After disastrous bar exam rollout, California Supreme Court to boost test oversight
The February exam — the debut of a hybrid in person and remote exam without any of the components of the national bar exam California has used for decades — was marred by widespread technical and logistical problems. Some test takers were unable to log in to the exam at all, while others faced delays, computer crashes, lax exam security, distracting proctors, and a copy-and-paste function that didn't work.
The State Bar of California, which administered the faulty test, has commissioned an independent investigation of the exam's many problems, and some February test takers, which totaled about 4,300, are demanding remedies ranging from an automatic score increase to a diploma privilege that would enable them to practice without passing the attorneys licensing exam. A trio of test takers in February filed a proposed class action lawsuit, alleging that exam vendor Meazure Learning failed to provide a functioning test platform despite ample warning of technical troubles. Meazure did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday.
'It is literally life-changing for many students,' Guerrero said of the bar exam during her Tuesday address. 'The additional stress, frustration and anxiety faced by some examinees is inexcusable.'
State Bar Board of Trustees Chair Brandon Stallings said in a prepared statement that the agency 'welcomes' guidance from the court and others on 'ways to continue strengthening the State Bar.'
Guerrero said the high court will consider bolstering the role of the state bar's Committee of Bar Examiners, which she said has been 'diminished' in recent years. That committee generally makes recommendations on lawyer admission matters to the state bar's board of trustees. The court will explore restoring bar exam budget and administration oversight to that committee, Guerrero said.
The new bar exam was spurred by the State Bar's ongoing financial problems. The hybrid exam was expected to save as much as $3.8 million annually by eliminating the need to rent out convention centers and other large meetings spaces for in-person testing. But the 2025 exams are now expected to cost significantly more, as the California Supreme Court has ordered the July bar exam to be given in person and the state bar is allowing February bar examinees who failed or withdrew ahead of the test to take the July exam for free.
The Supreme Court's interest in clarifying the role of the Committee of Bar Examiners 'will help us move forward effectively, efficiently, and transparently,' Stallings said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
18-07-2025
- Reuters
California court system adopts rule on AI use
July 18 (Reuters) - California on Friday became the largest U.S. state court system to embrace policies governing the use of generative artificial intelligence by judges and court employees. California courts that do not ban generative AI outright must develop AI-related regulations by September 1 under a rule adopted by the California Judicial Council, the policy-making body for the state's court system. The rule, opens new tab was developed by an artificial intelligence task force established by Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero in 2024. Courts that allow generative AI in court-related work may adopt a model AI policy already released by the task force in February or modify it to address their specific goals by September. The rule 'strikes the best balance between uniformity and flexibility,' task force chair and state appellate judge Brad Hill told the council on Friday. Each court's AI policy must address the 'confidentiality, privacy, bias, safety, and security risks posed by generative AI systems," according to the task force's report on the proposal. The policies must also address the 'supervision, accountability, transparency, and compliance when using those systems.' The court policies must prohibit entering confidential information into public generative AI systems, prohibit unlawful discrimination through AI programs, and require court staff and judicial officers to 'take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of the material.' Staff and judicial officers would also have to disclose their use of AI if the final version of any written, visual, or audio work provided to the public was generated entirely by AI. Hill said the task force did not want a rule that specified how courts can and cannot use generative AI because the technology is evolving quickly. California has the nation's largest state court system with five million cases, 65 courts, and approximately 1,800 judges. A number of other state have already adopted generative AI rules or policies, including Illinois, Delaware, and Arizona. New York, Georgia, and Connecticut are among the states currently assessing the use of generative AI within their courts. Read more: Illinois top court say judges and lawyers can use AI, with limits California court system to decide on AI rule
Reuters
05-05-2025
- Reuters
