State Bar Leaves Reducing Exam Score for Supreme Court to Resolve
California state bar trustees on Wednesday punted the fate of the bar exam pass score to the California Supreme Court, offering the justices a range of choices on the controversial issue, from leaving the score at 144 to lowering it to 139.
September 06, 2017 at 02:24 PM
6 minute read
California state bar trustees on Wednesday punted the fate of the bar exam pass score to the California Supreme Court, offering the justices a range of choices on the controversial issue, from leaving the score at 144 to lowering it to 139.
The trustees' 6-5 vote endorsing the range reflected the contentious nature surrounding the pass score, or cut score. California law school deans, which have seen their students' pass rates plummet in recent years, have pleaded with the bar and the Supreme Court reduce the cut score—now the second highest in the nation behind Delaware—to as low as 135. The Committee of Bar Examiners, however, endorsed maintaining the 144 score while additional studies are completed.
At a hearing Wednesday in Los Angeles, outgoing bar executive director Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker said the agency had “done as much as we can do” analyzing the issue for now, noting that the two remaining studies on the exam won't be completed in the short term.
The high court “will have pretty much all we can do for them in response to their request,” Parker said. “This is policy above our pay grade, I would suggest. This is something for the court to resolve.”
Following complaints about the cut score from deans and a legislative hearing on the issue, the Supreme Court in February asked the bar to study whether 144 remained the appropriate benchmark for passage and to make recommendations for changes, if any, by Dec. 1.
A bar-commissioned study released in July concluded that the agency could lower the cut score to 141 and still ensure that those who pass the exam meet minimum competency standards to practice law. After receiving thousands of public comments on the study and its findings, bar staff proposed reducing the pass score to 139 as a third option. That mark, bar staff wrote, still falls within the statistical margin of error of setting the correct cut score.
The debate over the score has raised a number of hotly debated, related issues, including whether the exam hinders ethnic diversity in the bar and whether a lower score would flood the market with new lawyers unable to find work. Bar leaders on Wednesday suggested temporarily setting aside those issues while making a recommendation to the Supreme Court.
“What we would be doing is providing justification for the court to come to what it considers the appropriate solution to the problem,” said board president James Fox. “In terms of making a specific solitary recommendation, I'm not sure that would be serving the court as well as providing the justification for the range.”
The justices of the California Supreme Court have not said when they expect to make a decision on what the cut score should be.
Related Articles:
|- California Bar Committee Endorses Lowering Exam Pass-Score
- Lawyers and Grads Plea: Lower the Bar Exam 'Cut' Score
- Who Says California's Bar Exam Is Too Tough?
- By the Numbers: How California Law Schools Fared on the Bar Exam
- How Out-of-State Schools Fared on California Bar Exam
California state bar trustees on Wednesday punted the fate of the bar exam pass score to the California Supreme Court, offering the justices a range of choices on the controversial issue, from leaving the score at 144 to lowering it to 139.
The trustees' 6-5 vote endorsing the range reflected the contentious nature surrounding the pass score, or cut score. California law school deans, which have seen their students' pass rates plummet in recent years, have pleaded with the bar and the Supreme Court reduce the cut score—now the second highest in the nation behind Delaware—to as low as 135. The Committee of Bar Examiners, however, endorsed maintaining the 144 score while additional studies are completed.
At a hearing Wednesday in Los Angeles, outgoing bar executive director Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker said the agency had “done as much as we can do” analyzing the issue for now, noting that the two remaining studies on the exam won't be completed in the short term.
The high court “will have pretty much all we can do for them in response to their request,” Parker said. “This is policy above our pay grade, I would suggest. This is something for the court to resolve.”
Following complaints about the cut score from deans and a legislative hearing on the issue, the Supreme Court in February asked the bar to study whether 144 remained the appropriate benchmark for passage and to make recommendations for changes, if any, by Dec. 1.
A bar-commissioned study released in July concluded that the agency could lower the cut score to 141 and still ensure that those who pass the exam meet minimum competency standards to practice law. After receiving thousands of public comments on the study and its findings, bar staff proposed reducing the pass score to 139 as a third option. That mark, bar staff wrote, still falls within the statistical margin of error of setting the correct cut score.
The debate over the score has raised a number of hotly debated, related issues, including whether the exam hinders ethnic diversity in the bar and whether a lower score would flood the market with new lawyers unable to find work. Bar leaders on Wednesday suggested temporarily setting aside those issues while making a recommendation to the Supreme Court.
“What we would be doing is providing justification for the court to come to what it considers the appropriate solution to the problem,” said board president James Fox. “In terms of making a specific solitary recommendation, I'm not sure that would be serving the court as well as providing the justification for the range.”
The justices of the California Supreme Court have not said when they expect to make a decision on what the cut score should be.
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 AllCoalition of AGs Support Updates to ABA's Legal Education Diversity Standard
3 minute readCalifornia Supreme Court Rejects State Bar's Initial Plan for New Bar Exam
4 minute readGovernor Signs Legislation Raising Lawyers' Licensing Fees by $88 in 2025
3 minute readCalifornia Bar Wants to Offer Exam Score Boosts, Payments to Sample Test Guinea Pigs
4 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