California State Bar files lawsuit after exam fiasco sparks calls for vendor audit
The complaint , filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on Monday, alleges Meazure Learning committed fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract by claiming it could administer a remote and in-person exam in a two-day window.
'Over months, Meazure made representation after representation to convince the State Bar that it would offer a seamless remote and in-person exam experience worthy of the California Bar Exam,' the complaint said. 'But it is now clear that Meazure could not deliver.'
For many aspiring attorneys, the rollout of the new exam in February was a debacle. Test takers seeking to practice law in California complained of a litany of technical glitches and irregularities. Online testing platforms repeatedly crashed before some even started the exam. Others experienced screen lags and error messages, struggled to finish and save essays, and could not copy and paste text from test questions into the exam's response field.
But Meazure Learning pushed back Tuesday on the idea that it was responsible for the fiasco. In a statement responding to the suit, Meazure said it was proud of its 'track record of reliably administering over 4 million exams annually' and supporting more than 1,000 organizations over two decades. It suggested the State Bar was trying to pass the buck for its own failures.
'We recognize the importance of a smooth exam experience, and we regret that some test takers had issues during the February 2025 California Bar Exam,' a spokesman for Meazure Learning said. 'This lawsuit is an attempt by the State Bar to shift the blame for its flawed development process for the February exam. We will defend ourselves vigorously in court.'
When Meazure was being tapped to administer February's exam, the lawsuit claims, the company reassured the State Bar that it had experience in administering 25,000 exams over a two-day period and had 'no concerns' about meeting the State Bar's remote testing needs. It also promoted its experience with 2,200 customers over two decades, described itself as the 'most secure and accessible' in the 'techenabled assessment solutions' industry and touted its short chat and phone support wait times of a minute or less.
'Meazure promised that it had no remote exam capacity limits concerning administration of the Bar Exam, knowing full well that it did,' the lawsuit states. 'The State Bar, reasonably and in good faith, relied on Meazure's continuing statements and conduct indicating that it could scale up as needed to handle the volume for remote exams.'
But since the exam, the lawsuit said, Meazure has impeded the State Bar's attempts to investigate its failures and 'employed delay and deny tactics to prevent the State Bar from obtaining full and critical information.'
'In light of the significant hardships endured by the February 2025 applicants and breach of specific contractual obligations outlined in our agreement, the State Bar has taken decisive action to hold Meazure Learning accountable for its failures,' Brandon Stallings, the chair of the State Bar Board of Trustees, said in a statement.
The State Bar, represented by attorneys from Hueston Hennigan, seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the 'unacceptable February Bar Exam experience,' and is also seeking an independent audit of the company.
Prior to February's test, the State Bar promoted the new exam as a cost-cutting initiative that would offer test takers the choice of remote testing. After deciding to break away from the national tests it had used for more than 50 years, the agency signed a $4.1-million deal last year with Meazure Learning to administer a new exam. It also announced an additional $8.25-million five-year deal authorizing test prep company Kaplan Exam Services to create multiple-choice, essays and performance test questions.
In the months leading up to the exams, the deans of many of California's top law schools flagged concerns to the State Bar.
During a November exam study, some test takers had problems logging in to Meazure's exam platform, the complaint said, and in a January mock exam, technical glitches prevented test takers from entering the exam, submitting responses and using basic word processing functions.
'Meazure again assured the State Bar and prospective test takers that it would [and did] fix these issues before the February exam,' the complaint said. 'But it did not.'
News of the lawsuit came just hours after the State Bar released exam results for the February exam. The agency reported that 55.9% of test takers passed — the highest spring pass rate since 1965.
The California Supreme Court, which oversees the State Bar, delivered a ruling Friday that allowed the agency to lower scoring for the February exam because of the debacle. The State Bar's IT and admission staff then worked through the weekend to adjust scoring so they could inform test takers if they passed or failed.
The state's highest court also ordered the State Bar to abandon its new system of multiple-choice questions and revert to the traditional Multistate Bar Examination for multiple-choice questions for its July bar exam.
Leah T. Wilson, the embattled executive director of the State Bar who announced she plans to step down in July, congratulated test takers.
'Given the technical and other issues this cohort faced, the perseverance applicants showed is commendable and impressive,' Wilson said in a statement.
Test takers who did not pass the exam will receive letters later this week detailing their results. They can retake the exam in July.
