Latest news with #LeahT.Wilson
Axios
29-05-2025
- Business
- 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.
Yahoo
04-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
California Supreme Court orders state bar to revert to national exams after testing debacle
The California Supreme Court on Friday lowered the passing score on the State Bar of California's botched February exam and ordered the agency to ditch its new multiple-choice questions in July and revert to the traditional test format. "The Court remains concerned over the processes used to draft those questions, including the previously undisclosed use of artificial intelligence," the state's highest court said in a Friday order. "In light of the particular issues encountered February," the court lowered the total raw passing score for general bar exam takers to 534 points or higher on the essay, performance test and multiple-choice questions. The order came just hours after the State Bar of California announced that its embattled leader, who has faced growing pressure to resign after the exam debacle, will step down in July. Leah T. Wilson, the agency's executive director, informed the Board of Trustees she will not seek another term in the position she has held on and off since 2017. She also apologized for her role in the February bar exam chaos. 'Accountability is a bedrock principle for any leader,' Wilson said in a statement. 'At the end of the day, I am responsible for everything that occurs within the organization. Despite our best intentions, the experiences of applicants for the February Bar Exam simply were unacceptable, and I fully recognize the frustration and stress this experience caused. While there are no words to assuage those emotions, I do sincerely apologize.' Wilson's last day will be July 7. Many February test takers urged Wilson to resign after the exam, which critics say was rolled out hastily in a bid to save money and ultimately plagued by technical glitches and irregularities. Last week, further controversy erupted when it became clear that the state bar had not been transparent about the use of artificial intelligence to develop multiple-choice questions. Read more: State Bar of California admits it used AI to develop exam questions, triggering new furor The news of Wilson's departure came on the day that thousands of February test takers were scheduled to get their exam results. But the results appear to have been delayed after the state bar was late filing a petition with the California Supreme Court on scoring adjustments for the exam that also responded to the court's questions about how and why it used AI to develop multiple-choice questions. The state bar filed a petition to the Supreme Court on Tuesday — and test takers remain in limbo, unsure when they will learn if they passed or failed. Since the debacle, Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange), chair of the state Senate Judiciary Committee, and many legal experts have called on the state bar to ditch the new questions and revert to the traditional test format in July — at least until new questions and methods are adequately tested. Read more: Pressure grows on State Bar of California to revert to national exam format in July after botched exam On April 25, deans at more than a dozen California's American Bar Assn.-accredited law schools wrote to Patricia Guerrero, chief justice of the California Supreme Court, expressing 'serious concerns about the exam's fairness and validity.' The deans urged the court to release all 200 multiple-choice questions that were on the February exam and return to using the NCBE's Multistate Bar Examination for the multiple-choice portion of the next exam. Wilson, however, signaled Friday that California should push ahead with its own bar exam. 'As the fourth largest economy in the world, it is only right that California develops its own bar exam, and that ultimately that exam reflect the innovation, excellence, equity, and accessibility principles that are central to who we are as Californians,' she said in a statement. 'We will not get there by turning backward.' Wilson first took on the role of executive director in 2017, but exited briefly to work for a consulting firm before returning in 2021. She faced additional scrutiny for her income — she earned an annual 2023 salary of $362,067, plus $59,968 in bonuses — at a time when the state bar is struggling financially. 'Stagnating revenue and increasing personnel costs,' California's state auditor said in a recent report, 'have led its general fund to a deficit in four of the last five years.' Still, Wilson said she was proud of her time at the helm of the state bar, citing her efforts to make the organization an "exceptional workplace" that resulted in "strong staff engagement, positive union relationships and historically low turnover." 'Over the course of nearly 10 years, I have had the privilege of leading the State Bar through a period of transformative change," Wilson said in a statement. 'I am particularly proud of our efforts to elevate and offer real solutions to the access-to-justice crisis in our state, make real our commitments to increasing equity and inclusion in the profession, and stabilizing the State Bar financially," Wilson added. Brandon Stallings, chair of the state bar's Board of Trustees, praised Wilson's leadership, noting she had played a key role in advancing many of the organization's critical initiatives. 'The Board recognizes the significant contributions that Leah Wilson made during her tenure, particularly in the concerted effort to recognize and address racial disparities in the discipline system,' Stallings said. 'We understand and respect her decision, and we are grateful for her service.' Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Head of State Bar of California to step down after exam fiasco
