California’s Bold Bar Exam Plan Stumbles as Court Denies Approval

California’s ambitious plan to revamp its bar exam hit a roadblock, as the state’s Supreme Court refused to greenlight the change scheduled for February. The court’s terse decision on Wednesday pointed to procedural missteps, sending the State Bar back to the drawing board. Until the Bar’s committee of examiners fully reviews and endorses the new format, the transition is on hold.

Despite the setback, the State Bar remains determined, pledging to push forward swiftly and meet its February goal for the new exam, which would feature Kaplan-developed multiple-choice questions. The Bar’s chairman, Brandon Stallings, expressed respect for the court’s decision while reaffirming their commitment to reforming the costly licensing process.

Critics, including legal educators, have raised concerns about the hurried nature of the overhaul, questioning whether proper planning and stakeholder input were prioritized. California, home to the nation’s second-largest group of aspiring lawyers, had 11,320 bar exam participants in 2023 alone, second only to New York.

The new exam, designed to cut costs by over $3.8 million annually, would also allow for remote testing at smaller venues. However, the initiative has already faced delays. In May, copyright concerns surfaced when the National Conference of Bar Examiners challenged Kaplan’s development of test questions resembling their own. California’s State Bar struck a deal with Kaplan to handle any litigation, but now the Supreme Court’s ruling casts further doubt on the timeline.

Judith Gundersen, President of the National Conference of Bar Examiners, suggested a backup plan—reverting to the Multistate Bar Exam, which would require in-person testing, the traditional method California is trying to move away from.

As the State Bar faces financial strain, with both its admissions arm and the broader agency in a “fiscal crisis,” the pressure to roll out the new test remains high. Whether California can push through these legal and logistical hurdles in time for February remains to be seen.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Exit mobile version