Some February test takers have urged the State Bar to provide equitable remediation after the debacle, such as immediately adopting a provisional licensing program and granting full law licenses in California without requiring additional examination.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
22-06-2025
- Los Angeles Times
In a Data-Obsessed World, Attorneys Welcome Privacy Law Specialization
California's State Bar will offer the specialization in a state that revolutionized privacy law with the CCPA News that the State Bar of California will offer a privacy law specialization has been welcomed by practitioners in the space. They say that as the scale and complexity of data use grows, so does the need for lawyers who understand the patchwork of regulations governing privacy and the latest technological advancements. The State Bar voted to approve the specialization during its May 22-23 meeting. It's the first new specialization to be established since 2008 and will join 11 others, including Family Law and Taxation Law, once launched. According to the State Bar, the specialization 'recognizes the growth and importance of privacy law in light of increasing legal challenges in data privacy, cybersecurity and emerging technologies.' Attorneys who seek specialization will need to demonstrate knowledge of areas including data security, data sharing and technologies. Eventually, attorneys will need to pass an examination to fulfill the specialization requirements. California is not the first state to offer a specialization, explained Sharon R. Klein, co-chair of Blank Rome LLP's Privacy, Security & Data Protection practice. In the U.S., that honor belongs to North Carolina, which offers a certification based on the International Association of Privacy Professionals Certified Information Privacy Profession/United States certification (and which Klein has held for decades). Klein said that privacy law was 'definitely' an area requiring specialist knowledge, given 'privacy is an area filled with complex and often conflicting regulations and one which is constantly evolving.' Regarding demand for the specialization, she noted that there were '1,200 active members of the California Lawyers Association's privacy section.' Attorney Don R. Dennis Jr., whose practice includes copyright and trademark infringement, internet law, defamation, trade secret misappropriation, data security breaches and privacy law, welcomed the news. He said that he would consider taking the specialization and that it would allow attorneys practicing privacy law to stand out from the pack. 'The fact that there are so many tenets to privacy law, whether we're talking about education or finance or health, being that it touches so many different points, that specialization just allows you to really hone in, and it will really set you apart from other legal practitioners who may have read an article here or there, or maybe even experienced a data breach, but have not dealt in this area of law on a daily or weekly basis,' he said. Daniel Goldberg, who chairs Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC's privacy practice, also welcomed the move. He said that while the precise details of the specialization were not yet clear, he would 'definitely' consider taking it. 'Absolutely, it's an area that has been exploding with growth. And California is one of the leading states with privacy regulation and has been for a number of years now. And so it is, I think, particularly important to have some type of specialization designating leaders in this field,' Goldberg said. Like Dennis, Goldberg said that attorneys who wanted to effectively solve clients' data privacy issues needed to stay on top of the latest legal and technological developments. 'The law is very complex. But on top of the law being complex, the specialization really requires a level of technical expertise. The law talks all about measures that companies need to take with respect to collection, use, disclosure of data and opting out. But if you don't understand how the technology works or how the ecosystem works, then it's an area that would be very, very difficult for you,' he said. He added, 'One thing about privacy law is that you also have to be an expert on what's going on in the news, the latest changes and whether it has to do with ad-tech platforms or AI. If you're not up with the latest changes, you're going to fall behind very quickly.' Both attorneys said that the specialization recognized that data privacy has become an increasingly pressing issue in recent years. Dennis said that growing consumer reliance on data-rich consumer services, as well as the transition to online platforms in industries like education and health, and the resulting risk of data being misused or leaked had boosted the number of companies and consumers seeking legal advice on their legal remedies and responsibilities. This would likely be magnified by the growth of artificial intelligence services, he said. He said that privacy law was a complicated area of the law, involving a patchwork of state and international law. Much of his time was spent helping clients navigate through these laws. 'There's no national data breach law. Each state has its own law and notification process,' he said. Klein explained that data privacy, particularly the privacy policies and infrastructure a company had in place, had also become a key consideration during dealmaking. 'No commercial deal gets done today without an analysis of the data the target is/has collected and whether they have protected the data and avoided data breaches. This is true for ordinary deals as well as technology deals,' she said. She agreed that AI would likely exacerbate this trend, stating, 'The amount of regulation and legislation globally over the past 35 years of my practice is stunning and will increase exponentially with AI. Lawyers are needed to align expectations of the parties globally on privacy, security, and AI rights and data transfers.' Goldberg said that it was fitting that California attorneys would soon have the option to earn a privacy specialization, given that the state has played a pioneering role in privacy regulation. This included the passing of the first comprehensive privacy law (the California Consumer Privacy Act or CCPA) in 2018, which he said catalyzed the creation of similar laws across other states and established California as the national leader in privacy legislation. He said the state had also been among the most active in enforcement, with both the Attorney General's office and the California Privacy Protection Agency pursuing multiple enforcement actions of late, with more expected to follow. Because data privacy stretches across such a broad cross section of industries, Goldberg said that it was becoming an increasingly lucrative area for law firms. 'It's incredibly lucrative just because it's such a broad area. It really is a subject matter expertise that goes in so many different subcategories of practices, and so almost every firm now has to have a privacy expert,' he said. Klein predicted that the 'privacy, security and AI areas for lawyers will continue to be robust for decades to come as companies need legal advice relating to the vast amounts of data to operate their businesses,' including trade secret and personal data. 'Needless to say – law firms see this as a lucrative area and are and will continue to invest in privacy, security and AI specialists,' she added.
