News Releases

Board of Trustees Orders Independent Investigation into February 2025 Bar Exam Issues

After hearing approximately two hours of public comment at its March 5 meeting, primarily from test takers reporting serious problems they encountered during the February 2025 California Bar Exam, the State Bar Board of Trustees directed the general counsel to retain an independent investigator to conduct a privileged investigation into the issues relating to the exam. 

“Speaking on behalf of the Board, to applicants I want to say: we hear you,” said Board Chair Brandon Stallings. “We are deeply concerned about the issues and experiences reported by February bar exam test takers. We understand the anger and sense of urgency commenters expressed. At the same time, deciding on appropriate remediation and accountability measures requires that we take the time and do the work to understand what happened and why. That is why we are directing the hire of an independent investigator.” 

Nearly 90 speakers reported scores of issues that plagued their exam experience, whether they took the exam remotely or at in-person testing centers. A few speakers acknowledged the long-term value of a shift to remote testing, but many called on the Board to take a variety of immediate actions to address and remedy the unacceptable level of problems in this initial launch. 

The Board also heard a status report on the February exam, in which approximately 4,100 test takers used the Meazure Learning platform. Preliminary data indicates a disconnect between raw completions (content submitted in each section)—which were in the range of 98 percent for both written and multiple-choice portions of the exam—and what has been reported to the State Bar about test takers’ challenging experiences. Staff outlined steps already undertaken to assess the impacts of the problems that test takers experienced on the completeness and quality of their exam submissions. These steps include: 

• A survey of all test-takers distributed March 4; 

• Evaluation of a random sampling of test takers’ written submissions to assess response completeness and quality; and 

• Comparison of the performance on multiple choice questions with that of past February bar exams. 

Because some critics have pointed back to the November session that tested the new bar exam multiple choice questions and platform, claiming that problems were reported then, the Board also received an update on data from two surveys conducted after the November session: 

• Of the 3,741 participants in the November session, 238 (6 percent) did not complete the session due to technical issues. 

• Two surveys were conducted; results were partial in each case. Surveys showed a generally positive experience: Over 80 percent of survey participants expressed satisfaction with the vendor; 88 percent expressed satisfaction with their proctors, and 72 percent indicated they were somewhat or very satisfied with the computer-based exam. 

• Feedback in open-ended comments indicated that there were problems and negative experiences in the November session that align with user experiences in February, however these issues were not reported by the majority of survey respondents. Commenters flagged:   

  • User experience issues;
  • Issues with technical reliability, including delays to initially access the experiment and disruptions and disconnecting during the experiment; and
  • Proctor issues. 

The State Bar awaits detailed data from exam administration vendor Meazure Learning needed to definitively and comprehensively assess the impact that technical issues and human support problems had on test-taker performance. The Supreme Court has also requested an expedited, detailed report regarding the problems encountered by applicants, stating, “This information is crucial in informing how the Court will provide appropriate remedies for affected applicants who deserved and expected better.”  

Commenters called for a variety of remediation measures, ranging from expanded retakes to scoring adjustments, as well as broader changes, such as reducing the cut score, extending free retakes on future exams, offering provisional licensure, admitting all test takers, or extending diploma privilege. 

To date, the State Bar has offered retakes to approximately 85 eligible test takers whose access to the exam platform was so limited or incomplete as to make their exams impossible to score. These limited retakes will occur March 18–19. The Committee of Bar Examiners will explore psychometric solutions (such as scoring adjustments), but those solutions typically follow initial grading. Psychometric solutions could be applied to those who completed four of the six written sections of the exam (essays and Performance Test) or in grading the multiple-choice questions, those who completed three-fourths of them. 

At the meeting, Trustee Mark Toney called on the State Bar to devote additional resources to speed the process of grading so that psychometric adjustments could be considered sooner. The Committee of Bar Examiners, which is meeting March 14, will take up this proposal.  

Some of the remediation measures requested by test takers and law school deans, including changes to the cut score, ensuring a set percentage of test takers pass, offering provisional licensure, or passing all test takers would require Supreme Court action.  

On March 4, the Court directed the State Bar to plan to administer the July 2025 bar exam in the traditional in-person format. This directive aligned with staff’s recommendation to the Board. During the Board meeting, staff outlined the challenging time frame to secure sites and contract with different vendors for the exam platform and proctor support for July. Staff will detail progress on these plans at the Committee of Bar Examiners’ March 14 meeting. The Board or its Contracts Committee will be asked to approve contracts for facilities and other services for the July exam at a later date. 

###

Follow the State Bar online
LinkedIn, X, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube

The State Bar of California's mission is to protect the public and includes the primary functions of licensing, regulation and discipline of attorneys; the advancement of the ethical and competent practice of law; and support of efforts for greater access to, and inclusion in, the legal system.