State Bar sticks with Kaplan for July exam despite outcry over February test

Facing ongoing criticism from law professors and frustrated test takers, the State Bar of California on Thursday confirmed it will stick with its new bar exam -- written by Kaplan Test Prep -- for the July administration, despite widespread calls to scrap the format after a rocky February rollout.

There will be nine testing locations and software from ExamSoft -- "a firm that provided similar services to the State Bar for two decades," according to a news release.

But bar officials did not heed calls from legal educators to abandon the new exam written by Kaplan Test Prep. A group of law professors have argued that the test itself played a key role in the extensive problems with the February exam.

"The State Bar is working tirelessly to ensure a smooth and reliable experience for July 2025 bar exam takers," said State Bar Board of Trustees Chair Brandon Stallings in the news release.   

Stallings and his colleagues once again got an earful from exam takers and other critics during the latest board meeting, held Wednesday. Several called for provisional licensing or other steps to compensate test takers.

During public comment, a February test taker who identified himself as Douglas took aim at the Kaplan exam. He said a statistical analysis of the questions ordered by bar officials did not consider the chaos test takers had to endure or misleading test preparation material they received.

"Psychometric analysis also cannot fix faulty Kaplan questions that tested legal rules that we did not know how to prepare for. ... We need the Kaplan questions to be independently assessed, and bad questions must be discarded," he said.

Mary Basick agreed. The assistant dean for academic skills at UC Irvine School of Law said in an email that the board "more or less kicked the can regarding potential remedies." She shared a letter she submitted along with University of San Francisco School of Law professor Katie Moran.

They wrote that the writing of the multiple-choice questions on the new exam was "rushed" and that proper vetting "takes years to finalize." The letter added that the National Conference of Bar Examiners has "perfected" this process and is now "creating the new NextGen bar exam, which will debut in some jurisdictions in 2026."

"We respectfully request that the Board of Trustees order the Kaplan drafted questions be properly vetted by subject matter experts (in the law eligible for testing and law multiple-choice testing format) and properly pre-tested before they are utilized in a live bar exam," they wrote.

During Wednesday's meeting, State Bar Chief of Admissions Donna S. Hershkowitz gave an extended presentation of an analysis that investigated the accuracy and relevance of questions on the Kaplan exam. She said 33 questions were found to be too easy, compared to just seven that were too difficult "to be appropriate for an entry level attorney to know." She said her office was looking at ideas such as "using fewer multiple-choice questions" on future tests.

Hundreds of test takers complained during the February exam about technical problems, such as dropped connections and unsaved work. At a board meeting last month, Stallings implied the board would cut ties with Meazure Learning, the company that provided remote exam access.

The proposals approved Wednesday will now go before the Committee of Bar Examiners.

Pending approval by the CBE, site locations for the in-person exam include Anaheim, Chula Vista, Oakland, Ontario, Pasadena, Roseville, Sacramento, San Diego, and San Francisco, the release stated. "Final authorization for the July 2025 bar exam vendor and site locations by the CBE is expected at its April 8 meeting." 

During her State of the Judiciary speech before the Legislature last month, California Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero called for the committee to be restored to its proper role overseeing the exam. This added to speculation that the committee had been sidelined in the rush to the new exam setup.

Wednesday's meeting also included a presentation that suggested the roles of the committee and the board should be better defined. The report noted that the committee's authority and independence over bar admissions was limited by the fact it has "never had the authority to make budgetary decisions."

Bridget Gramme, the bar's special counsel for consumer protection, admissions, access and inclusion, left the agency on March 28. This fueled speculation that she left over problems with the February exam.

This article was originally published on the Daily Journal