California Lawmakers Urge Court to Lower Passing Score for Next Bar Exam
"These data make clear that the California bar exam, like similar standardized tests, has a racially discriminatory impact on all people of color, but particularly on Black test takers," the lawmakers' letter said.
June 19, 2020 at 06:18 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
Four state lawmakers have called on the California Supreme Court to immediately drop the score required to pass the bar exam, saying the test has a "racially discriminatory impact" on would-be lawyers.
In a June 18 letter to justices, the Democratic lawmakers cite the historically low 26.8% pass rate on the February exam. While half of whites taking the exam for the first time passed, the success rates for Asian applicants (28%), Latinos (25%) and African Americans (18%) were markedly lower.
"Most alarmingly, only five percent of Black first-time bar exam takers who graduated California ABA-accredited law schools passed," according to the letter signed by Assembly Judiciary Chairman Mark Stone, D-Scotts Valley, Public Safety Chairman Reginald Jones-Sawyer, Latino Caucus Chairwoman Lorena Gonzalez and Legislative Black Caucus Chairwoman Shirley Weber.
California requires a score of at least 1,440 out of a possible 2,000 to pass, the second-highest mark in the nation behind Delaware's 1,450. The lawmakers asked the court to set the passing score at no more than 1,388.
The lawmakers cited bar statistics showing that if the passing score, or "cut" score, had been reduced to 1,390 on tests administered between February 2009 and February 2019, 5% more white test-takers, 8% more Latinos, 7% more Asians and 13% more blacks would have passed the exam.
"These data make clear that the California bar exam, like similar standardized tests, has a racially discriminatory impact on all people of color, but particularly on Black test takers," the letter said.
A spokesman for the Supreme Court did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The state Supreme Court has been besieged for years now with calls to lower the cut score as California's success rate lags behind other states and a majority of test-takers regularly fail the test. The court, however, refused in 2017 to lower the score immediately, noting studies of the exam were underway by the state bar.
In May, the bar announced that it was working with the California Supreme Court to form a "blue ribbon commission" that would review all the bar's studies and make recommendations to the justices about what should be included on future bar exams and how they should be scored. The commission's membership has not yet been announced.
Lawmakers said they were pleased with the commission's mandate.
" However, the time to take bold action to eliminate racial bias in California is now," they wrote. "Given that the California Bar Exam is designed to test the minimal competence for the first year of law practice and not to create an artificial barrier to entrance into the legal profession, or reflect an optimal level of competence, it is only reasonable to select the lowest passing score that ensures minimal competence and does not discriminate against people of color."
The lawmakers say that score should be 1,388, at least until the commission finishes its work. The number comes from a 2017 bar-commissioned study, which concluded that a cut score set between 1,388 and 1,504 would be statistically valid.
The letter also asks the court to help 2020 law school graduates by allowing them to practice law "with appropriate oversight" while deciding when and how the fall 2020 bar exam will be administered. The lawmakers did not endorse diploma privilege or any specific method that would allow graduates who have not yet taken the bar exam to practice.
The Supreme Court asked the bar in April to postpone the July 2020 bar exam until September and to consider whether to administer it online due to COVID-19 social-distancing rules. The court on June 11 raised the prospect of pushing back the test to October to coincide with an online offering of the Multistate Bar Exam.
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'Everything From A to Z': University GCs Tested by Legal, Financial, Societal Challenges
6 minute read'A Horrible Reputation for Bad Verdicts': Plaintiffs Attorney Breaks Down $129M Wrongful-Death Verdict From Conservative Venue
How Uncertainty in College Athletics Compensation Could Drive Lawsuits in 2025
'Basic Arithmetic': Court Rules in Favor of LA Charter School Denied Funding by California Education Department
Trending Stories
- 1The Evolution of a Virtual Court System
- 2New Acquitted Conduct Guideline: An Analysis
- 3Considering the Implications of the 2024 Presidential Election for Jurors in White Collar Cases
- 42024 in Review: Judges Met Out Punishments for Ex-Apple, FDIC, Moody's Legal Leaders
- 5What We Heard From Litigation Leaders in 2024
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