Remote Bar Exam Offered in October as Plan B Amid COVID-19
Nearly all jurisdictions are planning to hold in-person bar exams in July or September, but the entity that creates the bar exam has unveiled plans for a backup online test—one it hopes states don't have to use.
June 01, 2020 at 05:46 PM
4 minute read
The bar exam could be headed online this fall.
The National Conference of Bar Examiners—which designs the exam—announced Monday that it will offer a pared-down, remote bar exam Oct. 5 and 6 to any jurisdiction that cannot safely administer the in-person test in September. (More than a third of all jurisdictions have postponed the July bar exam to one of two alternative dates in September.) That's a sea change for a licensing exam that historically requires test takers to decamp to convention centers and other large venues for two days or more, and that emphasizes test security.
"[The national conference] understands the enormous challenges facing recent law graduates during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the uncertainty over whether they will be able to sit for the bar exam, which is why we have taken additional steps to facilitate licensure in 2020," said Judith Gundersen, president and CEO of the national conference.
Scores earned on the abbreviated October online exam won't be transferable to other jurisdictions—they will admit test takers only to the jurisdiction in which they took the exam. But news of an online option is likely to relieve some of the pressure on attorney licensing entities, which have struggled to find ways to administer the bar while also protecting the health and safety of examinees and proctors. Having an online option also offers a path forward for recent law graduates if subsequent waves of COVID-19 force the cancellation of the rescheduled September test dates.
Gundersen said in an interview Monday that bar examiners are working overtime to organize and implement in-person licensing tests in nearly every jurisdiction, and that the availability of an online exam is simply a backup.
"I believe that the vast majority of states are using this as a Plan B, and in some cases a Plan C because some states are going to give two in-person bar exams," Gundersen said. "But if something happens that prevents them from being able to do that, like a local or state health order, then they can go this route."
But the availability of an online test won't necessarily help jurisdictions that don't have enough seating capacity for everyone who wants to take their in-person exams, Gundersen said. New York, Connecticut, Washington, D.C., and Maine are among the jurisdictions that have warned that they might not be able to accommodate all exam applicants. But it would be difficult for jurisdictions to manage admitting new lawyers through two different testing scenarios, she said.
A handful of jurisdictions have already announced plans for their own state-designed online tests. Indiana and Michigan are giving one-day online tests in July, while Nevada's July online exam will be two days and open-book. But the availability of an online exam created by the national conference may well prompt more jurisdictions to go that route. Massachusetts had already said it would offer its own online bar exam if the September in-person test must be canceled, while the California Supreme Court has urged its state bar to offer an online version of the test.
Details about the online October exam were scant Monday. The national conference said it would supply jurisdictions with a "limited set" of questions from all three portions of the Uniform Bar Exam: the Multistate Bar Exam; the Multistate Essay Exam; and the Multistate Performance Test. But there will be fewer questions in each section, and the overall testing time will be shorter. Jurisdictions will have the ability to decide which sections to use. Each jurisdiction will also be responsible for scoring tests and "interpreting candidate performance." Under normal circumstances, the national conference scores the Multistate Bar Exam—which is the 200-question multiple choice portion of the bar—while individual jurisdictions score the remaining two sections. Jurisdictions will choose from three technology vendors with previous experience administering the bar exam, according to the national conference's announcement. Those vendors will handle exam security. But the national conference is establishing testing dates and times to ensure all online exams are given simultaneously.
The national conference warned that bar exam scores earned on a shortened, online test cannot be considered comparable to the traditional, in-person bar exam without further study, however.
"NCBE continues to strongly advocate that a full-length, standard, in-person administration of the bar exam/[uniform bar bar] is best for a number of reasons, including psychometric issues, exam security, and the testing environment of candidates, who may not have access to comparable testing conditions or equipment," Gundersen said in the announcement. "We recognize, however, that these are extraordinary times."
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 AllUniversity of Chicago Accused of Evicting Student for Attending Gaza-Israel Protest
3 minute readSanctioned Penn Law Professor Amy Wax Sues University, Alleging Discrimination
5 minute readThe Met Hires GC of Elite University as Next Legal Chief
Trending Stories
- 1Avantia Publicly Announces Agentic AI Platform Ava
- 2Shifting Sands: May a Court Properly Order the Sale of the Marital Residence During a Divorce’s Pendency?
- 3Joint Custody Awards in New York – The Current Rule
- 4Paul Hastings, Recruiting From Davis Polk, Continues Finance Practice Build
- 5Chancery: Common Stock Worthless in 'Jacobson v. Akademos' and Transaction Was Entirely Fair
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