News Summary

The California Supreme Court has approved adjustments to bar exam scores for over 4,200 applicants due to significant technical issues during the February 2025 exam. The decision allows the State Bar to release results while implementing the Multistate Bar Exam for the upcoming July exam, raising concerns over the previous exam’s validity. As the court mandated a new passing score of 534 and introduced psychometric imputation for fair assessment, the controversy surrounding the use of AI-generated questions has intensified discussions on the integrity of legal examinations in the state.

California Supreme Court justices approved the State Bar’s adjustments to bar exam scores following significant technical issues with the February 2025 exam, which impacted over 4,200 applicants. This decision enables the State Bar to release the test results for those who took the exam, critical for determining their eligibility to practice law in the state.

As part of this approval, the justices mandated that the July exam utilize the Multistate Bar Exam for its multiple-choice section, signaling a shift in approach due to the controversies surrounding the previous exam. The State Bar’s new passing threshold is set at a raw score of 534, calculated from a total of 700 points possible in the written section and 171 in the multiple-choice segment, with each section carrying equal weight.

The raw passing score for candidates taking the February exam was notably just 420 points. To address concerns over the exam’s integrity, the court allowed for the use of psychometric imputation for those who completed a sufficient number of multiple-choice questions and written components.

The complications surrounding the February exam initially arose when it was revealed that 29 of the 200 exam questions were developed using artificial intelligence by ACS Ventures Inc. Additionally, some of the questions were allegedly reused from a first-year law student exam, prompting backlash from legal educators and contributing to concerns regarding the exam’s validity.

Test takers reported significant problems during the exam, including being unexpectedly removed from online platforms, experiencing lag, and encountering poorly worded questions. These frustrations culminated in a federal lawsuit against the exam facilitator, Meazure Learning, highlighting the gravity of the situation.

The drive to reform the bar examination was partly fueled by the State Bar’s financial difficulties, as it faced a $22 million deficit. Consequently, the Bar had previously partnered with Kaplan Exam Services to devise new examination questions. This decision has faced scrutiny from law school faculty, who have raised concerns about the implications of employing AI for exam question drafting.

In light of the turmoil, the California Senate Judiciary Chair called for a comprehensive audit of the State Bar, pointing to broader implications for the examination process in the state. This ongoing situation has led to a push from various quarters for the State Bar to revert to the prior method of bar examination administration, further igniting debate over the future of legal education and assessment in California.

Amidst all the upheaval, the State Bar has defended its practices, stating that each question was vetted by panels of content validation experts. Nonetheless, critics argue that this episode underscores the need for greater transparency, with calls for the public release of all 200 questions used in the February exam to ensure accountability and restore trust in the examination process.

With the adjustments approved and a new exam model on the horizon, the State Bar faces the challenge of both rebuilding confidence in its examination process and addressing the criticisms that have arisen from recent controversies. The forthcoming July exam will be critical in this regard, as it will need to demonstrate the efficacy of new practices while providing fair assessment opportunities for all candidates.