The State Bar of California announced Friday that its embattled leader, who has faced growing pressure to resign over the botched February roll out of a new bar exam, will step down in July. Leah T. Wilson, the agency's executive director, informed the Board of Trustees she will not seek another term in the position she has held on and off since 2017. She also apologized for her role in the February bar exam chaos. 'Accountability is a bedrock principle for any leader,' Wilson said in a statement. 'At the end of the day, I am responsible for everything that occurs within the organization. Despite our best intentions, the experiences of applicants for the February Bar Exam simply were unacceptable, and I fully recognize the frustration and stress this experience caused. While there are no words to assuage those emotions, I do sincerely apologize.' Wilson's last day will be July 7. Many February test takers urged Wilson to resign after the exam, which critics say was rolled out hastily in a bid to save money and ultimately plagued by technical glitches and irregularities. Last week, further controversy erupted when it became clear that the State Bar had not been transparent about the use of artificial intelligence to develop multiple-choice questions. The news of Wilson's departure came on the day that thousands of February test takers were scheduled to get their exam results. But the results appear to have been delayed after the State Bar was late filing a petition with the California Supreme Court on scoring adjustments for the exam that also responded to the court's questions about how and why it utilized AI to develop multiple-choice questions. The State Bar filed a petition to the Supreme Court on Tuesday — and test takers remain in limbo, unsure when they will learn if they passed or failed. Since the debacle, Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange), chair of the state Senate Judiciary Committee, and many legal experts have called on the State Bar to ditch the new questions and revert to the traditional test format in July — at least until new questions and methods are adequately tested. On April 25, deans at more than a dozen California's American Bar Association-accredited law schools wrote to Patricia Guerrero, chief justice of the California Supreme Court, expressing 'serious concerns about the exam's fairness and validity.' The deans urged the court to release all 200 multiple-choice questions that were on the February exam and return to using the NCBE's Multistate Bar Examination for the multiple-choice portion of the next exam. Wilson, however, signaled Friday that California should ultimately push ahead with its own bar exam. 'As the fourth largest economy in the world, it is only right that California develops its own bar exam, and that ultimately that exam reflect the innovation, excellence, equity, and accessibility principles that are central to who we are as Californians,' she said in a statement. 'We will not get there by turning backward.' Wilson first took on the role of executive director in 2017, but exited briefly to work for a consulting firm before returning in 2021. She faced additional scrutiny for her income — she earned an annual 2023 salary of $362,067, plus $59,968 in bonuses —at a time when the State Bar is struggling financially. 'Stagnating revenue and increasing personnel costs,' California's state auditor said in a recent report, 'have led its general fund to a deficit in four of the last five years.' Still, Wilson said she was proud of her time at the helm of the State Bar, citing her efforts to make the organization an 'exceptional workplace' that resulted in 'strong staff engagement, positive union relationships and historically low turnover.' 'Over the course of nearly 10 years, I have had the privilege of leading the State Bar through a period of transformative change,' Wilson said in a statement. 'I am particularly proud of our efforts to elevate and offer real solutions to the access-to-justice crisis in our state, make real our commitments to increasing equity and inclusion in the profession, and stabilizing the State Bar financially,' Wilson added. Brandon Stallings, chair of the State Bar's Board of Trustees, praised Wilson's leadership, noting she had played a key role in advancing many of the organization's critical initiatives. 'The Board recognizes the significant contributions that Leah Wilson made during her tenure, particularly in the concerted effort to recognize and address racial disparities in the discipline system,' Stallings said. 'We understand and respect her decision, and we are grateful for her service.'
