By: Sarah Shine
On February 25th and 26th, 2025, the State Bar of California rolled out a new testing system for the State Bar exam.1 In an effort to save money, California made the decision to switch from a fully in person exam to a hybrid model, reducing the need to rent centers for in person test takers. Up until the February administration the state bar has created its own essay and performance test questions, and utilized the Multistate Bar Exam questions from the National Conference of Bar Examiners.2 Due to concerns regarding security, fairness, and integrity, the NCBE does not allow remote testing, therefore to move to a hybrid model, the state bar must abandon their partnership with the NCBE. Facing a 22.2 million dollar budget deficit, the State bar cut a deal with Kaplan Exam Services which was tasked with creating the test questions, and Meazure Learning, who was hired to administer the exam.3 The hybrid model was projected to cost 3.9 million dollars, a savings of 1 million dollars from the previous in person model.
Concerns regarding administration of the new system had been noted prior to the February administration.4 On September 17th, deans from 15 ABA accredited law schools sent a letter to the board of trustees expressing “grave concerns” about the new hybrid test. The board also heard concerns at their February 21st meeting. The NCBE issued a letter warning Kaplan of their obligations regarding intellectual property rights surrounding test questions.5 At the same time, under existing regulations any major changes to the exam must be communicated two years in advance. This put Kaplan in a tough position, their questions could not be too similar to previous questions but also, not too different.
Roll out of the new test was described as a fiasco.6 Technology issues plagued test takers including being unable to connect, delays of up to ninety minutes to begin, getting kicked off the platform with no way to re enter without restarting the exam, screens that displayed error messages, and inability to use functions that were accessible in the performance test. The technology delays and glitches were not the only issues. Test takers also reported issues with the questions themselves, citing typos, questions with important facts left out, and some nonsensical questions.7 Law school deans report that these kinds of issues were also noted in the practice questions that had been published last fall. Issues with in person test sites included distracting environments and proctors who could not answer basic questions.
The California Supreme Court requested a detailed report from Meazure Learning and the state bar regarding the issues experienced and lists of appropriate remedies for affected test takers.8 On March 4th the court directed the state bar to plan on administering the July 2025 bar exam in person. In the Northern District of California a group of examinees filed a class action complaint against Proctor U Inc, the vendor for Meazure Learning. On March 3rd a second suit was filed by a bar candidate who alleges that the company was aware of their software’s shortcomings, and failed to address them.
The state bar released a statement saying they are actively working with stakeholders to determine the full scope of remediation measures that will be necessary for February test takers. Several law school deans are urging the California Supreme Court to offer provisional licenses for test takers who sat through the exam. This would allow candidates with offers of employment that are contingent on their results to retain those offers. The board is offering refunds for the February exam and free July exams.
Sources:
[1] Jenny Jarvie, After exam fiasco, California State Bar staff recommend reverting to in-person exams, The Los Angeles Times, (March 3, 2025), https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-03-03/after-bar-exam-fiasco-california-state-bar-staff-recommend-reverting-to-in-person-exams.
[2] FEATURE: IS THE STATE BAR PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE WITH THE BAR EXAM?, 66 Orange County Lawyer 34.
[3] Jarvie supra, note 1.
[4] Julianne Hill, As fallout rains down, California considers return to in-person bar exam, ABA Journal, (March 4, 2025), https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/cali-bar-fallout-looks-at-bar-vendor-failures-provisional-licenses-return-to-mbe.
[5] Supra, note 2.
[6] Hill supra, note 4.
[7] Jarvie supra, note 1.
[8] Hill supra, note 4.