California Supreme Court OKs provisional licensure—but not for all February candidates
First-time California bar candidates who failed or withdrew from the disastrous February launch of the state bar’s new exam can apply to practice law with the supervision of a licensed attorneys, a move some deem “too little, too late.”
That chance came Wednesday after the California Supreme Court approved the State Bar of California’s request to extend the state’s provisional licensure program that was launched in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. It lets examinees work for two years under experienced attorneys until they pass the bar exam. Eligible candidates must apply by Dec. 31.
But not all candidates will have that option. The court ruled that February examinees who were retaking the bar exam do not qualify for the program, a decision termed “deeply inequitable” by one candidate.
“Now I am being penalized for trying,” Tatevik Asilbekyan, who failed the February exam by four points upon retake, wrote to the ABA Journal.
“The message the court has sent is profoundly disheartening: Those who gave up were rewarded, while those who tried were punished,” adds Asilbekyan, a licensed attorney in Spain who is now a clerk at Shegerian & Associated and an ABA member.
Although nearly every candidate who took the test written by Kaplan and administered by Meazure Learning experienced some type of disruption, notes Susan Smith Bakhshian, a professor and the director of bar programs at the Loyola Law School in California, why repeat test-takers were excluded wasn’t explained.
Additionally, the announcement comes just weeks before the next bar exam administration on July 29 and 30, she says.
“Unsuccessful applicants who were excluded from the provisional license remedy now have insufficient time to properly prepare for the next administration of the exam,” Bakhshian says. “The provisional licensure path is too little, too late.”
In that same order on Wednesday, the court approved the state bar’s recommendation to impute test scores—i.e., estimate scores for sections that had missing information—for candidates who experienced technical issues and were unable to complete the test.
“While scoring adjustments are controversial, they may be the best—and perhaps only—remedy available at this late stage,” Bakhshian says. “Imputing scores is a method that has been used before and can be statistically valid.”
Those who pass after the scoring change will be notified by the end of day Friday and will automatically be withdrawn from the July 2025 exam, according to an email from the state bar.
Wednesday’s move follows the court’s earlier orders to make other grading adjustments, including a lower pass score.
Along with logistic and technical issues, some of the exam’s questions were drafted by nonlawyers with the help of artificial intelligence, drawing the ire of many California-based law faculty members.
Given the variety of complex problems during the exam, finding fair and equitable remedies is extremely difficult, says Mary Basick, assistant dean of academic skills at University of California, Irvine School of Law.
“While the new scoring remedies partially addressed individual circumstances, it is unfortunate that none of the remedies adopted adequately address the valid concerns about the quality of the multiple-choice questions,” she adds.
Meanwhile, the court denied the request to admit those licensed in other states without passing the California bar exam. The court noted a state code mandating passage of the exam for admission would first need to be changed.
Rick Coca, a spokesperson for the state bar, told the ABA Journal via email that there are no plans to request that legislators change that law. Although a bill in before the state legislature originally allowed the court to adopt a admission on motion, that language was amended out of the bill on May 15, he notes.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