California scraps new bar exam for July, adjusts scores on botched February test
May 5 (Reuters) - California will not administer its newly developed bar exam in July, after the state's Supreme Court on Friday ordered a return to the previous test following a disastrous rollout in February. The California Supreme Court directed, opens new tab the State Bar of California to use to the Multistate Bar Exam — the 200-question multiple choice portion of the exam the state had used prior to the February test — for the upcoming July test. The court said that it 'remains concerned over the processes used to draft' the multiple-choice questions that appeared on California's February exam, and it also cited in its decision the 'previously undisclosed' use of artificial intelligence in drafting some of California's February questions. In the same order, the court approved several scoring adjustments requested by the state bar that are intended to address some of the various problems February examinees encountered on the attorney licensing test. The state bar on Friday told examinees that their results, which were originally scheduled to be released on Friday, would be pushed back to Monday as it worked to adjust scores based on the court's order. A state bar spokesperson declined further comment on Friday about the court's decision. California has the second-largest number of annual bar exam takers, behind New York. About 8,000 people typically sit for its July exam. The court-ordered return of the MBE, which is developed by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, is the latest blow to California's efforts to break away from the national bar exam in a bid to cut costs. The February exam was administered both remotely and in-person and did not use any components of the national bar exam that the state has used for decades. That change was expected to save as much as $3.8 million annually by eliminating the need to rent out large event spaces, but examinees faced unprecedented technical and logistical problems. The California Supreme Court in March ordered the July exam to be given in-person at testing centers, meaning that the upcoming test will have the same format and test components as before the development of California's own exam. The state bar now projects that addressing the problems from February's exam will cost at least $2.3 million more than anticipated for July. State Bar Executive Director Leah Wilson on Friday said she will step down from that post in July, citing the botched rollout of the new bar exam. The court's order sets the raw passing score for the attorney licensing exam at 534 — lower than the 560 score recommended by its standardized testing expert who looked at February's results. Raw pass scores can fluctuate each year and are converted according to a standardized scale. The order also directs the state bar to 'impute' scores for test takers who weren't able to complete significant portions of the two-day exam.
The Guardian
07-04-2025
- The Guardian
Blue Jays reportedly sign Vladimir Guerrero Jr to $500m, 14-year contract
Vladimir Guerrero Jr and the Toronto Blue Jays agreed to a $500m, 14-year contract that starts in 2026, a person familiar with the negotiations told the Associated Press, a deal that removes what would have been the biggest star from next offseason's free-agent market. Guerrero's deal does not include any deferred money, the AP source said. Guerrero agreed in January to a $28.5m, one-year contract that avoided arbitration and the four-time All-Star first baseman had said he wouldn't negotiate after he reported to spring training in mid-February. Still, talks with his agent continued well into the regular season. Guerrero's deal is the third-largest in total dollars behind Juan Soto's $765m, 15-year contract with the New York Mets that started this season and Shohei Ohtani's $700m, 10-year agreement with the Los Angeles Dodgers that began last year and is heavily deferred. Guerrero's $35.71m average annual value under the new deal ranks eighth among current contracts behind the agreements of Ohtani ($70m), Soto ($51m), Philadelphia pitcher Zack Wheeler ($42m), Yankees outfielder Aaron Judge ($40m), Texas pitcher Jacob deGrom ($37m), Dodgers pitcher Blake Snell ($36.4m) and Yankees pitcher Gerrit Cole ($36m). A son of Hall of Famer Vladimir Guerrero, the Blue Jays star turned 26 last month and would have been a free agent this fall at a relatively young age. He is a .277 career hitter with 160 homers and 511 RBIs. He's batting .256 with no homers and four RBIs in the first 10 games this season. Seeking their first World Series title since winning championships in 1992 and 1993, Toronto notably failed to land Ohtani, Soto and Roki Sasaki as free agents. The Blue Jays agreed to a $92.5m, five-year contract with outfielder Anthony Santander, a $15.5m, one-year contract with right-hander Max Scherzer and a $33m, three-year contract with reliever Jeff Hoffman. Toronto shortstop Bo Bichette, a two-time All-Star, remains eligible for free agency after this year's World Series.
