California Sets Online-Only Bar Exam for October, Permanently Lowers Passing Score
"The court recognizes that postponement of the bar examination may impact employment prospects, delay incomes, and otherwise impair the livelihoods of persons who recently have graduated from law school," Supreme Court Clerk Jorge Navarrete wrote.
July 16, 2020 at 09:53 PM
4 minute read
California's Supreme Court on Thursday evening rewrote plans for the state's fall bar exam, canceling the in-person test set for September, setting a two-day online test in October and authorizing a provisional licensing plan that will allow law school graduates to temporarily practice law without passing the test.
Additionally, the court ordered that the score needed to pass the test—a figure known as the cut score—be permanently reduced from 145 to 139. The previous cut score was the second highest in the nation and regularly resulted in thousands of law school graduates failing a test that they would have passed under other states' scoring rules.
The whirlwind of COVID-19-inspired changes, announced by the court on its website and in a letter to the state bar, does not grant diploma privilege, which would have allowed recent graduates to practice permanently in California without taking the exam. Law school deans and alumni had lobbied for the exemption due to COVID-19-related hardships.
"The court recognizes that postponement of the bar examination may impact employment prospects, delay incomes, and otherwise impair the livelihoods of persons who recently have graduated from law school," Supreme Court Clerk Jorge Navarrete wrote in a letter to Alan Steinbrecher, chairman of the bar's board of trustees. "Moreover, the court recognizes 2020 graduates may not be in a position to study and prepare for a fall bar 2020 examination."
The provisional licensing program will be available to all 2020 graduates of California law schools and qualified out-of-state schools.
"At a minimum, this provisional licensure program shall remain in effect until at least June 1, 2022 to permit 2020 graduates maximum flexibility," Navarette wrote. "This timeframe will afford the 2020 graduates several opportunities to take the exam of their choosing through February 2022 and await the exam results."
Additional details on the temporary licensing program will be worked out by the state bar, he said.
"The decision was rather more than I thought that I could hope for, and certainly more than I expected," UC Hastings School of Law Dean David Faigman said in an email. "I am deeply grateful to the Supreme Court for this decision, which takes into account the needs of the candidates for the bar and ensures protection for the public. It is a sensible and fair outcome."
California's decision adds to the patchwork of responses to the bar exam dilemma by states, who have chosen a range of options, from plowing ahead with an in-person exam to opting for online testing to canceling the second sitting of the year altogether. New York's Court of Appeals on Thursday nixed that state's planned Sept. 9 and 10 in-person exam, which typically attracts 10,000 test-takers. The court is still weighing next steps, which could include an online exam or diploma privilege.
More than 12,000 applicants have registered to take the fall bar exam, a state bar executive said Thursday.
Potential test-takers have criticized plans for an online exam, questioning privacy protections and potential technical difficulties.
In a letter sent to the California Supreme Court on Thursday, the ACLU raised concerns about online exam software's use of facial recognition technology to proctor the test.
"Race, gender, disability, and other biases built into facial recognition algorithms all but guarantee test-takers from marginalized groups will also be disproportionately impacted by erroneous identifications during the exam and the ongoing surveillance risks that stem from having their biometric information enrolled in a facial recognition database," four ACLU attorneys wrote.
"The State Bar must find a solution to the administration of the bar exam that will meaningfully address inequities, not perpetuate them," the letter said.
Read the letter from the California Supreme Court to the bar:
Read more:
It's Time to Replace the California Bar Exam
Law School Deans Lobby California Court for Diploma Privilege in Virus Era
How Law Schools Fared on the February 2020 Bar Exam
UCLA's Mnookin on Bar Exam's Future and Virus-Era Challenges for New Grads
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 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
- 1Morgan Lewis Closes Shenzhen Office Less Than 2 Years After Launch
- 2On The Move: Freeman Mathis & Gary Adds Florida Partners, Employment Pro Joins Jackson Lewis
- 3New Trouble for Allstate: National Class Action Targets Insurer
- 4Pam Bondi's Lobbying and Law Firm Revenue Disclosed
- 5Bipartisan Lawmakers to Hochul Urge Greater Student Loan Forgiveness for Public-Interest Lawyers
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