13-05-2025
California Bar backs provisional licensing after February exam mess
May 12 - Aspiring lawyers who withdrew from or failed California's disastrous February bar exam may still be eligible to work under the supervision of an experienced attorney until they can pass the attorney licensing exam.
The State Bar of California's Board of Trustees on May 9 voted to extend an existing provisional licensure program, which it had enacted in 2020 when the bar exam was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, to give unsuccessful February bar examinees or those who withdrew a period of two years to pass that test while working under supervision.
Expanding the provisional licensure program still requires the approval of the California Supreme Court. A court spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Monday.
The high court earlier this month had approved two remedies already requested for by the state bar for the February bar exam problems and previously signed off on the 2020 provisional licensure program during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Provisional licensure is one of several remedies February examinees requested in public comments to the board, though many advocated for a program that would allow them to practice under supervision without having to take and pass the bar. The board did not discuss that option on Friday.
Board of trustees chairman Brandon Stallings said expansion of the provisional licensure program and several other proposed remedies for February bar examinees strike a balance between protecting the public and helping applicants become licensed.
The February exam marked the debut of California's hybrid remote and in-person test without the components of the national bar exam the state has used for decades — a change that was intended to save as much as $3.8 million annually.
But the test was marred by widespread technical and logistical problems. Some test takers were not able to log in to the exam at all, while others faced delays, computer crashes, lax exam security, distracting proctors and a copy-and-paste function that didn't work. The state bar later revealed that a small portion of the multiple-choice questions were generated by a third-party contractor using ChatGPT.
The state high court has ordered the July exam to be conducted in person and to return to the Multistate Bar Exam — the 200-question multiple choice portion of the exam developed by the National Conference of Bar Examiners which the state had used prior to the February test. Those changes are expected to add nearly $6 million in costs.
The California Supreme Court had earlier granted the state bar's request to lower the raw score needed to pass the February exam and 'impute' scores for test takers who weren't able to complete significant portions of the two-day exam. That process involves using a test taker's submitted answers to project their performance on questions which were missing.
Those remedies helped boost the overall February pass rate to 56%, up from the historical 35% average. Several trustees pointed to that higher pass rate as a reason not to expand the provisional licensure program, saying further remedies undermine the state bar's duty to protect the public.
"What's the purpose of a bar exam if you let everybody be provisionally licensed who failed?" said trustee Sarah Good during the Friday meeting.
But trustee Raymond Buenaventura said the provisional licensure program offers a path forward for those negatively impacted by the faulty test.
"There is no perfect solution," he said.
Read more:
California scraps new bar exam for July, adjusts scores on botched February test
California bar hits pause on provisional lawyer licensing tied to exam meltdown
