Bar Exam chaos sparks outcry at State Bar meeting

The California State Bar Board of Trustees got an earful from test-takers at its meeting on Wednesday afternoon. Speakers during over an hour of public comment spoke about the well-publicized technical problems with the February Bar Exam--and the trauma they said they endured.

But they also criticized the board over other problems. Several speakers said multiple-choice questions on the new exam by Kaplan Test Prep. Did not match the subjects they were told to study for the exam. Others cited the noise and chaos of trying to take the exam while hundreds of other people around them suffered similar issues.

Many called for provisional licensing or even automatic passing grades to compensate for the trauma they went through. One woman even said she "miscarried between essays four and five" but still "went back to finish," only for her effort to not be recorded because of technical difficulties.

A speaker who identified himself as Andrew Kim said he took the exam with 1,500 other people in a convention center. He urged the board should "take into account" the chaos that he had others had to overcome when adjusting scores or offering other remedial measures.

"We were trying to focus, but the problem was while taking it that we would have a lot of people crying, a lot of people screaming and yelling and the proctors wouldn't people quiet that down," Kim said.

Several speakers responded to reports that only 85 of 5,600 test takers were being offered the chance to retake the exam. This included people who said they opted out of the exam after suffering technical problems on the second of two days, only to find out later the retake offer only applied to people who suffered issues on the first day.

Mary Basick, assistant dean for academic skills at UC Irvine School of Law, said the bar misled students and instructors about what skills the new Kaplan test would cover.

"I want to advocate for some scoring fairness for the February 2025 bar takers," Basick said. "Particularly I'm concerned about these multiple choice questions the takers were assured that the format and content would not change, but that is not true."

Others said it is now impossible to offer the same exam under the kinds of "laboratory conditions" necessary for a fair test. Several people noted some questions have been posted online. Still others cited inexperienced proctors, some of whom did not speak English or allowed test takers examine notes they had brought.

Thomas Jefferson School of Law Adjunct Professor Edmond Aruffo said he also teaches about 1,000 students a year through his own test prep company. This includes some people who made extreme sacrifices to be able to take the test.

"I had a student that traveled from Africa," Aruffo said. "He spent his village's money to get here take an exam and then be told to retake it because none of his information was entered."

But Aruffo added that he often has students from "prestigious universities" who have trouble passing California's notoriously difficult exam. He added that this is needlessly constraining the supply of competent lawyers and consigning people to debt they cannot pay off--issues he said long predate the current exam fiasco.

A woman who identified herself as Katie said she was trying to get licensed in California after 13 years as a prosecutor in New York. She said the bar should offer her and others reciprocal licensing.

"There's a saying we had in Brooklyn Criminal Court: 'too bad, so sad,'" she said. "We showed up, we were ready to take the test. You guys couldn't give it. Too bad, so sad. We get our licenses. That's how it works in the real world."

The board was scheduled to discuss whether it was appropriate to sign a supplemental contract with "ProctorU, Inc. dba Meazure Learning," the company which proctored the remote exam, but had not gotten to that part of the agenda by press deadline. Bar officials announced on Tuesday that they were considering only offering the July exam in person.