Michigan man, Angelo Binno, filed a lawsuit against the Law School Admission Council. That’s because the council would not give him a waiver for the analytical reasoning portion of the exam.
He said it wasn’t fair for visually impaired people because the most common way to solve the problems was to draw diagrams and pictures.
Shelesha Taylor, who also has a visual impairment, joined the lawsuit later on as an additional plaintiff.
The LSAC argued that not everyone uses diagrams on that section of the exam and some people use alternative ways to diagram.
While the LSAC maintains that it did not violate Binno’s or Taylor’s rights, they did agree to a settlement with the plaintiffs. Now the council will work with Binno and Taylor to make the exam more accessible.
“Now, once again, we’re going to have blind applicants who can be tested on their ability to study and practice law, not on their inability to draw pictures,” said Binno’s attorney, Jason Turkish.
Turkish says this is a victory not just for Binno and Taylor, but for all visually impaired applicants who have tried to take the test, but can’t because of their inability to draw.
“That’s unfair,” Binno said of the old section. “And that’s why this settlement means so much because that practice is coming to an end.”
Kristin Marcell is a spokeswoman for the council. She said the work on the exam will go beyond just the analytical reasoning section.
“Our research into alternative ways to assess analytical reasoning abilities is part of LSAC’s continuous efforts to evaluate, upgrade and improve the entire LSAT,” she said.
As part of the agreement, LSAC will complete this work within the next four years. Marcell said the council needs time for research and several stages of pilot testing and analysis.
