Opinion ID: 1948306
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rubenstein's 1993 Board Petition

Text: In April 1993, Rubenstein filed a petition with the Board requesting an exercise of its discretion to permit her a fourth opportunity to take the Bar Examination. B.R. 52.8(e). Rubenstein's petition alleged that she suffered from a learning disability, which had been previously undiagnosed. In support of her petition, Rubenstein presented to the Board a report prepared by William F. Shaw, M.Ed. (Shaw), concerning his evaluation of Rubenstein's learning disability. Shaw's report stated, in part: The 21 point discrepancy between the verbal and performance abilities suggest that her learning style is that of a linguistic, sequential processor of information rather than a simultaneous processor. In the latter information is presented all at one time rather than in a sequence. If client's tests are more similar to the latter, for example if the fact patterns are presented all at once and client has to come up with a solution, she will do less well than if she is able to develop a problem sequentially as she would do in her criminal prosecutor role. Due to the large discrepancy between the verbal and performance abilities, the verbal measure is used as an expectancy of achievement as the Full Scale I.Q. represents a meaningless average. In this regard client's current measures of achievement are not significantly below her measure of expectancy, but the overlays of a learning disability and the learning processing difficulties still exist. The reader is reminded to once again look at the qualitative behavior observations during the reading tests. Moving one's head rather than to read with her eyes, especially for an individual with some superior abilities, speaks out boldly in terms of the diagnosis of a learning disability. In addition the observable mouthing of words as she reads, supposedly silently, is a further indication of an inefficient and maldeveloped reading process. Shaw's report made the following recommendation to the Board: In order to compensate for her disability, unlimited or at least extended time should be granted for the bar examination. This is assuming that the Testing Committee, based upon the new information reported in this examination, would reconsider and allow her to take the test again. The increased time allowed will grant more opportunity for client to read and reread items in order to give additional input [emphasis added]. The Shaw report concluded with the observation that Rubenstein's learning disability would not impair her law practice. In fact, the report stated that Rubenstein has a facility for the practice of law and is encouraged to pursue that interest. In addition, Rubenstein supported her petition to the Board with a letter from the Deputy Attorney General who had supervised her Rule 55 practice. Her supervisor represented to the Board that Rubenstein's learning disability had no discernible impact on her ability to practice law in the criminal courts, something the tests cannot show.