The Law School Admissions Council announced recently that it has amicably resolved a lawsuit alleging the Law School Admissions Test’s Analytical Reasoning section violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Angelo Binno sued in a Michigan federal court in May 2017 after the LSAC denied his request to waive the Analytical Reasoning section due to his significant near-point visual impairment. 

Binno cannot draw diagrams to reason through the logic puzzles, and he claims the LSAC’s decision to not waive the section was a violation under the ADA and the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act.

A second plaintiff with significant near-point visual impairment, Shelesha Taylor, joined the lawsuit. The LSAC argued that not everyone diagrams when working the AR section and there are alternative ways to diagram.

However, the LSAC entered into a settlement in Binno v. LSAC to work cooperatively to identify additional accommodations while the council begins to redesign the AR section to provide improved accessibility for all test-takers.

“After nearly eight-years, I am delighted that I will have an opportunity to demonstrate my aptitude for the study of law, and to help support other candidates with visual impairments as they pursue their dream of attending law school as well,” Binno said.

The LSAC said in a joint news release Oct. 7 that it seeks to expand access to legal education and to ensure that disability remains a component of diversity in U.S. law schools. 

The council said it currently offers several accommodations for blind examinees, including using a reader and scribe, use of an Excel spreadsheet, a computer-based administration that allows screen-reading software, use of a tactile system, a braille exam form and use of a braille writer or braille graphics and figures. 

LSAT questions are being reviewed to determine how reliably they assess skills needed for success in law school. The LSAC said it plans to complete its review within the next four years and to offer an exam “that does not have the current AR section but continues to assess analytical reasoning abilities.”

“Diversity and equal opportunity are vital in legal education and the legal profession,” said LSAC president and CEO Kellye Testy. “To help promote those goals, LSAC is committed to ensuring that disabled individuals can take our exam in an accessible place and manner, that the LSAT is fair for all test takers, and that we support everyone interested in pursuing law school.”

Binno and Taylor are represented by Nyman Turkish PC, a national litigation and disability law firm, which worked in conjunction with Wayne State University Law School’s Disability Law Clinic on the case.

“The Plaintiffs, two extraordinary blind law school applicants, have accomplished something very positive through this outcome that will enhance opportunity at our nation’s law schools,” said Jason Turkish, lead counsel for the plaintiffs. “I am very pleased that under the new leadership of President Testy, LSAC is undertaking important initiatives to ensure access for persons with disabilities. This positive, forward-looking settlement is a demonstration of LSAC’s commitment to increasing access to legal education for all.”