How Law Schools Fared on the February 2020 Bar Exam
The schools' pass rates were released as the state bar scrambles to figure out how to administer the fall bar exam.
June 12, 2020 at 03:10 PM
3 minute read
Graduates of University of San Diego and Loyola laws schools posted some of the best pass rates on the February bar exam, according to data released Friday by the state bar.
The new report shows 43% of USD alumni and 42% of Loyola grads posted passing scores for the test, which set a modern-day record for the lowest pass rate on the notoriously difficult exam—26.8%. Other California-based schools with pass rates above the overall success rate include Santa Clara University (39%), Pepperdine (38%), Southwestern (35%) and California Western (34%).
A fuller picture of pass rates by individual schools is hampered by the fact that the state bar does not release statistics for institutions where fewer than 12 graduates took the exam. There is no data from Stanford Law School, for example. Numbers tied to other schools reveal the pass rates only for repeat test-takers: UC Berkeley (58%), UCLA (53%), UC Irvine (50%) and University of Southern California (50%).
Information for out-of-state, American Bar Association-approved schools is equally skimpy. Pass rates were only provided for groups of students from two specific schools. Eight of 16 repeat test-takers from George Washington University passed. None of the 15 repeat test-takers from Western Michigan University's Thomas Cooley Law School passed.
First-time test-takers from ABA-approved schools outside California did better as a whole (nearly 45%) than their in-state counterparts (42.6%). When repeat test-takers are added to the overall pass rates, however, California ABA schools (33%) did better than out-of-state institutions (29.4%).
Far more repeat test-takers traditionally sit for the February exam than the July exam. The pass rate for repeat test-takers historically falls lower than that for those completing the exam for the first time.
The schools' pass rates were released as the state bar scrambles to figure out how to administer the fall bar exam. The state Supreme Court previously directed the bar to administer the test online, if possible, Sept. 9-10. This week the court raised the possibility of pushing the test back to Oct. 5-6.
General statistics report for the Feb. 2020 bar exam:
Read more:
California Supreme Court Raises Prospect of October Bar Exam
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
California Bar Exam Pass Rates Drop to All-Time Low 26.8% on February 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 All
Coalition of AGs Support Updates to ABA's Legal Education Diversity Standard
3 minute read
California Supreme Court Rejects State Bar's Initial Plan for New Bar Exam
4 minute read
Governor Signs Legislation Raising Lawyers' Licensing Fees by $88 in 2025
3 minute read
California Bar Wants to Offer Exam Score Boosts, Payments to Sample Test Guinea Pigs
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Litigators of the Week: A $630M Antitrust Settlement for Automotive Software Vendors—$140M More Than Alleged Overcharges
- 2Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
- 3Linklaters Hires Four Partners From Patterson Belknap
- 4Law Firms Expand Scope of Immigration Expertise, Amid Blitz of Trump Orders
- 5Latest Boutique Combination in Florida Continues Am Law 200 Merger Activity
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
