California bar exam's AI scandal sets stage for high-stakes retake

Axios

29-05-2025

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.