Nevada Law Journal Forum

Current Issue

Volume 10, Issue 1 (2025)Read More

Featured Content

  • Article
    1 January 2026

    The Nevada Plan: Redefining the Bar in the Silver State

    Grace Michaelson
    Nevada is rewriting the rules of entry into its legal profession. In 2024, the Nevada Supreme Court approved plans for a new state bar exam that will take effect in 2027. The new format, known as the Nevada Plan, significantly departs from Nevada’s traditional bar exam and fundamentally alters the licensure process for those aspiring to practice law in the Silver State. This Note will explore the proposed changes and their implications through three main sections. Part I provides essential context for understanding the current moment in bar exam reform. It begins by examining the traditional role of bar exams in legal practice, tracing how these exams have historically functioned as gatekeepers to the profession. It then outlines the history of the bar exam in Nevada, showing how the state’s approach has evolved over time. Next, it explains the current structure of Nevada’s bar exam, detailing its format, subjects, and administration. Finally, it discusses the growing call for change both in Nevada and nationwide, situating Nevada’s reform efforts within a broader movement to rethink how minimum competence is defined and assessed. Part II turns to the Nevada Plan itself, detailing how the reform was developed and what it entails. It begins with an overview of the Commission to Study the Administration of the Bar Examination and Licensing of Attorneys and the two task forces that shaped the proposal. It then analyzes the three core components of the Nevada Plan: (1) the Foundational Law Examination (FLE), which evaluates basic doctrinal knowledge; (2) the Nevada Lawyering Performance Examination (LPE), which tests practical lawyering skills; and (3) the Supervised Practice Program, which introduces an experiential training requirement. Part III assesses the legal and practical impacts of the Nevada Plan. It evaluates the potential benefits of the new system, including accessibility and skill development, and examines its drawbacks and risks, including weak apprenticeship requirements, the continued lack of national portability, and the accelerated implementation timeline. It also reviews California’s troubled rollout of a similar exam to highlight lessons for Nevada and compares Nevada’s approach to other states, including jurisdictions adopting the Uniform Bar Exam (UBE), the NextGen exam, and apprenticeship-based models.
    Read More
  • Article
    1 January 2025

    Flagrant Fouls: The First Amendment, Legal Speech, and Attacks on Law Firms and the Rule of Law

    Raymond Brescia
    This Essay explores the Trump Administration’s unprecedented campaign targeting major U.S. law firms for retribution and examines such actions in light of the First Amendment’s relationship to these actions. Drawing on historical and doctrinal analyses, the Essay introduces and defends the concept of “legal speech” as a critical cluster of First Amendment protections encompassing the rights of lawyers to speak, associate, petition, and advocate on behalf of clients in an unfettered way and without government retaliation. Executive actions against Covington & Burling, Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey purport to revoke security clearances, bar access to federal buildings, review hiring practices, and even penalize third-party clients doing business with the federal government—all in apparent response to these firms’ litigation stances, pro bono activities, and affiliations with political adversaries of the president. The Essay situates these actions within a larger historical, constitutional, and legal framework by tracing the doctrinal roots of legal speech through landmark Supreme Court decisions, including NAACP v. Alabama, NAACP v. Button, In re Primus, and Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez, which collectively establish that legal advocacy—especially litigation aimed at advancing civil rights and challenging government action—is constitutionally protected expression. The Essay further analyzes how the Administration’s actions mirror past attempts by government to suppress disfavored speech through indirect pressure on third parties, a tactic the Supreme Court unanimously condemned in NRA v. Vullo as recently as May of 2024. The Essay also chronicles how some firms capitulated to administrative pressure without a formal Order issued against them, engaging in what historian Timothy Snyder describes as “anticipatory compliance,” further raising alarm about the erosion of rule-of-law principles. Ultimately, this Essay argues that these Executive Orders constitute clear content-based restrictions on legal speech and are therefore unconstitutional.
    Read More

Current Articles

    • Article1 January 2025

      Flagrant Fouls: The First Amendment, Legal Speech, and Attacks on Law Firms and the Rule of Law

      Raymond Brescia
      This Essay explores the Trump Administration’s unprecedented campaign targeting major U.S. law firms for retribution and examines such actions in light of the First Amendment’s relationship to these actions. Drawing on historical and doctrinal analyses, the Essay introduces and defends the concept of “legal speech” as a critical cluster of First Amendment protections encompassing the rights of lawyers to speak, associate, petition, and advocate on behalf of clients in an unfettered way and without government retaliation. Executive actions against Covington & Burling, Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey purport to revoke security clearances, bar access to federal buildings, review hiring practices, and even penalize third-party clients doing business with the federal government—all in apparent response to these firms’ litigation stances, pro bono activities, and affiliations with political adversaries of the president. The Essay situates these actions within a larger historical, constitutional, and legal framework by tracing the doctrinal roots of legal speech through landmark Supreme Court decisions, including NAACP v. Alabama, NAACP v. Button, In re Primus, and Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez, which collectively establish that legal advocacy—especially litigation aimed at advancing civil rights and challenging government action—is constitutionally protected expression. The Essay further analyzes how the Administration’s actions mirror past attempts by government to suppress disfavored speech through indirect pressure on third parties, a tactic the Supreme Court unanimously condemned in NRA v. Vullo as recently as May of 2024. The Essay also chronicles how some firms capitulated to administrative pressure without a formal Order issued against them, engaging in what historian Timothy Snyder describes as “anticipatory compliance,” further raising alarm about the erosion of rule-of-law principles. Ultimately, this Essay argues that these Executive Orders constitute clear content-based restrictions on legal speech and are therefore unconstitutional.
    • Article1 January 2026