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Yahoo
Wisconsin State Bar leadership betrays the rule of law
Why has the Wisconsin State Bar take a pass on condemning unconstitutional intimidation of lawyers? And why can't anyone find out the details of how that decision was made? |Getty Images Creative The State Bar of Wisconsin was created by the Wisconsin Supreme Court as the trade association that all Wisconsin lawyers must join to obtain their law licenses. Its vision statement declares its cardinal purpose: 'Our members are the respected guardians of the dignity and integrity of the rule of law within a fair and accessible justice system.' Yet recently, State Bar leaders deliberately violated their own vision statement by refusing in any way to push back against President Donald Trump's blatantly illegal executive orders attacking lawyers, without whom the rule of law cannot exist 'within a fair and accessible justice system.' Why they shirked their express mission remains a mystery because State Bar leaders voted in secrecy on the issue and refused to explain themselves to the 25,000 State Bar members they purportedly serve. Instead, they have stonewalled membership with a bogus cone of silence over their deliberations. Here is the context: Earlier this Spring, President Donald Trump issued punitive executive orders targeting 14 prominent law firms because he didn't like their lawyers, clients, cases, or speech. He acted to cripple their ability to provide legal services to their clients. Trump then offered these firms an extortionate 'deal' he thought they couldn't refuse: agree to provide millions of dollars in pro bono legal work to further Trump's political agenda, such as free work for the coal industry, or else lose security clearances, access to federal buildings and even government contracts held by their clients. Several of the firms capitulated, offering roughly $1 billion in legal services to Trump that otherwise would have funded true 'pro bono' work for the underserved. Several others, including Perkins Coie, a distinguished national firm with Wisconsin members, refused. They fought back in court, and won. Their wins are unsurprising. The U.S. Constitution undeniably bars our government from wielding its power to target lawyers based on their representation of clients, their employment decisions, or their advocating positions the administration doesn't like. Federal courts have been unanimous and unsparing in condemning Trump's orders. One judge characterized such an order as a 'personal vendetta' by Trump that 'the framers of our Constitution would see…as a shocking abuse of power.' Retired conservative federal judge J. Michael Luttig commented that executive orders targeting law firms are 'the most sinister and corrupt' of the 'ocean of unconstitutional orders' coming out of the White House. He correctly emphasized that the legality of the executive orders is beside the point for Trump, who knows that no court will uphold them. The purpose, rather, is to intimidate lawyers. Wisconsin lawyers are officers of the court, sworn to support the Constitution of the United States. We are thus duty-bound to guard the Constitution against existential hazards like Trump's illegitimate orders. The rule of law requires no less. Because the State Bar, through its governing board, is uniquely positioned to speak on issues of universal concern to all lawyers, we and others have repeatedly urged the Bar to honor its vision statement and publicly condemn Trump's orders. Various versions of a statement supporting the rule of law have been offered for the board of governors' consideration and adoption, statements that no reasonable lawyer could find objectionable while remaining true to the lawyer's oath. We are not asking a lot. Already the State Bar—once a national leader in advancing the rule of law—is woefully behind many other respected lawyer organizations. On March 26, 2025, for example, the American Bar Association was joined by more than a hundred other lawyer organizations in a public statement specifically rejecting 'the notion that the U.S. government can punish lawyers and law firms who represent certain clients…' The ABA statement continued: 'There are clear choices facing our profession. We can choose to remain silent and allow these acts to continue or we can stand for the rule of law and the values we hold dear. We call upon the entire profession… to speak out against intimidation.' On May 22, we were informed by a single member of the Wisconsin State Bar board of governors that the board met in closed session May 14, and 'following extensive discussion protected by the attorney-client privilege, the Board voted to make no statement concerning recent actions taken by the Executive Branch of the federal government.' That's all we know because board members also voted to remain silent on what occurred during the closed meeting, for reasons they will also not disclose. Newly-elected members of the board of governors taking office July 1 will be barred from learning more about the May 14 closed meeting until they first take a vow of silence on what they may learn even though they are instructed by their position description to '[c]ommunicate regularly with constituents,' and to '[b]e