
the same definition of the phrase.33 In those jurisdictions, “ability to practice law” is defined in
three prongs as:
A. The cognitive capacity to undertake fundamental lawyering skills such as
problem solving, legal analysis and reasoning, legal research, factual
investigation, organization and management of legal work, making appropriate
reasoned legal judgments and recognizing and resolving ethical dilemmas, for
example.
B. The ability to communicate legal judgments and legal information to clients,
other attorneys, judicial and regulatory authorities with or without the use of aids
or devices; and
C. The capability to perform legal tasks in a timely manner.34
Unlike the vagueness associated with the “currently” definition, states that have adopted this
definition of “ability to practice law” provide clear guidelines for bar applicants in determining
whether they are required to disclose their mental health conditions. However, more work
remains to be done to provide bar applicants with clear questions about their mental health that
can be answered in good faith.
2. Overly Broad Inquiries
Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin continue
to ask overly broad disclosures similar to those that existed in the mid-1990s. Michigan and
Indiana ask the broadest questions by inquiring into whether the applicant has “ever” suffered
from various mental conditions. The Michigan disclosure is probably the broadest. It asks
whether the applicant as “ever” been “treated or counseled … for, a mental, emotional, or
nervous condition which permanently, presently or chronically impairs or distorts your
judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality or ability to cope with ordinary demands of
33
Alaska, Iowa, New Mexico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Wisconsin use the same three-pronged definition
For example, see Alaska Question 17 explanatory section. Available at https://www.alaskabar.org/BarExam
Resources/ExamApplication.pdf.
34
9
life.”35 The question does not limit itself to only the most serious mental illnesses, but asks
about any mental or emotional condition. Instead of asking about whether the condition affects
the applicant’s “ability to practice law,” it asks a broad question about whether the condition
affects the applicant’s “ability to cope with ordinary demands of life.”36 This question is not
narrowly tailored to address an applicant’s current conduct and ability to practice law.
Indiana’s inquiry is also very broad.37 Question 22 asks whether the applicant has been
diagnosed or treated for “bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia, or any other psychotic disorders.”38
Although not specifically saying “ever,” the inquiry does not define a time limit. It can be
inferred that the question is asking whether an applicant has ever had one of those conditions.
Question 23 asks whether from the age of sixteen to the present has the applicant been diagnosed
or treated for “any mental, emotional or nervous disorders.”39 This question is broad with
regards to duration and the type of condition. The inquiry is not limited to the most serious
mental illnesses, but instead asks about any mental disorder. Question 24 asks whether the
applicant has any condition or impairment that would currently affect his or her ability to
practice law. But this narrow question in relation to the two broad questions still makes
Indiana’s disclosure requirement very broad.
Nevada, Ohio and Texas ask overly broad questions by requiring the applicant to answer
whether in the last ten years has he or she been diagnosed or treated for a serious mental illness
35
Michigan State Bar, Part XIII – General Fitness, Question 54b. Available at https://secure.ncbex2.org/php/ea/
view.php.
36
Id. Question 54a.
37
The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of an anonymous plaintiff
challenging the mental illness disclosure requirement in Indiana as violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Doe v. Individual Member of the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners, Pl.’s Complaint (July 7, 2009). Unlike
similar lawsuits in which the plaintiff is often a law student, in this case the representative Jane Doe plaintiff is
already a licensed attorney in Illinois. Leigh Jones, Lawsuit Claims Indiana Law Examiners Violate the ADA (July
9, 2009). Available at http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202432129430&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1.
38
Indiana State Bar Application, Question 22 (on file with author).
39
Id. Question 23.
10
such as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, paranoia or any other psychotic disorder.40 A serious
mental illness that occurred within the past ten years does not necessarily reflect on current
conduct and is not narrowly tailored. By asking about treatment or diagnosis instead of current
conduct, this unfairly requires those applicants who successfully manage their conditions with
medication and/or counseling to disclose their conditions.
Instead of asking about only serious mental illnesses, New Hampshire asks a broader
question by requiring the applicant to disclose any treatment or consultation in the past ten years
for any “mental, emotional, or nervous disorder or condition.”41 Utah asks whether the applicant
has been hospitalized or treated in the past ten years for a serious mental illness. Although the
question does not ask about a diagnosis, it has the same effect by requiring disclosures from
applicants who are being treated for such conditions. Despite many states that have worked
towards narrowly tailoring their questions about the applicant’s mental health, too many states
still retain overly broad disclosure requirement and should amend their questions to conform to
the aspirational goals of the ABA’s 1994 resolution.
3. Best Practices
Of the fifty-four jurisdictions surveyed, only four states ask no specific question about the
applicant’s mental health.42 These states include Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii and Pennsylvania.
