Latest news with #MeazureLearning
Reuters
2 days ago
- Business
- Reuters
California bar exam lawsuits against vendor consolidated
June 3 (Reuters) - A California federal judge on Tuesday consolidated three lawsuits against exam vendor Meazure Learning over California's problem-plagued February bar exam. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in Oakland in his order, opens new tab also appointed attorneys from law firms Tycko & Zavareei and Sauder Schelkopf as lead lawyers for the test takers pursuing the proposed class action. The judge said combining the lawsuits into a single case will promote efficiency and preserve judicial resources. A Meazure Learning spokesperson said that the company stands behind its "track record" of administering millions of exams. The lawsuits accuse Meazure Learning of failing to properly administer California's February bar exam, which experienced technical and logistical problems. The company is also facing a separate lawsuit filed last month by the State Bar of California. The state bar signed a $4.1 million contract with the company in September 2024 to administer the exam. The company did not oppose the request by plaintiffs' lawyers to consolidate the lawsuits by test takers but urged the judge in an April filing to name only one of the firms as interim lead counsel for the combined case, arguing that the plaintiffs did not show the appointment of two firms "is necessary or would be efficient." The judge on Tuesday named Annick Persinger of Tycko & Zavareei and Joseph Sauder of Sauder Schelkopf as co-lead counsel. "These software failures during the February 2025 bar exam disrupted a critical moment in the careers of thousands of test-takers," Persinger and Sauder said in a Tuesday statement. The judge's leadership appointment "will allow us to move the litigation forward and seek relief on behalf of those impacted." The February exam was 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 addressing all its problems for the July exam is now expected to add nearly $6 million in costs.
Reuters
23-05-2025
- Business
- Reuters
More California bar examinees wrongly told they failed, state bar says
May 23 (Reuters) - Nine more people who were initially told they failed California's troubled February bar exam actually passed, the State Bar of California said in an email, opens new tab sent to test takers on Thursday, which Reuters reviewed. Those errors were in addition to the four test takers whose status changed from fail to pass last week after scoring and grading problems were identified. The mounting number of scoring mistakes is the latest problem to arise from the February test, which was marred by widespread technical and logistical problems including computer crashes and distracting proctors. The February exam was 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 addressing all its problems for the July exam is now expected to add nearly $6 million in costs. The February exam had a 56% overall pass rate — far higher than the historical average of 35% — after the California Supreme Court allowed the state bar to implement a lower raw passing score because of all the exam's problems. But many examinees have raised concerns over how their exams were graded and scored. The state bar has sued testing platform Meazure Learning over the many tech problems, as have at least two groups of test takers. Meazure has said the state bar is trying to "shift the blame" for the flawed rollout of the test. State Bar Executive Director Leah Wilson has said she will step down in July, citing the botched rollout of the new exam. During a state bar board of trustees meeting on Friday, Wilson said criticism of her handling of the bar exam is "appropriate and deserved" and that she will continue to address the problems through her last day on the job. Read more: California bar exam-takers were told they failed. Oops, they passed. California scraps new bar exam for July, adjusts scores on botched February test
Yahoo
06-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
California State Bar files lawsuit against exam vendor after botched tests
The State Bar of California is suing the vendor that administered its February bar exam, a disastrous rollout of a new testing platform that shook confidence in the organization's leadership, prompted lawmakers to call for an audit and the state Supreme Court to order the agency to revert to the traditional exam format in July. 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.' Read more: 'Utterly Botched': Glitchy rollout of new California bar exam prompts lawsuit and legislative review 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. Read more: California Supreme Court orders state bar to revert to national exams after testing debacle 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. 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
06-05-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
California State Bar files lawsuit after exam fiasco sparks calls for vendor audit
The State Bar of California is suing the vendor that administered its February bar exam, a disastrous rollout of a new testing platform that shook confidence in the organization's leadership, prompted lawmakers to call for an audit and the state Supreme Court to order the agency to revert to the traditional exam format in July. 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.
Reuters
03-04-2025
- Business
- Reuters
California bar hits pause on provisional lawyer licensing tied to exam meltdown
April 2 (Reuters) - The State Bar of California on Wednesday held off on approving a proposal to enable those who took or withdrew from its troubled February bar exam to temporarily practice under the supervision of an experienced lawyer until they can retake and pass the bar exam. Members of the state bar's board of trustees said they want to see the results of the February test before deciding whether to extend an existing provisional licensure program, which it enacted in 2020 when the bar exam was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, to include February examinees and those who withdrew in the run-up to that test. Several trustees mentioned the relatively low 35% historical average pass rate on California's February bar exam and the bar's duty to protect the public as reasons to be cautious about rushing to adopt alternative licensure pathways. Exam grading is slated to finish on May 2. Trustee Mark Toney called the February bar exam a "huge failure," but said the board needs more data to decide "the right thing to do, not just the quick thing to do." 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 unable 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. At least two groups of February examinees have sued testing vendor Meazure Learning, alleging the company failed to provide a functioning test platform despite ample warning of technical troubles. A Meazure spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment on Wednesday. The trustees directed the state bar's Committee of Bar Examiners to develop proposals for other potential remedies such as score adjustments or a portfolio bar exam that would enable law graduates to become licensed after spending four to six months working under the supervision of an experienced attorney and submitting an acceptable portfolio of legal work. The Committee of Bar Examiners endorsed a provisional licensure program on March 14, but such a program requires the approval of both the state bar's trustees and the California Supreme Court. As they have during previous state bar meetings, February examinees implored the trustees for a variety of remedies beyond provisional licensing, including allowing them to become licensed without taking another bar exam. The state bar trustees on Wednesday also approved contracts for software vendor ExamSoft to replace Meazure Learning for the upcoming July bar exam and rentals of 10 exam sites throughout the state. The California Supreme Court last month ordered the state bar to do in-person testing for July. Those changes will increase the projected costs of the July bar exam from $2.4 million to at least $4.75 million — an overage of $2.3 million, bar staff told the trustees.
