No attorneys' fees in suit for exam accommodation.

Byline: Barry Bridges

An applicant who sought extra time and a low-distraction environment in taking the Rhode Island bar exam could not recover attorneys' fees in his action against the state Board of Bar Examiners, a three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held.

Sitting by designation, U.S. District Court Judge Michael A. Ponsor from the District of Massachusetts wrote for the panel and found that plaintiff Anthony E. Sinapi, although successful in receiving an 11th-hour temporary restraining order granting the accommodations he sought, was not a "prevailing party" so as to shift fees under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

"Beyond a necessarily hasty review of the likelihood of Sinapi's success on the merits, the board never received in-depth assessment of its substantive arguments [against the plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief]," Ponsor wrote. "It would be unfair to deem Sinapi a 'prevailing' party in these circumstances and slap the board with a fee bill based on a finding it never received a fair opportunity to contest on a properly developed record."

The panel also ruled that the 11th Amendment and quasi-judicial immunity militated against the plaintiff's claims for monetary damages against the board members in their official and individual capacities.

The 25-page decision is Sinapi v. Rhode Island Board of Bar Examiners, et al., Lawyers Weekly No. 01-245-18. The full text of the ruling can be found here.

Representing the plaintiff was Richard A. Sinapi of Warwick. Assistant Attorney General Michael W. Field was on brief for the board. Neither responded to requests for comments on the holding by press time.

TRO granting accommodations

As he was preparing to sit for the Rhode Island and Massachusetts bar exams in the summer of 2015, Anthony Sinapi sought testing accommodations due to his attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and anxiety. He asked for 50 percent more time, a low-distraction environment, and permission to take his prescription medications into the testing room.

Though the Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners approved the accommodations, the Rhode Island board declined to do so, noting in a July 16 letter that Sinapi's request "was not supported by medical documentation."

On July 22, six days before the exam, Sinapi filed an "emergency petition for review and summary reversal" of the board's decision with the Rhode Island Supreme Court as directed by Rule 4(b) of the Bar Examiners...