well versed in the State Bar's public policy positions and be prepared to explain them to…members of the bar.' We have since asked 12 representatives on the board several questions about what happened in secret and why. Only three replied, but they provided little information. We still don't know: (1) why the question was taken up in closed session, (2) why State Bar leaders needed legal counsel to advise whether the Bar should issue a statement supporting the rule of law, (3) what was discussed, (4) why no statement was issued, and (5) what was the final vote. We asked State Bar leadership and staff to forward our questions to all 52 members of the board but, despite an agreement to do so, the questions were not sent. We still have no answers. More than 400 years ago Shakespeare highlighted the tyrant's tactic for thwarting the rule of law: 'The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.' Federal District Judge Beryl Howell invoked Shakespeare's warning in her scathing takedown of the executive order targeting Perkins Coie, further observing that when American history is written, 'those who stood up in court to vindicate constitutional rights and, by so doing, served to promote the rule of law, will be the models lauded.' The success of Trump's intimidation campaign depends largely on whether lawyers forcefully resist his illegal bullying at every opportunity. Thus, the State Bar's cowering non-response bodes ill for the rule of law in Wisconsin. As the American Bar Association stated: 'If the lawyers do not speak…who will protect the bedrock of justice?' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Axios
29-05-2025
- Axios
California bar exam's AI scandal sets stage for high-stakes retake
Two months out from the July bar exam, the State Bar of California is still dealing with fallout from its most recent test and the agency's admission of using AI to formulate some questions. Why it matters: The fiasco has heightened concern about the State Bar's ability to properly prepare and license attorneys amid increased demand for legal representation in California. Nearly three-quarters of households in California reported experiencing at least one civil legal problem in the previous 12 months, according to the State Bar's 2024 Justice Gap Study. State of play: February marked the rollout of a new hybrid exam, but it quickly descended into chaos when applicants reported online testing platform crashes, a bevy of error messages and continuous screen lags. Driving the news: The State Bar formally asked the California Supreme Court this week to approve a limited provisional licensure program and a more direct pathway to admission for out-of-state attorneys. Approval would allow the roughly 1,300 candidates who failed or withdrew from the February exam to practice under the supervision of a licensed lawyer until they pass a bar exam. The move comes as the agency faces nearly $6 million in additional costs to return to the in-person format for July. Catch up quick: The State Bar finalized an $8.25 million deal with test prep company Kaplan Exam Services last August to replace the traditional national bar exam with its own version — one that includes a remote format. The deal, which authorized Kaplan to produce the state's exam for the next five years, was estimated to help the agency save up to $3.8 million per year. Its disastrous debut, however, has further dragged the agency into a financial crisis. Friction point: Shortly after test takers reported widespread technical difficulties with the February exam, the State Bar revealed that over 20 multiple-choice questions had been drafted using AI. Executive director Leah T. Wilson also acknowledged that the agency did not copy edit test questions and that she learned some questions had typos only when she "saw it on Reddit," the Los Angeles Times reported. The state Supreme Court lowered the passing score for the exam as a result and ordered the State Bar to return to the traditional in-person test format. California's Senate Judiciary Committee also gave the state auditor its approval for an independent review of the exam. What they're saying: At a committee hearing earlier this month, test taker Andrea Lynch testified about her experience with constant disruptions from proctors and computer crashes. Lynch said a message notified her that her exam had been submitted before she'd even seen the final section. The ordeal amounted to "a systemic failure, a breakdown in the integrity, accessibility and fairness of one of the most important professional milestones in the legal profession," Lynch added. What we're watching: The State Bar hit Measure Learning, the company that proctored the February exam, with a fraud lawsuit in early May. The suit accuses the vendor of failing to "deliver on its promises" and misrepresenting its ability to conduct a large-scale assessment both in person and online. A survey of February test takers found that 95% reported experiencing at least one technology issue, while over 90% reported at least one issue with proctors, per the State Bar's complaint. Nearly 80% said they had issues with typing delays, 75% said the copy-and-paste functionality did not work and 43% said the testing platform froze and became unresponsive.
