Page 3
California Supreme Court Apologizes Over Bar Exam Debacle
By Kimber Cooley, associate editor
The state Supreme Court yesterday released a statement apologizing for last week’s botched State Bar of California bar examination, saying that it is seeking full information so that remedies can be fashioned..
Test takers complain that the February 2025 examination—which offered, for the first time, the option of remote testing and replaced the National Conference of Bar Examiners with Kaplan Exam Services as the provider of multi-state questions—involved repeated crashes, screen lags, and error messages which prevented saving essay answers or performing required tasks.
Meazure Learning was responsible for administering the platform hosting the event.
In yesterday’s statement, the high court said:
“The court is deeply concerned by the troubling reports of technical failures, delays, and other irregularities in last week’s administration of the February 2025 California Bar Examination. The court regrets this situation and apologizes for the disappointment, stress, and frustration experienced by some applicants. At present, the complete scope and causes of the problems are still being determined. Last week, the court asked the State Bar, in conjunction with the vendor responsible for administering the exam, to provide an expedited, detailed report regarding the problems encountered by applicants. This information is crucial in informing how the court will provide appropriate remedies for affected applicants who deserved and expected better. In the interim, the court directs the State Bar to plan on administering the July 2025 California Bar Examination in the traditional in-person format.”
Deans’ Letter
The statement follows a letter addressed to the court, dated March 3 and signed by 17 deans of California law schools, in which the authors assert:
“While the State Bar has focused on the issues caused by the platform administrator (Meazure), our graduates also reported typos and errors in the new multiple-choice questions that mirrored those we saw in the practice questions published this past fall, as well as disruptive conditions at the testing centers.”
They ask that the candidates “who sat for this February examination, but were unsuccessful” be granted “provisional licensure under the supervision of experienced attorneys” while they await the next testing date, relief that can only be authorized by the high court.
Among those signing the letter are Erwin Chemerinsky of UC Berkeley Law, Franita Tolson of University of Southern California Gould School of Law, Michael Waterston of UCLA Law, and Darby Dickerson of Southwestern Law School.
Cost-Saving Measure
The changes to the examination were made in an attempt by the State Bar to save money in the face of a budget deficit last year of $22.1 million. The regulatory agency estimated that the creation of the online option would provide an annual savings of approximately $3.8 million.
In a report released Thursday, the California state auditor recommended, among other things, that the State Bar complete its implementation of the modified examination process to help improve its financial position.
Those who fail last week’s test have been authorized to take the July exam for free. In a statement released Monday, the State Bar said it is unlikely to realize any cost savings this year due to the failures.
There were 5,600 people registered for the February examination but at least 964 withdrew in the days leading up to the test. Those who withdrew have been offered full refunds.
A meeting by the 13-member Board of Trustees governing the State Bar is scheduled for today.
Three test takers filed suit against Meazure Learning on Feb. 27 in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California. The class action complaint, filed by Laura Perjanik, Samuel McClain, and Victoria Tulsidas, alleges that Meazure Learning failed to provide a functioning test platform and asserts causes of action for breaches of express and implied warranties as well as negligent infliction of emotional distress.
In the pleading, the plaintiffs allege:
“Despite the tremendous stakes associated with the CA Bar Exam, on February 25 and 26, 2025, Meazure’s testing software crashed repeatedly during the Exam. CA Bar Exam applicants, including Plaintiffs and Class Members, experienced severe technical breakdowns that in many instances prevented them from accessing and completing the test….
“Meazure’s testing software crashed because it had insufficient infrastructure and/or lack of servers and server space to process the foreseeable number of exam takers. Meazure failed to design, maintain, and/or improve the infrastructure of the exam software to sufficiently and adequately service Plaintiffs and Class Members who had no choice but to pay Meazure’s fee to take the Exam on a computer.”
The State Bar is not listed as a defendant.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company