California Justices Want Answers After Bar Exam Blunder
"The court understands and shares the concerns that this disclosure has generated," the justices said in a statement Monday, responding to the release of general topics days ahead of the exam.
July 29, 2019 at 06:29 PM
3 minute read
The California Supreme Court said Monday it will exercise its authority over the state bar “to ensure a thorough and independent investigation” is conducted into how essay topics for this week's bar exam were accidentally provided to 16 law school deans Thursday.
“The court understands and shares the concerns that this disclosure has generated,” the justices said in a statement. The court will make sure “that appropriate steps are taken to protect the integrity of the bar examination and identify and address any consequences.”
Bar leaders said Sunday they planned to retain an independent investigator to review what happened.
The court's response is the latest fallout from the errant disclosure and the bar's subsequent decision late Saturday to provide the same information on the topics to the nearly 9,000 would-be lawyers who are registered to take the two-day test that starts Tuesday.
The bar on Monday announced it will refund applicant fees for anyone who wants to bow out of the exam.
“While we hope July CA Bar Exam takers do not decide to withdraw at this late stage, we will honor such requests & furnish 100% refunds for requests received 7/27-7/30, 8:30 a.m.,” the bar tweeted.
Bar leaders said a staffer last week prepared a memo inviting selected deans to observe grading of the July bar exam at a future date. The memo asked law school leaders to rank, in order of preference, the six essay topics that would be tested and later scored.
Donna Hershkowitz, the bar's director of programs, said an invitation to observe the grading is sent out after every test. This time, however, the staffer sent emails, and the accompanying memo, to the invited deans early. One of those deans alerted the bar Saturday that the memo improperly disclosed the test topics.
The bar said it has no evidence that any of the deans shared the topics with others.
The disclosure, and subsequent uproar, comes as the bar is lobbying for a significant licensing fee increase in the Legislature, which has been critical in recent years of bar operations and the dismal passage rates on bar exams.
“This unprecedented event has caused confusion and clearly should not have happened,” said the author of this year's bar licensing fee bill, Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, said in a prepared statement. “It appears to have been human error, and the State Bar has taken action to level the playing field, but the implications are still unknown.”
“Once we are better able to assess the situation and its outcome, we will be able to determine whether the Legislature needs to take additional action, hold hearings, or do anything further to address this situation,” Jackson said.
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 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
- 1Corporate Counsel's 2024 Award Winners Performed Legal Wizardry, Gave a Hand Up to Others
- 2Goodwin, Polsinelli, Fox Rothschild Find New Phila. Offices
- 3Helping Lawyers Move Away from ‘Grinding’ and Toward a ‘Flow’
- 4How GC-of-Year Sam Khichi Has Helped CVS Barrel Through Challenges
- 5A Website is Not a ‘Place.’ What Took So Long To Get This Right?
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