California Bar 'Inadvertently' Reveals Essay Topics Days Before Exam
The bar did not respond to questions about why the essay topics were included in an email to law school leaders. One professor says the errant disclosure "should have little, if any, impact" on any test-taker's likelihood of passing the exam this week.
July 28, 2019 at 01:59 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
The California State Bar “inadvertently” revealed to law school deans the essay topics that will be covered on this week's bar exam, the bar told registered test-takers in an email Saturday night.
The bar said “out of abundance of caution and fairness” it has provided the same information about the test to those registered to take it on Tuesday and Wednesday at sites around the state. The topics that will be covered on the exam will be civil procedure, remedies/constitutional law, criminal law and procedure, professional responsibility, contracts and evidence.
In a statement issued Sunday, Donna Hershkowitz, the bar's chief of programs, said the disclosure was part of a “routine invitation to observe a grading session—the invitation typically goes out after the completion of the exam.” The bar has no evidence the information was shared with students, she said.
The bar did not respond to questions about which deans received the invitation or why the essay topics were included in the email to law school leaders.
The apparently errant disclosure is the latest blow for California's bar exam, which has been criticized by law school deans and others for its low pass rate and second-highest-in-the-nation passing score requirement.
Derek Mueller, a Pepperdine University School of Law professor who covers bar admissions and the test at his blog Excess of Democracy, questioned whether the release will help anyone's chances of passing the exam. Bar examiners scale, or link, the scores to the multiple choice portion of the test to the essay, he wrote in a post on Sunday. The bar's mistake “should have little, if any, impact” on any single test-taker's likelihood of passing the exam, he said.
“What it means very roughly is this: There is an opportunity to account for the difficulty or ease of the test itself and for the higher or lower quality of test-takers by looking at how those test-takers have done compared to other test-takers on previous administrations of the exam,” Mueller said.
Still, the reveal of essay topics does give test-takers two advantages, Mueller said. They'll know right away that the first question is about civil procedure and “can start from word go addressing Civil Procedure and only Civil Procedure.”
“The second advantage is that students can stop studying other, irrelevant topics like Wills & Trusts and focus exclusively on these areas,” Mueller wrote. “Again, it should have the same effect: Everyone studies the same set of topics, everyone knows them a bit better, everyone scores a bit better.”
The bar's announcement led some scheduled test-takers to question whether the email was a hoax or the result of a hack to the agency's account. The bar issued a second statement via Twitter late Saturday night confirming that the announcement was accurate. “This account has not been hacked,” the tweet said.
The bar's letter to law deans is posted below:
||
Read more:
How Law Schools Fared on California's February 2019 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 AllDelivery of Legal Services Is Changing as More States Explore Reform Measures
Coalition of AGs Support Updates to ABA's Legal Education Diversity Standard
3 minute readSotomayor, Speaking With Civics Students, Eyes AI's Impact on Law
Uniform Bar Admissions Rule for US Trial Courts Draws Opposition from Circuit, District Judges
Trending Stories
- 1Del. Court Holds Stance on Musk's $55.8B Pay Rescission, Awards Shareholder Counsel $345M
- 2Another Senior Boeing Attorney Exits, This One for CLO Post at Jet-Maintenance Company
- 3Bridge the Communication Gap: The Benefits of Having (and Being) a Bilingual Mediator
- 4CFIUS Is Locked and Loaded, but What Lies Ahead for CFIUS Enforcement Activity?
- 5Deluge of Trump-Leary Government Lawyers Join Job Market, Setting Up Free-for-All for Law Firm, In-House Openings
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