California's Bar Exam Evaluated Again, This Time on Job Skills
AccessLex Institute has given the state bar $515,000 to look at how California lawyers do their jobs and how the bar exam tests those skills.
September 13, 2018 at 04:57 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
A major new study by the State Bar of California seeks to determine the skills and competencies the state's lawyers need to do their jobs and how those traits can be tested on the bar exam.
The results of the study, dubbed the California Attorney Job Analysis Study, will inform further research and considerations of the state's closely watched bar exam. The exam has been under intense scrutiny in recent years as pass rates plummeted to an all-time low of 27.3 percent in February, fueling criticism that the state's notoriously high cut score should be lowered. (California has the second-highest cut score in the country at 144. Only Delaware has a higher cut score, at 145.)
The job analysis is funded through a $515,000 grant from AccessLex Institute, a nonprofit organization that advocates for access to legal education and law school affordability. The latest study will offer a foundation to look at not only the exam's cut score but also the content and format of the all-important licensing exam.
“AccessLex Institute strongly believes in the power and application of quality data to best ensure that legal education and admissions to the bar evolve to meet the needs of aspiring lawyers and the world in which they will practice,” said President Christopher Chapman. “We applaud the State Bar of California for showing the courage to comprehensively evaluate its current licensing exam and follow the data to its logical end, whatever that may be.”
The California Bar last year commissioned a separate study of the bar exam with an eye to the cut score. That July 2017 report concluded that 144 is an appropriate cut score to ensure new lawyer competency, but that it could be lowered to 141 without compromising the consumer protection function of the exam. The state's law school deans joined the call to lower the cut score, but the California Supreme Court—which has the final say—in October opted against changing the cut score.
“Last year, the State Bar conducted a groundbreaking series of studies into the California Bar Exam, and the upcoming Job Analysis Study is a critical next step,” said state bar executive director Leah Wilson. “Together this body of research will help us better determine whether adjustments may be needed on the content or other aspects of the California Bar Exam.”
The state bar plans to use the results of the job analysis to look at how what is tested on the bar exam correlates to the current and changing legal practices, and help develop a definition of minimum attorney competency. It will also help the bar determine what subjects should be tested on the exam. The results of the study are expected in the summer of 2019.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'What Is Certain Is Uncertainty': Patchwork Title IX Rules Face Expected Changes in Second Trump Administration
5 minute read'No Evidence'?: Big Law Firms Defend Academic Publishers in EDNY Antitrust Case
3 minute readLaw Firms Are Turning to Online Training Platforms as Apprenticeship Model Falters
'Substantive Deficiencies': Judge Grants Big Law Motion Dismissing Ivy League Price-Fixing Claims
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250