February's Average Multistate Bar Exam Score Hits All-Time Low
A 1.4-point decline in the average Multistate Bar Exam score achieved by February test takers throws cold water on what legal educators had hoped was a sustained turnaround in bar pass rates.
April 20, 2020 at 01:39 PM
3 minute read
While courts, bar examiners and legal educators are grappling with how to handle the July bar exam amid COVID-19, there's also cause for concern over the now-concluded February exam.
The national average score on the Multistate Bar Exam—the 200-question multiple-choice portion of the attorney licensing test—fell 1.4 points from the previous year to land at 132.6, according to the National Conference of Bar Examiners, which develops the test. That represents the lowest average February MBE score on record, and is an ominous sign for pass rates in individual jurisdictions.
"It's obviously disappointing to see this decline after last year's mean increases in February and July," said national conference president Judith Gundersen on Monday. "Although the MBE isn't the only factor that affects bar passage rates, we will probably see a decline in pass rates for February 2020."
The February results are likely to throw cold water on the legal academy's hopes for a sustained bar exam turnaround. Pass rates plummeted between 2014 and 2018, but a 1.2-point gain on the February 2019 average MBE score fueled cautious optimism among educators that the worst was behind them. Those hopes accelerated after July 2019 bar takers posted a 1.6 point increase in the MBE average. The July administration is watched more closely by the legal industry, as it is significantly larger and draws a higher percentage of first-time takers that the February test.
This past February, 19,112 people sat for the exam—down 10% from the previous year. And more than two-thirds of them were taking the test for a second time or more, according to the national conference. It was those repeat test-takers who were the primary drivers of the declining average MBE score, Gundersen noted, rather than those who were sitting for the exam for the first time.
"The February mean is always driven by repeat test-takers; this February, the decrease in the mean score among likely first-time takers was relatively small, while the decrease was larger for likely repeaters," she said.
The growing adoption of the Uniform Bar Exam is a possible factor in lower pass rates because the ability to transfer scores across jurisdictions eliminates the need for attorneys who have already passed one bar exam to take it again elsewhere. Those who have passed the exam once are far more likely to pass it in subsequent administrations than are those who have already failed and are trying again. Another way to think about it is that bar failers are representing a higher proportion of examinees than in the past, before widespread adoption of the uniform exam.
It's not all bad news out there on the bar exam front, however. Jurisdictions are starting to release results from the February test. The overall pass rate in Florida, for example, increased from 58% in 2019 to 60% this February. Tennessee's February pass rate held steady at 46%. But Virginia's February 2020 pass rate fell to 58%, down from nearly 63% the previous year.
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
© 2025 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 AllLSU General Counsel Quits Amid Fracas Over First Amendment Rights of Law Professor
7 minute readPennsylvania Law Schools Are Seeing Double-Digit Boosts in 2025 Applications
5 minute readWhat’s at Stake in Supreme Court Case Over Religious Charter School?
University of New Hampshire Law School Launches Specialized Health, Life Sciences Program
Trending Stories
- 1Public Notices/Calendars
- 2Wednesday Newspaper
- 3Decision of the Day: Qui Tam Relators Do Not Plausibly Claim Firm Avoided Tax Obligations Through Visa Applications, Circuit Finds
- 4Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-116
- 5Big Law Firms Sheppard Mullin, Morgan Lewis and Baker Botts Add Partners in Houston
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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