Instead they use a catch-all question, usually placed as one of the last questions in the
40
Nevada Bar Application, Question 42 (on file with author); Ohio, Question 26 A. available at https://secure.
ncbex2 .org/php/ea/view.php; Texas Board of Law Examiners – General Application, Question 11(a), available at
https://efastdirect.ble.state.tx.us/CreateAccountGenApp.aspx.
41
Petition and Questionnaire for Admission to the Bar of New Hampshire, Question 12 and 13. Available at
http://www.courts.state.nh.us/nhbar/petition.pdf.
42
The states that did not ask a specific question about the applicant’s mental illness or disorder included: Alaska,
Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois and Pennsylvania.
11
questionnaire.43 Alaska’s Question 18 inquires, “Are you currently suffering from any disorder
that impairs your judgment or that would otherwise adversely affect your ability to practice law?
If yes, please explain.”44 Arizona asks a more general open-ended question, it reads, “Is there
any other information, incident, or occurrence which is not otherwise referred to in your response
to this Character Report which, in your opinion, may have a bearing, either directly or indirectly,
either positively or negatively, upon your ability for the active and continuous practice of law?
If yes, explain fully.”45 These open-ended question leave it up to the applicants to determine if a
mental illness will affect their ability to practice law and requires disclosure to the bar examiners.
If an applicant’s condition is successfully being treated with medication and he or she can
perform the essential tasks of being a lawyer, then the applicant can confidently answer “no” to
such a question in good faith. These states and their general catch-all questions should serve as a
best practices model for other states
II. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTION
The question remains of how best to address the problems associated with broad
disclosure requirements and vague inquires involving whether a condition currently affects an
applicant’s ability to practice law. Although, in the past, some students have filed lawsuits based
on the American with Disabilities Act against state bars in order to avoid answering questions
43
Illinois comes close to being a model state, but Question 52 asks “Have you ever been declared incompetent or
had a conservator appointed to help conduct your affairs?” The question places no time limit on such a situation.
This situation also often arises when a person is hospitalized for a mental illness. This question might be an indirect
way of asking about whether an applicant has been hospitalized. Available at https://www.ibaby.org/confirms
electapplication.action?id=1.
44
Application for Admission to the Alaska Bar Association, Question 18. Available at https://www.alaskabar.org/
BarExamResources/ExamApplication.pdf.
45
Arizona Character Report, Question 35. Available at http://www.supreme.state.az.us/admis/pdf
/Character%20Report%20804.pdf.
12
about their mental health46, this method may prove too adversarial to result in positive change.
First, the student’s lawsuit is not always successful. Second, students who file lawsuits against
state bars risk high exposure. Ironically, students who sue state bars will end up through the
public process of a lawsuit being required to reveal all their private mental health information
that they worked so hard to keep a secret. Ultimately, these lawsuits are pyrrhic victories.
Perhaps a more fruitful method to advance change would be through an advocacy
campaign involving the legal and mental health communities. In recent years, law students with
disabilities have organized to form the National Association of Law Student with Disabilities.47
However, law students are probably ill-suited to advance change against state bars because of the
power dynamics involved with the relationship. The student is in the vulnerable position of
seeking a license from the bar examiners, while the bar examiners are in the powerful position of
either granting or withholding the student’s license to practice law.
An advocacy campaign that focuses on seeking a conversation and dialogue with bar
examiners might prove more positive. Such an advocacy campaign would ideally be made up of
licensed attorneys both with and without a disability but sympathetic to the cause, law
professors, law school deans and deans of student affairs, and psychiatrists and other members of
the mental health community. Law professors, law school deans and deans of student affairs are
in a particularly good position to help address these problems because they work on the front
lines with law students who experience mental health issues. Once a coalition is formed,
members should seek meetings with the executive directors of state bars to discuss and work
with clarifying the “currently” definition and amending broad disclosures.
46
47
Clark v. Va. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs, 880 F.Supp. 430.
http://www.nalswd.org/history.html.
13
CONCLUSION
The aspirational goals of the ABA’s 1994 resolution asking state bars to narrowly tailor
their mental illness disclosures have not been fully achieved. Too many states ask broad
questions about whether an applicant has suffered from a mental health related condition. The
adoption of the “currently” language has led to a vague, confusing, and sometimes misleading
standard that provide students with misinformation about what conditions must be disclosed. In
order to address these problems, an advocacy campaign should be undertaken led by attorneys,
law school deans and faculty and the mental health community. The coalition should seek a
dialogue with the bar examiners to address these problems and work towards clarifying and
amending the questions as needed. Not only might these changes be beneficial for law students,
but it may also help change the tone of the conversation regarding mental health issues and the
legal profession.
14