Aspiring lawyers in California are facing uncertainty after the state’s new bar exam was marred by significant technical glitches and confusing questions, leading to outrage among test takers and law schools. Approved by the California Supreme Court, the exam’s faulty rollout has prompted a lawsuit and investigation by lawmakers. Many test takers experienced delays and issues accessing the exam, jeopardizing their career prospects and financial stability. The California bar has acknowledged problems and is reviewing the situation, but some candidates are left to wait until July for potential retesting, causing distress over missed job opportunities and financial burdens.
California’s aspiring lawyers find themselves in a state of uncertainty this week following the newly revamped bar exam, which was plagued by technical issues and constructed in a manner that many participants claimed bore little resemblance to the exam they invested countless dollars and years of intensive preparation to master.
The problematic launch of the new licensing test last week, authorized by the California Supreme Court in October and promoted by the state bar as a cost-saving measure, has sparked outrage among test-takers and the broader law school community, leading to an investigation by state lawmakers and a legal challenge.
“Every attorney you speak to — they all understand the stress and difficulty associated with the bar exam,” stated Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. “To have to retake it due to the bar’s incompetence is simply unacceptable,” added Mr. Chemerinsky, who, along with fellow law school deans, had expressed concerns about the new exam prior to its approval.
The flawed digital exam has left candidates in a precarious position, jeopardizing their career ambitions and financial stability. Many took time off from work and missed moments with family, with several holding job offers contingent on passing the February exam.
“I feel totally cheated,” remarked Zack Defazio-Farrell, who participated in the exam last week. He elaborated: “You invest a lot of money in your preparation. You sacrifice income for your studies. And then this happens.”
Examinees reported a variety of technical issues during the two-day assessment, which on Day 1 comprised five one-hour essay sessions and a 90-minute section evaluating legal task execution, while Day 2 featured 200 multiple-choice questions over four 90-minute periods.
Participants noted delays exceeding an hour just to access the exam, with some unable to access it altogether. Others shared experiences of recurring freezes, lag times, and an unresponsive copy-paste feature.
Additionally, numerous examinees claimed that the questions were oddly phrased, lacked essential information, contained errors, or simply did not make logical sense. Furthermore, the state bar acknowledged reports that on-site proctors frequently lacked answers to basic inquiries.
The examination’s technology and proctoring services were provided by Meazure Learning, a company that enabled remote testing, a shift from prior practices. The company is now facing a class-action lawsuit from test-takers.
Attempts to contact Meazure Learning for remarks went unanswered. On its website, the firm claims over 30 years of successful experience in launching licensing programs. “We specialize in creating fair, reliable, and secure exams that you can trust,” it states.
The state bar previously indicated in August that the new exam would save the organization up to $3.8 million per year. They mentioned they were investigating whether the company’s performance fell short of its contractual obligations and that a comprehensive count of those facing issues was underway as of Saturday.
Tom Umberg, a state senator and chair of the judiciary committee responsible for state bar funding, confirmed an impending inquiry. “We will delve deeply into what occurred and ensure this does not happen again,” he stated.
The new exam was crafted by Kaplan North America, a test preparation firm. It replaced the exam sections previously drafted by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, which administers tests in most states.
The state bar’s responses have primarily centered on the issues with Meazure Learning. They asserted that Kaplan’s questions had undergone the same review processes as previous exam queries. Efforts to reach Kaplan for comments were unsuccessful.
Historically, California’s bar exam has been widely regarded as the most challenging in the nation. Even top-tier law students often find themselves needing multiple attempts to meet the high passing threshold. Notable figures, including former governors Jerry Brown and Pete Wilson, as well as former Vice President Kamala Harris, are among those who initially failed the California bar exam. Although the passing criteria were slightly lowered a few years back, the exam remains exceptionally demanding compared to those in other states.
Some have suggested that the bar was aware of technical problems months prior, as an experimental exam in November encountered similar issues. However, the bar maintained that those incidents were isolated.
Prior to the new exam’s rollout, the state bar seemed to anticipate potential challenges. They offered fee waivers to individuals who withdrew from or did not pass the February exam, which is administered biannually in February and July.
“The rollout of this new exam has not met expectations, and we, along with state bar leadership and staff, sincerely apologize,” the bar’s board of trustees remarked in a statement on February 21. “Ongoing issues with testing centers, scheduling, technical difficulties, and lapses in communication have diverted applicants’ focus from their studies and caused significant confusion.”
Out of the 5,600 individuals registered for the February exam, 1,066 withdrew, according to the state bar.
On Friday, the state bar announced it was exploring remedies for those who faced technical difficulties during the exam, including conducting analyses to potentially adjust scores. Mr. Chemerinsky has urged the bar to consider offering provisional licenses to test-takers and returning to the prior exam format in the future.
For some who could not complete the exam, the bar extended an opportunity to retake the test this week. Yet, this chance has been postponed until later in the month due to alleged leaks of test questions online.
For those not able to retake the test this month, the next opportunity pushes them to July — offering little reassurance.
Some have expressed that this delay could be detrimental, given the financial pressures linked to getting licensed by May, which is when results from the February exam are expected.
“If I have to wait until July, I’ll likely no longer be living in California,” said Alexandra Sennet, who expressed being deeply in debt due to law school expenses. She mentioned a job offer that hinges on her obtaining her license by May.
Ms. Sennet also shared her struggles with debt resulting from medical bills incurred after a car accident that led to a spinal injury. This situation forced her to miss last July’s bar exam and has greatly impacted her ability to maintain regular employment.
“I’m counting on this to cover my bills, literally,” she stated, adding, “This is crucial for my livelihood.”
Mr. Defazio-Farrell expressed uncertainty about paying off his student loans without a lawyer’s wage.
“Currently, I’m unemployed, and it will be challenging to enter the field without a license,” he remarked.
For others, the thought of investing more time preparing for the exam elicits anxiety that extends beyond financial concerns. Becky Hoffman, 38, shared that she chose to pursue a law career to provide her three young children with a better future and has sacrificed time with them over the past three and a half years while attending law school.
In the weeks leading up to the examination, she completed over 45 essays and tackled more than 1,600 multiple-choice questions in preparation.
After the second day of testing extended late on Wednesday due to various glitches, Ms. Hoffman exited the testing facility where her wife and children awaited to take her home.
“I tried to muster the courage to reassure them that everything was finished, and I was so happy to finally have time to be with them,” she recounted. “But I don’t know if that feeling is genuine.”
Shawn Hubler contributed reporting.