Settlement to spark LSAT changes within 4 years.

Byline: Thomas Franz

Following a settlement between a blind law school applicant and the Law School Admission Council, the format for the analytical reasoning section of the Law School Admission Test will change within four years.

Plaintiff Angelo Binno has been involved with this case since 2011. When he signed up to take the LSAT, his request to waive the analytical reasoning section of the test was denied by LSAC.

His lawsuit claimed that LSAC violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act by denying his requested waiver.

"(Binno) was really stymied by the logic games section of the LSAT," said plaintiff's attorney Jason M. Turkish of Nyman Turkish PC in Southfield. "This case stood for the proposition that it's simply unfair and discriminatory to judge a blind person's aptitude for the study of the practice of law by asking them to do something they physically can't do."

A second individual, Shelesha Taylor, was also listed as a plaintiff in the case.

Background

Turkish explained that for decades, it was understood that the LSAT was an inappropriate exam to administer to a blind individual.

To level the playing field, Turkish said law schools granted waivers from their admissions requirements that included an LSAT score.

That changed in 1996, when the American Bar Association changed accreditation rules and told law schools that if they were to waive the test, they could lose accreditation.

"That path closed for blind applicants, so they were forced to take this exam the last 20 years, and it's been a major hurdle and obstacle," Turkish said.

The analytical reasoning, or logic games, section of the LSAT provides room in the test booklet to diagram and draw pictures to help solve questions. Without the ability to diagram or draw, Turkish said the nature of the exam changes.

"You're no longer being tested on what your peers are being tested on. It's not about your ability to quickly analyze information, it's now testing your short-term memory abilities. It's not treating these folks on a level playing field at all," Turkish said.

Case history

Binno's original case against the ABA in 2011 argued that accreditation rules violated the ADA by forcing law schools to administer a discriminatory test.

"The client had a very specific interest in this case, which was not just to have a remedy for him, he wanted to change the game for blind applicants nationwide," Turkish said. "From the...