State Bar poised to cut ties with exam vendor after widespread failures

The California State Bar Board of Trustees appears poised to nix its contract with the company that botched the February remote bar exam. During a four-hour meeting this week, the board also discussed options for the July exam. The California Supreme Court has ordered the next exam be held in person.

The board began the meeting by being berated by nearly 100 speakers during the public comment portion. Most were among the thousands of frustrated test takers from the exam on Feb. 25 and 26. Some of the others were law professors who spoke about the expense and stress their students endured.

After a break, Board Chair Brandon Stallings announced the board had directed General Counsel Ellin Davtyan "to retain an outside investigator to conduct a privileged investigation into the issues relating to the February 2025 bar examination."

Stallings then turned the floor over to Donna S. Hershkowitz, the bar's chief of mission advancement & accountability. She began by saying "that in the interest of time" she would "lump together" an update on the response to the botched exam and a discussion of whether the bar should approve a supplemental contract with Meazure Learning, the company that proctored the remote exam.

Thousands of test takers complained over repeatedly dropped connections, sections of the exam that did not save and other problems. Hershkowitz said her staff was parsing through data to try to figure out what went wrong for each individual test taker.

"The data that we have includes things such as the start and end time for each test taker for each session that they took," she said. "We have the submission of their of the written components."

Hershkowitz added that her office is seeking additional data from Meazure as it reviews its agreement.

"The preliminary data from Meazure paints a very different picture than the reports that you were all hearing from the test takers in terms of their ability to complete multiple choice questions and to submit their written answers," she said.

But Hershkowitz added that even if Meazure can show someone successfully completed and submitted sections of the test, this might not fully reflect the distraction and lost time caused by technical issues. These "human issues" may have caused many to receive scores that do not reflect their true abilities.

She also pointed to a Feb. 28 staff report that "recommend that we that we discontinue the relationship with Measure Learning and move to the in-person exam." That proposal was to be put before the Committee of Bar Examiners at its March 14 meeting. But she added that the California Supreme Court "took that decision out of the hands of the committee" on Tuesday when it directed the next exam be held in person.

While the bar searches for answers, it could be heading into a logistical and financial crunch in the coming weeks. The remote exam was intended to save millions of dollars. Now, as Hershkowitz pointed out, the bar is scrambling to find space to accommodate in-person test takers in the places that have traditionally seen large numbers of test takers.

These are also expensive urban areas like Los Angeles, Sacramento, and the Bay Area. She said finding space in San Diego could be especially problematic, and that the bar was reaching out to law schools for help finding space. For the moment, the bar is also unsure how many test takers it will need to accommodate. Some unknown portion of them could be taking a free retest.

The meeting ended a few minutes later. There appeared to be some confusion at the close, with board members raising the question over whether the future of Meazure's contract had been addressed.

"I think we've covered that," Stallings replied.

The company now faces a proposed class action lawsuit from test takers seeking compensation. On Wednesday, plaintiffs' attorney Annick M. Persinger, California managing partner with Tycko & Zavareei, LLP in Oakland, declined magistrate jurisdiction. The case is now assigned to U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar. Perjanik v. ProctorU, Inc., 4:25-cv-02095-KAW (N.D. Cal., filed Feb. 27, 2025).