Critics Link California's Bar Exam to Lack of Bench, Bar Diversity
"If we care about diversity and inclusion in the legal profession, and I will assume that we do, then the current bar exam cut score is simply unconscionable," L. Song Richardson, dean of the UC Irvine School of Law, told the Assembly Judiciary Committee Tuesday.
May 15, 2019 at 12:00 AM
4 minute read
California's notoriously difficult bar exam came under fresh scrutiny Tuesday as critics told a legislative committee that the high marks required to pass are hurting efforts to diversify the state's legal profession and bench.
“If we care about diversity and inclusion in the legal profession, and I will assume that we do, then the current bar exam cut score is simply unconscionable,” L. Song Richardson, dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law, told the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
Richardson was referring to California's bar exam passing score—known as the cut score—of 144. The number is the second-highest in the nation, behind Delaware's 145.
Statistics released last year by the bar show that, if the cut score on the July 2018 exam had been 135, the mean passing score of all states offering a test, the overall success rate would have jumped from 42 percent to 63 percent. Gains among certain ethnic groups would have been even more significant. One-hundred nineteen African American students scored 144 or better to pass the July 2018 bar exam. If the cut score had been 135, 268 African Americans would have passed, an increase of 125 percent.
“Because of our outlier cut score, many of our promising and talented law graduates are losing their jobs and increasing their debt,” Richardson said. “So it is abundantly clear that our abnormally high cut score adversely impacts the diversity of the legal profession.
“And if we were to reduce the cut score to at least the national average, we would immediately ensure that the lawyers entering the profession in California come closer to representing our population and also diversity of students who graduate from our law schools.”
State lawmakers convened Tuesday's hearing to consider why California's bar and bench do not reflect the diversity of the state's population. Latinos comprise the largest ethnic group in California at roughly 39 percent of the state's population. In 2017, the latest demographic figures available, more than 80 percent of attorneys licensed by the bar were white.
Former Gov. Jerry Brown emphasized diversity in his judicial picks. But after eight years of Brown's appointments, California's judges are still overwhelmingly white (66.percent) and male (64 percent).
Legislators heard from attorneys about barriers to a law school-preparing education and a lack of mentoring and networking opportunities for both students and young lawyers. But the discussion frequently turned back to the bar exam and, to a lesser extent the LSAT, as a “pipeline” problem, limiting the supply of minority students to the profession.
“The data is very, very clear in how these exams seem to be barring future leaders within the legal profession that represent the diversity of our state,” said Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco. “I think there are reasons on both sides on why things should or should not change, but from my perspective the burden of proof should lie with the status quo because things have to change.”
After an outcry from law school professors in 2017, bar leaders asked the Supreme Court to reconsider the cut score. Justices left the score at 144, saying they had not seen persuasive evidence, yet, to reduce it.
State bar officials are conducting a study of the skills new attorneys need to practice law in California. The results of that study are expected at the end of the year and could be used to re-formulate the bar exam, its content and cut score.
“We'll have more information to consider then,” Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said in an interview from her San Francisco office Tuesday.
Richardson said the cut score should be temporarily reduced while the study continues “because the diversity of the legal profession in California that we say we care about depends upon it.”
The results of the February 2018 bar exam will be released on Friday.
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 AllSanta Clara County Superior Court Authorizes Electronic Recording of Proceedings
4 minute readShareholder Activists Poised to Pounce in 2025. Is Your Board Ready?
Trending Stories
- 1Helping Lawyers Move Away from ‘Grinding’ and Toward a ‘Flow’
- 2How GC-of-Year Sam Khichi Has Helped CVS Barrel Through Challenges
- 3A Website is Not a ‘Place.’ What Took So Long To Get This Right?
- 4From ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
- 5Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Julie Cantor, Associate General Counsel at Studs, Inc.
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