California’s New Bar Exam Rollout Ends In Disaster

California. The Golden State. Home to what is rumored to be the hardest bar exam in the country. And it just got harder… and far more chaotic.  

California is not a UBE state, but it has always used MBE questions for the multiple-choice portion of their exam. However, this time around (to save money) the state rolled out a new bar… and the rollout promptly failed.  

Back in October, the Supreme Court of California ruled that the bar exam can be administered both in person and remote. Additionally, it ruled that the new bar exam the State Bar came up with could be administered.  

When it comes to remote exams, technological glitches are expected, but for February test takers, it didn’t matter if they were taking the test remotely or in person; they were in for a bad time. Already anticipating problems, the State Bar offered a refund and a fee waiver to take the July test. Over 900 people took the Bar up on its offer, and those who didn’t, later wished they did.  

From simple complaints of a proctor yelling at a remote taker to sit up (I guess he was slouching???) to an in-person proctor submitting someone’s exam before she was done, to proctors allowing prohibited items in the exam room, the first day was rough. And that’s not including the issues with the actual exam. Reports came out that in addition to a myriad of technological issues (not just for the remote takers) that caused people to not be able to finish, some of the questions had various typos or didn’t include enough information for test takers to be able to answer the question in general let alone correctly. Timing issues were also reported and multiple crashes happened on the second day. Moreover, there were complaints that the test included subjects that no one was prepared for. Then there was one taker who, after she finished, promptly got a message on her screen saying that she got a 0.00% and had failed the exam. February Bar results are usually issued in May.  

Test takers took to the internet to express frustration over not being able to finish, with one stating that her job offer was contingent on May results and she can’t afford to live in California if she has to wait until July, and another adding that he can’t pay off his student loans without an attorney’s salary. The State Bar apologized and offered a retake date that was initially March 4 and 5, until they got word that people were posting the exam questions online and postponed it to March 18 and 19 while it hunts down the test takers who posted the questions and potentially ban them from being licensed by the state. It later came out that only 85 people were granted permission for the retake.  

Adding fuel to the fire were the various California law school deans who already had expressed grave concern to the California Supreme Court about the new exam and are now speaking out.  The Dean of Southwestern went so far as to say the State Bar should give the February takers a provisional license as they had done during the pandemic. And a trio of test takers has filed a lawsuit against the exam vendor Meazure Learning for technical issues, though not the State Bar itself. The lawsuit includes complaints about poor connections, crashing software, and even test sections that wouldn’t save. Due to the lawsuit Sen. Tom Umberg representing Santa Ana said the (California) Senate Judiciary Committee will be conducting a detailed examination into this situation.  

Meanwhile, the law schools are trying to help students mitigate damages. Many of the February test takers find themselves in financial trouble. Most of them left their jobs to study for the bar. One student who was harmed paid $2,600 to travel all the way from Africa to take the exam. Thomas Jefferson School of Law professor Edmond Aruffo has teamed up with UC Irvine’s School of Law assistant dean for academic skills, Mary Basick, to create a brief cram course for students who missed their chance to pass the exam this time.  

While the lawsuit isn’t against the State Bar, the potential implications will affect it. First and foremost, this lawsuit won’t be resolved before March 18; if test takers are lucky, it will be resolved prior to July. Secondly, it calls into question what exam should be given to the July test takers. Due to intervention by the California Supreme Court, the July exam will be administered in person only. However, as applicants discovered when the application finally opened on March 27, 2025, the format and questions of the multiple choice portion are still up in the air as well as the exam software provider. At least the State Bar was nice enough to waive the late filing fee if bar applicants can’t submit their application by the April 1 deadline.