California Supreme Court Raises Prospect of October Bar Exam
The court's suggestion is the latest twist in efforts to administer a bar exam in California during the COVID-19 pandemic. Citing the need for social distancing, the seven justices earlier delayed the July exam until September.
June 11, 2020 at 03:57 PM
3 minute read
California's Supreme Court late Wednesday raised the possibility of holding the next bar exam online in October instead of September, noting that the National Conference of Bar Examiners will offer an online version of the multiple-choice Multistate Bar Exam on Oct. 6.
"As the state bar is aware, the administration of the MBE is an essential component to scoring the entire two-day exam," the court's clerk and executive officer, Jorge Navarrete, said in a letter to bar chairman Alan Steinbrecher.
"Although the court had originally postponed the July 2020 California Bar Examination to September 9-10, 2020, the court will consider moving the exam to October 5-6, 2020 after the state bar assesses its online administration of First-Year Law Students' Examination on June 23 and the feasibility of upscaling that administration to the full exam in the fall," Navarrete wrote.
The court's suggestion is the latest twist in efforts to administer a bar exam in California during the COVID-19 pandemic. Citing the need for social distancing, the seven justices in April delayed the July exam until September, ordering the bar to "make every effort possible" to administer what is traditionally the most heavily attended test of the year online, with a combination of electronic and remote proctoring.
The bar announced on its website Thursday it will not change the September date "until a final determination has been made by the court."
"Exam applicants are encouraged to continue studying with the September date in mind but are alerted about the possibility that these dates can change," the post continued. "We encourage applicants to check our website for updates. Registered applicants are advised to check the applicant portal for any changes and updates."
The state bar has not yet announced how it may provide an online test this fall. The bar's committee of bar examiners is scheduled to hear an update on 2020 exams at its June 19 meeting.
"As noted in the court's [April 27] letter, the court will continue to explore other options as circumstances develop or change," Navarrete wrote. "The court appreciates the State Bar's continued efforts concerning these matters."
At least five states have announced that they will or may hold bar exams remotely this fall. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals on Monday announced that it will administer its bar exam via the internet Oct. 5 and 6. All applicants will be required to provide their own computer, webcam and internet service for the test.
Read more:
UCLA's Mnookin on Bar Exam's Future and Virus-Era Challenges for New Grads
California Postpones Bar Exam Until September, Pushes for Online Test
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 AllAssessing the Second Trump Presidency’s Impact on College Sports
LSAT Administrator Sues to Block AI Tutor From Using ‘Famous, Distinctive’ Test Prep Materials
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Retrial Bid by Ex-U.S. Sen. Menendez Over Evidentiary Error
- 2Lawyers: Meet Your New Partner
- 3What Will It Mean in California if New Federal Anti-SLAPP Legislation Passes?
- 4Longtime AOC Director Glenn Grant to Step Down, Assignment Judge to Take Over
- 5Elon Musk’s Tesla Pay Case Stokes Chatter Between Lawyers and Clients
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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