This decision just came from a US district court and it's INCREDIBLE.

Basically, a psych disabled lawyer sued after being put through a metric fuckton of ableism before being allowed to practice law.

Check out some gems from the court (or, you know, an intrepid law clerk):

"Jane Doe was a lawyer in Florida. She moved to Kentucky. She wanted to practice law here. Bureaucrats didn’t want her to. They thought her mental disability made her unfit. For over two years, they stopped her. But she didn’t give up. And they eventually relented."

"Then Doe sued [] alleging they had illegally asked about her mental health history and treatment, illegally forced her to turn over her medical records and her therapists’ notes from their counseling sessions, and illegally treated her like a criminal because of her disability."

"This case is not only about Jane Doe. It’s also about the lawyers who decide who else can be a lawyer.

Under the Kentucky Constitution, that power belongs to the Supreme Court of Kentucky. 5 The court, in turn, delegates that job to its Bar Bureaucracy:"

"The Board of Bar Examiners prohibits people from practicing law if they can’t pass a timed exam that tests their ability to memorize whole areas of the law they will never again need to know anything about."

"Anyone with any power [...] is a lawyer. So, just like an oil or drug cartel, those who are already selling something get to decide who else may sell that same thing. Of course, unlike most cartels, this one is legal. In fact, the Kentucky Constitution requires it."

"If Doe had sued the Bar Bureaucracy back when it stopped her from entering the market, she would have had standing to ask the Court to block it from treating her like it did. But you can’t blame Doe for waiting to sue."

"If your goal is to persuade the Bar Bureaucracy’s lawyers to let you join their club, it isn’t a good strategy to poke them in the eye with a lawsuit that accuses them of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the United States Constitution."

"But there will be more applicants — and more lawsuits. Some of those plaintiffs will have standing to seek prospective relief. And when they do, the Bar Bureaucracy will have to answer for a medieval approach to mental health that is as cruel as it is counterproductive."

"[Jane Doe] earned her Florida law license in 2006 [...]. After a 2014 diagnosis for Bipolar I Disorder, Doe entered a monitoring program run by the Florida Lawyers’ Assistance Program. She was, and remains, in good standing with the Florida bar."

"In December 2015, Doe applied for a Kentucky law license. The application required her to disclose her history of depression and Bipolar I Disorder and that she had undergone treatment. And so began her 994-day tale of bureaucratic woe."

"Doe disclosed everything [Kentucky] required her to disclose. That included two required releases giving the Bar Bureaucracy “complete access to her personal and private medical records, including treatment notes” and a third for her monitoring records from Florida."

"Doe’s doctors have always said she should “continue practicing law without concerns[...]” The Bar Bureaucracy pressed on. So Doe sent in yet another form. This fourth medical records release granted “access to inpatient records, outpatient records, and treatment notes.”

"The next month, shortly before Doe took the February 2016 bar exam, the Character and Fitness Committee refused to approve her application. Instead, in March, the Bar Bureaucracy proposed, and Doe signed, a “consent agreement” for conditional admission."

"It required 1) a Kentucky Contract (more on that later); 2) compliance with Florida’s rules and Kentucky’s rules and reporting requirements; and 3) “residency in Kentucky . . . unless” Doe was relocating for work and the Bar Bureaucracy approved."

"The consent agreement did not provide details about the Kentucky Contract. Yvette Hourigan, Director of the Kentucky Lawyer Assistance Program, said the contract would mirror the monitoring arrangement Doe had with the Florida Lawyers’ Assistance Program, which was tailored[]."

"Doe passed the bar exam. She paid the dues and swearing-in fee. Although Hourigan had promised to send a proposed contract, she didn’t. Instead, she arranged to meet with Doe the morning of the new lawyers’ swearing-in ceremony at the State Capitol."

"Hourigan “texted that she was running late and they would meet on the steps of the Capitol” minutes before the swearing-in. At this point, you might be thinking that a public place with many of Doe’s peers isn’t an ideal place to discuss private medical issues. (It isn’t.)"

"At this point, you might be thinking that a public place with many of Doe’s peers isn’t an ideal place to discuss private medical issues. (It isn’t.)

You might also wonder if other bar applicants could overhear their discussion. (They could.)"

"Instead of the personalized contract Hourigan had promised, she presented a boilerplate contract. It included a host of medically unnecessary requirements, including random drug and alcohol testing."

"When Doe told Hourigan she had never had drug or alcohol problems, Hourigan told her the provisions were standard. Hourigan, who is not a doctor but plays one on the Capitol steps, also said Doe’s medications required abstinence from alcohol. (They don’t.)"

