Facing deadline, California debates way forward on bar exam
Time is of the essence as State Bar of California officials consider their options for the future of the state’s bar exam after its disastrous attempt to launch a proprietary exam in February.
At a rare joint meeting of the California Board of Trustees and the Committee of Bar Examiners on Thursday, the two groups considered three options: using questions from the February 2025 test until a new exam is created; administering a National Conference of Bar Examiners-developed test with a possible California-specific component; or creating a new permanent exam modeled after Nevada’s planned 100-question multiple-choice test.
The pros and cons of each were discussed, including the timing of July 2028 bar overlapping with the Los Angeles Summer Olympics, when large venues to hold an in-person exam would be at a premium.
“If we’re rolling out a new exam, are we going to roll it out in July 2028, where we might have some challenges about where we might be seating people who would be taking the exam in Southern California?” said Donna Herskowitz, state bar chief of admissions.
The meeting’s goal was to take steps now to avoid repeating the pitfalls made during the attempt to launch a hybrid exam in February. That test, administered by Meazure Learning and consisting of some questions written by Kaplan, some taken from the state’s first-year law students’ exam and others created by a third vendor, was plagued by technical woes, issues with proctors and problems with the questions themselves. Some questions, it was later learned, were generated by nonlawyers with the help of artificial intelligence.
Pending state legislation would require two years’ notice to switch vendors that are not the NCBE. The state supreme court must approve a decision to switch by July 2026.
Kaplan has a five-year contract that if terminated two years early would force the state to pay a $712,000 penalty, according to a presentation at the meeting. The groups voted to avoid long-term vendor contracts in the future.
The meeting followed the state’s court-ordered about-face to return to an in-person administration of the NCBE’s Multistate Bar Exam last month. The administration faced no major issues reported as 7,741 candidates took the test, according to a presentation.
Deans from 11 of California’s ABA-accredited law schools would like to keep things that way. On Aug. 5, they wrote the committee of bar examiners requesting that the state continue using NCBE tests, stating its new NextGen UBE is the best path for complying with the state supreme court’s directives for the bar exam.
“In our view, the NCBE is the only entity with the resources, expertise and experience to successfully meet the parameters set out by the (state supreme court’s) order and to avoid a repeat of this spring’s disaster,” the letter states.
To date, 45 jurisdictions have committed to adopting the NextGen UBE.
Originally, California’s move to create a proprietary exam with a remote option was largely aimed to help the cash-strapped state bar.
However, February’s fiasco cost the state $6.2 million instead of saving $3 million, according to reports in the meeting.
A proposal to raise fees by $150 to sit the February 2026 exam was voted down by both groups. Students will continue pay $850 and attorneys $1,500.
However, the bulk of February candidates who follow the provisional licensing pathway face a $1,200 fee to offset the estimated $609,000 cost of the program. In previous years, candidates following a provisional path paid $50 or $75.
Officials debated but did not rule out someday creating another remote exam even as they continue to sort through the February fallout, including suing Meazure, as well as lowering pass scores for impacted candidates. In fact, three February test-takers learned July 18 that they passed after a review of scoring errors on the performance test annotation, it was announced at the meeting.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
