Court Opinion

ID: 9737402
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:24:10.981981+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:58.662421
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(concurring in result in part; dissenting in part).
I concur in the reinstatement of Draeger to the practice of law. I also concur with the majority in its decision that Draeger should submit to an examination of his knowledge and understanding of the requirements of professional rules of conduct. However, I disagree that his reinstatement should be conditioned on his successful completion of the South Dakota Bar Examination. This would include the mul-ti-state bar examination (multiple choice). Matter of Voorhees, 403 N.W.2d 738 (S.D.1987) (see Henderson, J., dissenting).
*348Although the majority states that Drae-ger’s competence to practice law has not “really” been in issue, it still insists on a test that is not necessary. An examination which requires the person tested to choose the “best of the worst answers” is an unfair test of knowledge. Yet, this is how the multi-state examination is conducted. This type of an examination is tricky and therefore breeds fear, which is a passion almost impossible of divestiture. It is academic baloney at its zenith.
Unfortunately, this test fails many deserving young people who have given seven years of their lives to become lawyers. Here, a competency test will be administered to Draeger when his competency has not been at issue. Easy it is for those who create the examination; mechanical it is for those who grade it; anguish it is to those who are forced to take it.
Like one, that on a lonesome road Doth walk in fear and dread, and having once turned round, walks on.
And turns no more his head; Because he knows a frightful friend Doth close behind him tread.
Coleridge: The Rime of the Ancient Mariner VI.