Nearly 7 in 10 Flunked California's February 2019 Bar Exam
Still, the success rate—31.4%—increased 4.1 percentage points from the historically low pass rate of 27.3% recorded in February 2018.
May 17, 2019 at 09:56 PM
4 minute read
Only 31.4% of would-be attorneys passed California's February 2019 bar exam, marking the second-lowest pass rate on the notoriously difficult test in 35 years, according to figures released by the state bar Friday night.
The success rate was 4.1 percentage points higher than the historically low pass rate of 27.3% recorded in February 2018.
The rise mirrors improvements seen in other states, including New York, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia, where pass rates ranged from 54% to 72%. The national average score on the February Multistate Bar Exam, the multiple-choice section of the test, ticked up 1.2 points to 134.
“We are encouraged to see the increase in pass rate over last year,” bar executive director Leah Wilson said in a prepared statement. “However, the overall low pass rate continues to be a concern and a focus here in California.”
California's high failure rate is sure to add new fuel to efforts to lower the score required by the state bar to pass the exam, a figure known as the cut score. At a legislative hearing in Sacramento this week, L. Song Richardson, dean of the UC Irvine School of Law, argued that the second-highest-in-the-nation passing score delays otherwise qualified law graduates from entering the profession and hampers efforts to diversify the bar's membership.
The bar for the second year is offering an online program to help applicants prepare for the July exam. The bar will also conduct a survey of attorneys this summer to gauge what skills and knowledge new colleagues need. The results will be used to evaluate the current content and passing score of the bar exam.
California's results were released just hours after the American Bar Association adopted new standards that will require at least 75% of a law school's alumni to pass the bar within two years of graduation for that school to retain its ABA accreditation. Schools currently have five years to meet that threshold.
Most of California's 21 ABA-accredited law schools would have no problem with the two-year standard, according to statistics on 2016 graduates released by the association last month.
A handful of schools, however, are flirting with or falling below the 75% mark: Golden Gate University (74%); Thomas Jefferson (64%); University of La Verne (74.5%); the University of San Francisco (67%; and the University of the Pacific McGeorge (73.5%). Whittier Law School, which has announced plans to close, saw just 57% of its 2016 graduates pass the bar in two years.
Those who performed best on February's exam—with a 48% pass rate—were first-time test-takers who graduated from ABA-approved schools located outside of California. 45% of graduates of ABA schools in California passed.
California's slight uptick in pass scores ends a five-year slide in February bar exam scores. A Law.com review of exam figures reported by schools to the American Bar Association between 2013 and 2017 found that 42 out of 203 ABA-accredited law schools saw their pass rate fall anywhere from 10% to 20%. Thirty-five schools had pass-rate declines of more than 20% in those four years.
Most of the schools with the biggest declines in success on the test saw significant drops in enrollment and applicants combined with incoming students with lower undergraduate grades and LSAT scores.
The list of those who passed California's February 2019 exam will be released Sunday on the state bar's website.
The bar's statement on the latest exam results is posted below:
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 AllSome Elite Universities Favor Wealthy Students in Admissions Decisions, Lawsuit Alleges
5 minute readHow 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
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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