Most New Associates Who Fail California Bar Can Keep Their Jobs—For Now
The State Bar of California recently reported that only 31.4% of would-be attorneys passed California's February 2019 bar exam.
June 03, 2019 at 12:58 PM
4 minute read
What happens when a law firm's incoming associate does not pass the bar exam?
The State Bar of California recently reported that only 31.4% of would-be attorneys passed California's February 2019 bar exam—the second-lowest pass rate California has seen in more than 30 years.
More than 4,600 people took the February test, and roughly 1,500 test-takers passed the exam, which means over 3,100 won't be able to practice law until at least July, when the next exam is administered. But many of them have already committed to jobs at law firms.
“Law firms have established policies about what do to when their associates don't pass the bar; most law firms will give associates two chances to pass the bar,” said Kate Reder Sheikh, an associate recruiter at Major, Lindsey & Africa. “Just because they didn't pass the first time, [it] does not mean that they are going to be out of a job. That is a positive thing.”
According to Reder Sheikh, Big Law associates who do not pass the bar exam on their first try are unlikely to be impacted immediately, as most of them are practicing under the supervision of senior attorneys. But if the associate does not pass the exam on their second attempt, they will likely be terminated, she said.
“At that point, depending on how you have done at the firm in general, and what kind relationship you have there, the firm may give you an offer to return once you pass the test,” Reder Sheikh added.
Many of those who failed the February exam will retake it in July. But for some associates, the February test may have already been the second time they fail the bar exam. According to the State Bar of California, three-quarters of the applicants who took the test in February had already taken the bar exam once. The pass rate for repeat applicants was only 28%.
The passage rate on the July 2018 bar exam was 40%, with 54% of first-time takers passing, a historic low for the July test, according to the State Bar of California.
Carla Khalife, a legal recruiter at Swan Legal Search, said she has noticed an increase in associate candidates who have not passed the bar exam, particularly in intellectual property and corporate practices.
“The firm eventually requires you to have passed the California bar. I am seeing that the firm will give them one try or two tries, then you are out,” she said.
Of course, new law school graduates aren't the only people looking to pass the bar exam in California.
“It doesn't just impact this year's first-year associate class, but people who maybe want to relocate from New York, or Washington, D.C., or Chicago to California,” she said.
Having passed the California exam is a “hard requirement” in order to practice in the market, according to Khalife. However, that does not means the legal talent pool in California is shrinking—firms are still growing their practices and more attorneys moving into the market.
Still, those firms looking to grow might start steering clear of lateral candidates who are not yet admitted to the California bar.
“The bar exam low pass rate may start to make firms [have] a little bit more trepidation about hiring people from out of California,” said Reder Sheikh, cautioning lawyers wanting to enter the California market. “Firms may want to require the bar before they'll consider the application.”
|Read More
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 AllNew Class Action Points to Fears Over Privacy, Abortions and Fertility
Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
5 minute readCourt rejects request to sideline San Jose State volleyball player on grounds she’s transgender
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