"Doe refused to sign the contract. She told Hourigan it violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, and “the ADA does not permit the disabled to be treated like criminals.” (It doesn’t.)"

"Later in 2016, after Doe provided yet another medical-records release, Doe’s doctor advised Hourigan that Doe could drink alcohol on her medication.

Hourigan partially relented. She removed the alcohol provisions from the Kentucky Contract."

"But other intrusive and unnecessary requirements remained. For example, Doe had to tell Hourigan if she was leaving town for longer than a week.

Unable to practice law, Doe taught civics, safety, and sewing to refugees."

"Meanwhile, the Bar [] ordered her to appear for a formal hearing, at Doe’s expense, to show cause for allegedly violating the consent agreement. The Bar[]'s lawyer, Elizabeth Feamster, demanded even more documents, as well as the contact information for Doe’s employer."

"Doe’s formal hearing was on April 27, 2017. She again expressed her concerns about violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Feamster relied solely on Doe’s disability in denying Doe a full law license."

"Soon after, the Character and Fitness Committee recommended that the Supreme Court of Kentucky permanently revoke Doe’s conditional license. Recall that on the record before us, Doe had been licensed by Florida for the past eleven years — and had practiced there for the first...

...nine of those years — and remained in good standing that whole time."

"A year later, in 2018, Doe successfully completed Florida’s monitoring program. Her doctor wrote yet another letter to the Bar Bureaucracy saying he still “had no concerns regarding her mental health and encouraged her to continue practicing law.""

"In July 2018, the Bar Bureaucracy held another hearing. Again, they interrogated Doe about her disability. After the hearing, Feamster demanded still more information about Doe’s medical treatment."

"Finally, in August 2018, Doe was unconditionally admitted to practice law in Kentucky. Her bar file still contains protected health information and show cause orders suggesting that “her disability and treatment [are] character and professional flaws.”"

"In 2019, Doe filed this suit against the Bar Bureaucracy for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Equal Protection Clause. She also sued under Kentucky law for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress."

"[S]ome defendants object to Doe’s use of a pseudonym.

[...]

The Bar Bureaucracy knows who Doe is. Opposing her pseudonym does little for its credibility. But ultimately that motion is moot because Doe’s suit will be dismissed."

"Doe does, however, have standing for her federal-law damages claims against the Supreme Court of Kentucky and the Character and Fitness Committee. They had the power to (and did) decide to ask her about her mental health. ..."

"...They had the power to (and did) put her through the ringer based on her honest answers. They had the power to (and did) deny her an unconditional license for over two years. They had the power to (and did) ... "

"... impose administrative and financial burdens on her that they didn’t impose on other applicants."

"The third jurisdictional question is straight out of a Fed Courts exam. Is state sovereign immunity the type of jurisdictional issue the Court must decide before it considers non- jurisdictional issues (like judicial and legislative immunity)?"

"Let’s start with the argument for “yes.” The Sixth Circuit has said, repeatedly and as recently as last week, that state sovereign immunity is “jurisdictional.”

[...]

But here’s why, in this case, the answer is “no.”"

"By this point, you might be wondering how a plaintiff could ever challenge the way a Bar Bureaucracy asks applicants about their mental health and puts them through the ringer if they truthfully disclose a mental disability. The answer is that a plaintiff could sue ..."

"... for prospective relief — a declaration that the questions violate federal law and an injunction prohibiting the Bar Bureaucracy from asking them. To have standing, the plaintiff would need to be a bar applicant, not an unconditionally licensed lawyer like Doe was[]."

"Let’s recap. For her federal-law claims, Doe lacks standing for prospective relief. She also lacks standing to sue the institutional defendants other than the Supreme Court of Kentucky and the Character and Fitness Committee because the others didn’t cause her injuries."

"Law school is hard. The stress, rigor, and competition can lead to depression, anxiety, and substance abuse. Many students who start school healthy are far from it by the time they graduate. Some kill themselves.

Aspiring lawyers should seek the health care they need."

"But if Kentucky continues to punish people who get help, many won't. And one day, a law student will die after choosing self-help over medical care because he worried a Character and Fitness Committee would use that medical treatment against him...

"... - as Kentucky's did against Jane Doe.

It is not a matter of if, but when."

A few things to note:

(1) It's not a perfect decision.
(2) The legal profession is profoundly+irreparable ableist, racist, classist.
(3) But the text here ... excellently *excoriates* Kentucky's bar for its ableism.
(4) And it's done largely in plain language, which is so rare.

And if anyone is wondering, here's the case information:

Jane Doe v. Supreme Court of Kentucky, et al., Case 3:13-CV-236-JRW (W.D. Ky., Aug. 28, 2020)

(please ignore if my bluebooking skills are not great here)