      The Nevada Plan: Redefining the Bar in the Silver State

      Grace Michaelson
      Nevada is rewriting the rules of entry into its legal profession. In 2024, the Nevada Supreme Court approved plans for a new state bar exam that will take effect in 2027. The new format, known as the Nevada Plan, significantly departs from Nevada’s traditional bar exam and fundamentally alters the licensure process for those aspiring to practice law in the Silver State. This Note will explore the proposed changes and their implications through three main sections. Part I provides essential context for understanding the current moment in bar exam reform. It begins by examining the traditional role of bar exams in legal practice, tracing how these exams have historically functioned as gatekeepers to the profession. It then outlines the history of the bar exam in Nevada, showing how the state’s approach has evolved over time. Next, it explains the current structure of Nevada’s bar exam, detailing its format, subjects, and administration. Finally, it discusses the growing call for change both in Nevada and nationwide, situating Nevada’s reform efforts within a broader movement to rethink how minimum competence is defined and assessed. Part II turns to the Nevada Plan itself, detailing how the reform was developed and what it entails. It begins with an overview of the Commission to Study the Administration of the Bar Examination and Licensing of Attorneys and the two task forces that shaped the proposal. It then analyzes the three core components of the Nevada Plan: (1) the Foundational Law Examination (FLE), which evaluates basic doctrinal knowledge; (2) the Nevada Lawyering Performance Examination (LPE), which tests practical lawyering skills; and (3) the Supervised Practice Program, which introduces an experiential training requirement. Part III assesses the legal and practical impacts of the Nevada Plan. It evaluates the potential benefits of the new system, including accessibility and skill development, and examines its drawbacks and risks, including weak apprenticeship requirements, the continued lack of national portability, and the accelerated implementation timeline. It also reviews California’s troubled rollout of a similar exam to highlight lessons for Nevada and compares Nevada’s approach to other states, including jurisdictions adopting the Uniform Bar Exam (UBE), the NextGen exam, and apprenticeship-based models.

Most Popular Articles

  • Article
    1 January 2025

    Flagrant Fouls: The First Amendment, Legal Speech, and Attacks on Law Firms and the Rule of Law

    Raymond Brescia
    This Essay explores the Trump Administration’s unprecedented campaign targeting major U.S. law firms for retribution and examines such actions in light of the First Amendment’s relationship to these actions. Drawing on historical and doctrinal analyses, the Essay introduces and defends the concept of “legal speech” as a critical cluster of First Amendment protections encompassing the rights of lawyers to speak, associate, petition, and advocate on behalf of clients in an unfettered way and without government retaliation. Executive actions against Covington & Burling, Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey purport to revoke security clearances, bar access to federal buildings, review hiring practices, and even penalize third-party clients doing business with the federal government—all in apparent response to these firms’ litigation stances, pro bono activities, and affiliations with political adversaries of the president. The Essay situates these actions within a larger historical, constitutional, and legal framework by tracing the doctrinal roots of legal speech through landmark Supreme Court decisions, including NAACP v. Alabama, NAACP v. Button, In re Primus, and Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez, which collectively establish that legal advocacy—especially litigation aimed at advancing civil rights and challenging government action—is constitutionally protected expression. The Essay further analyzes how the Administration’s actions mirror past attempts by government to suppress disfavored speech through indirect pressure on third parties, a tactic the Supreme Court unanimously condemned in NRA v. Vullo as recently as May of 2024. The Essay also chronicles how some firms capitulated to administrative pressure without a formal Order issued against them, engaging in what historian Timothy Snyder describes as “anticipatory compliance,” further raising alarm about the erosion of rule-of-law principles. Ultimately, this Essay argues that these Executive Orders constitute clear content-based restrictions on legal speech and are therefore unconstitutional.
    Read More
  • Article
    1 January 2026

    The Nevada Plan: Redefining the Bar in the Silver State

    Grace Michaelson
    Nevada is rewriting the rules of entry into its legal profession. In 2024, the Nevada Supreme Court approved plans for a new state bar exam that will take effect in 2027. The new format, known as the Nevada Plan, significantly departs from Nevada’s traditional bar exam and fundamentally alters the licensure process for those aspiring to practice law in the Silver State. This Note will explore the proposed changes and their implications through three main sections. Part I provides essential context for understanding the current moment in bar exam reform. It begins by examining the traditional role of bar exams in legal practice, tracing how these exams have historically functioned as gatekeepers to the profession. It then outlines the history of the bar exam in Nevada, showing how the state’s approach has evolved over time. Next, it explains the current structure of Nevada’s bar exam, detailing its format, subjects, and administration. Finally, it discusses the growing call for change both in Nevada and nationwide, situating Nevada’s reform efforts within a broader movement to rethink how minimum competence is defined and assessed. Part II turns to the Nevada Plan itself, detailing how the reform was developed and what it entails. It begins with an overview of the Commission to Study the Administration of the Bar Examination and Licensing of Attorneys and the two task forces that shaped the proposal. It then analyzes the three core components of the Nevada Plan: (1) the Foundational Law Examination (FLE), which evaluates basic doctrinal knowledge; (2) the Nevada Lawyering Performance Examination (LPE), which tests practical lawyering skills; and (3) the Supervised Practice Program, which introduces an experiential training requirement. Part III assesses the legal and practical impacts of the Nevada Plan. It evaluates the potential benefits of the new system, including accessibility and skill development, and examines its drawbacks and risks, including weak apprenticeship requirements, the continued lack of national portability, and the accelerated implementation timeline. It also reviews California’s troubled rollout of a similar exam to highlight lessons for Nevada and compares Nevada’s approach to other states, including jurisdictions adopting the Uniform Bar Exam (UBE), the NextGen exam, and apprenticeship-based models.
    Read More