California Bar exam failure sparks lawsuit, legislative inquiry

The botched February bar exam could mark a turning point in the California State Bar's relationships with law schools, the Legislature and the state Supreme Court.

Technical issues that apparently prevented thousands of people from taking the test could also be especially expensive for the State Bar--and for students who made financial sacrifices to take the exam. Meanwhile, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee called for an audit into problems with the exam.

"I really do think that they caused harm to the people who could least afford to redo the bar, either in the short run or in July," said Michael Hunter Schwartz, dean of McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento. "We are going to hear more and more about what people have lost as a result of the bar picking a company that had never done an exam of this scale."

About 5,600 people were registered to take the exam last Tuesday and Wednesday. But thousands of them ran into technical issues, ranging from test sections that wouldn't save to poor connections and crashing software. A proposed class of test-takers quickly sued in federal court in San Francisco. That case named the company that administered the test, not the State Bar itself. Perjanik v. ProctorU, Inc., 4:25-cv-02095-KAW (E.D. Cal., filed Feb. 27, 2025).

"Thousands of test-takers saw their hopes of passing the CA Bar Exam dissolve as Meazure's test platform crashed, and crashed, and crashed again. The exam software simply did not work," Annick M. Persinger, California managing partner with Tycko & Zavareei LLP in Oakland, wrote in the complaint filed Thursday. "Many applicants reported that the test platform froze, shut down randomly, and displayed error messages."

Reached on Friday, bar spokesman Rick Coca said he could not comment on the litigation. He provided copies of links to several communications the bar sent to test-takers, notifying them of a March 18-19 retest and warning people against posting questions from the exam online.

Test-takers sign a waiver, but this probably won't protect the bar from liability, said UCLA School of Law professor Richard Sander. About a decade ago, Sander was involved in protracted litigation seeking bar data on test-takers. Sander v. State Bar of California, 2013 DJDAR 16405.

"You're essentially forcing people to sign this waiver as a condition for taking the bar," Sander said.

He added, "I don't think that a court would give it much deference."

On Friday afternoon, Sen. Tom Umberg, D-Santa Ana, announced he would conduct an inquiry into the exam problems.

"The Senate Judiciary Committee will be conducting a detailed examination into this situation," Umberg said in an emailed statement. "I will be seeking an audit of the State Bar by the California State Auditor to fully understand what went so spectacularly wrong with the administration of the February Bar Exam. I am calling on the Board of Trustees of the State Bar to hold management accountable and ensure that nothing like this ever occurs again."

The auditor issues a report on the bar every two years. The latest regularly scheduled audit came out on Thursday. It found issues with the agency's finances and how long it was taking to complete attorney discipline cases, though the findings were not as dire as some past reports.

That report was completed before the exam, but it estimated the bar would save about $4 million by coming out with the new exam. But those savings could quickly evaporate if the bar faces even a portion of the liability sought in the federal case.

"The aggregated claims of the individual class members exceed the sum or value of $5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs; there are more than 100 putative class members," Persinger wrote.

The auditor's report also investigated the bar's oversight of law schools and how it funds that work. In a statement sent to the Daily Journal on Thursday night, State Bar Board of Trustees Chair Brandon Stallings said he appreciated that aspect of the audit.

"With regard to fees for law school regulation, we appreciate that this is the first time the State Auditor has looked into this complex area of the State Bar's finances," Stallings said. "In its fiduciary role, the Board has grappled with the impact of continuing to perform this regulatory function at a deficit. The Board arrived at a policy decision not to pursue full cost recovery due to the significant impact such an approach would have on smaller institutions."

Meanwhile, a group of law school deans sent a letter to California Chief Justice Patricia Guererro on Thursday asking her to intervene. In one widely circulated quote, Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky called the exam an example of "stunning incompetence from an entity that exists to measure competence."

"My optimistic answer would be that this would be a great opportunity for really creating a partnership between the Supreme Court, the State Bar and the law schools," Schwartz said. "I think it really makes sense."

Schwartz pointed to a McGeorge student who graduated a semester early near the top of his class. That student was "an absolute lock" to pass but now finds himself in potential financial trouble.

"He's going to have to retake it, which you might say, 'Oh, that doesn't sound too bad,'" Schwartz said. "The problem is that in his economic situation he needs to be working. He only gets limited time off."

Thomas Jefferson School of Law adjunct professor Edmond Aruffo wrote a bestselling book on passing the California Bar Exam and teaches a popular course on the topic. Aruffo said one person he knows was harmed by the technical issues and had paid $2,600 to travel from Africa to take the test. He said he has heard from hundreds of students harmed by the exam, some of whom called him in tears.

"Many of them left their jobs so they can study for the bar exam," Aruffo said. "That's like a three-month endeavor that is a full-time job, including nights. They took out loans and they borrowed money from people."

Aruffo said he has spoken with Mary Basick, assistant dean for academic skills at UC Irvine School of Law, about creating a brief cram course for students who missed their chance to pass the exam this time.

"We're going to boil it down to two days," he said. "We're going to do our best to help as many people as we can pass."

"The law schools have generally been allies in the State Bar," Sander said.

But he added that this could finally be changing.

"I don't think they could do much worse than the current State Bar, so reform steps would be welcome," Sander said.