By: Brendan Kearney

I have an article in today’s paper about one blind person’s galling experience of taking last week’s Maryland Bar Exam. To wit: human readers who weren’t strong readers and a major computer malfunction, in addition to other imperfect conditions faced by all test-takers (e.g., the background drone of construction).

Today’s story was a follow-up to an Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuit filed by three blind law school graduates in June which was basically mooted last month when a federal judge denied their motion for a preliminary injunction. (Things might heat up again in November when the test results come back…)

I wasn’t able to speak to the third plaintiff, Tim Elder, before my deadline on Friday, but I did receive a voicemail message from him over the weekend.

“I got through the exam,” he reported. “Everything with the laptop worked fabulous.”

So far, so good. Especially since co-plaintiff Anne Blackfield had software compatibility problems with the JAWS (Job Access With Speech) program, which is what Elder also used. But as with Blackfield and Michael Witwer, there was more to the story.

“However the reader, despite being an incredibly nice person, and incredibly helpful and willing to be helpful, I think, was less than qualified to be a reader for a law exam and may have even had some trouble just in being qualified for reading in general. I think the reader was probably just a standard proctor that had been asked to read,” said Elder, who is slated to work for the plaintiffs’ lead law firm this fall. (That’s Elder on the right in the photo above, along with Witwer).

I’m just a reporter, not a federal judge or licensing exam administator, but this doesn’t seem right. Am I missing something or is some re-evaluation of protocol in order here?