State Bar Association staff urged to return to face-to-face exams after a crushing defeat in the bar

After the California Bar Association suffered from technical problems last week, the California State Bar Association recommended that the agency return to face-to-face testing because it reviews whether the suppliers behind the new testing system meet their contractual obligations.

“Under the management of the Bar Association in February, staff do not recommend you continue to study,” Donna Hershkowitz, director of the state bar association’s admissions, wrote to the agency’s board of directors in a staff memorandum, referring to suppliers. She wrote that staff recommended resuming face-to-face testing for the next round of tests in July.

The board of directors of the state’s 13-member bar association was scheduled to meet on March 5 and will eventually decide on plans for the July Bar Association exam and make remedies for remedies for those facing problems.

In a statement Monday, the State Bar Association said that “closely reviews whether Meazure Learning meets its contractual obligations” in managing the February state bar exam, it will “work actively with its psychologists and other stakeholders to determine the full scope of necessary remedies for the bar exam testers on February 2025.”

It is unclear how much the episode will cost in a state law firm.

A spokesman for the agency said the agency has not conducted an updated fiscal analysis. He added: “However, given the board’s authorization to provide huge refunds for free exams in February and July for February applicants who do not pass the February exam or withdraw before the exam,” he added.

Saving money is a key reason for the state bar association’s overhaul exam. Faced with $22.2 million in the budget deficit last year, the agency decided to pass the multi-level attorney bar exam for national lawyer reviewers, a system used by most states and switch to new in-person and remote testing systems. It struck a deal with Kaplan Exam Services, the examination preparation company, to create test questions and hired Meazure to study to manage the exams.

The result is a disaster for many testers: some reported that they were launched with an online test platform; experienced screens lag and display error messages; and supervisors who could not answer basic questions. Others raised questions about multiple choice test questions, complaining that they were made up of nonsense, with typos and missing important facts.

The State Bar Association said the Attorney Reviewers Board will discuss possible remedies, which could include discussions on interim licensing plans.

“The Board of Directors has expressed support for the PLP program in the past, and was recently submitted to the Supreme Court in its proposal on December 15, 2023,” it said in a statement. “Only the California Supreme Court can authorize a new interim licensing program or extend the current program.”

With the state bar association learning issues, deans of some of California’s top law schools noted that these issues are not limited to the technology.

“While the state bar association focuses on the issues caused by platform administrators (Meazure), our graduates have also reported typos and errors in new multiple-choice questions that reflect those issues we saw in practice issues published last fall, and disruptive conditions at the Test Center,” said Deans dean, 17 American bars Assn, California. The accredited law school wrote in a letter to the California Supreme Court on Monday.

The President urged the California Supreme Court to allow examiners who took the exam and did not successfully obtain temporary permits under the supervision of experienced lawyers.

“The interim permit will allow candidates to offer hiring for lawyer activities,” Deans wrote. “This will give those who spend savings or borrowing loans to study attorney bar exams the opportunity to earn the income they may need to prepare for another attempt.”

The dean also urged the state to return to the multi-choice question using polynomial bar exams, rather than the Kaplan question, and pointed out that there is not enough time to adequately investigate and address problems with technical and multi-choice questions.

“We learned that the initial MBE used nationwide was for budgetary reasons, partly because of the need to rent large space for examiners,” Deans wrote. “It turns out that the cost of alternative exams is far beyond the initial expectations, so this shift does not solve financial problems, but exacerbates financial problems while creating many other problems.”

The dean said that if the state bar association returns to the multi-state bar exam and California papers to take the July exam, they will provide space on campus for free.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, praised the state law firm staff and recommended returning to the face-to-face exam.

He told The Times that he added: “It was a crushing defeat last week and it made perfect sense to return in-person. “The problem is much bigger than Meazure learning. It was the option to abandon the National Conference of Lawyers Reviewers to prepare for the exam for Kaplan. ”

Last year, when the State Bar Association announced a new $825,000 five-year transaction authorization testing preparation company Kaplan Exam Service to create multiple choices, papers and performance testing questions, it promoted its new examination system to save $3.8 million a year.

In September, the board approved up to $4.1 million in Meazure study for exams in February and July 2025. However, Hershkovitz noted in a staff memorandum that the state bar association plans to seek additional funds from the board for the July exam.

Hershkowitz noted in the memo that a hybrid model with Meazure is expected to cost $3.9 million, $1 million less than a traditional in-person model. But, she noted, “But it may actually be higher costs because we expect the number of candidates to be tested will increase as the July exam fee is provided to many applicants.”

Hershkowitz also wrote that changing the plan for five months will bring other challenges. “Applicants may have fewer locations to choose, making it more costly for applicants who may have to travel further from their local communities to take the exam.”

Of the 5,600 people who registered for the exam in February, about 1,066 were withdrawn. About 67 applicants who participated in the test were notified Friday to be eligible for the reenactment from March 18 to 19.

Michael Kaufman, dean of the School of Law at Santa Clara University, said there was always a question of whether the transfer of the state bar association from the state system was a wise decision.

“The other question is whether it has really been achieved,” he said, noting that last week’s fiasco could end up spending more than less state money. “I think their efforts to save money have gone.”

He said law school deans have the motivation to work with the state to propose new fair ways to assess the competence of aspiring lawyers.

“It’s time to have productive, cautious, measured dialogue with decision makers, including the California Supreme Court, so that’s not going to happen again,” Kaufman said. “So we can actually join together with fair, reliable mechanisms to assess the ability to practice the law, serving the public of the community and clients. That’s the goal.”

Some testers who choose to take a remote exam are not welcome to return to in-person tests.

“I can’t afford to go to California,” said Test Taker Ray Hayden, who tested from Lake County, Florida. He said he would spend $1,000 on traveling around the country and finding accommodation for a few nights.

“What they really need to do is work remotely,” he said. “Find a better provider that can actually handle bandwidth.”