Critical Junctures
- The State Bar of California has initiated a sweeping lawsuit against Meazure Learning, the vendor tasked with administering the February 2025 Bar Exam, alleging fraudulent inducement, false promises, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract, stemming from a chaotic examination marked by widespread technical failures.
- Despite Meazure Learning’s assurances of robust capacity and seamless delivery for thousands of test-takers, the complaint details critical system malfunctions—from login delays and freezing platforms to non-functional word processing tools—that severely disrupted the exam experience for approximately 4,200 applicants.
- The escalating crisis has prompted legislative action, with Senate Bill 47 seeking an independent audit of the exam’s preparation and administration, while the California Supreme Court has already adjusted the February exam’s scoring and expressed “concern” over the undisclosed use of artificial intelligence in question drafting.
By Samuel Lopez – USA Herald
Los Angeles, CA – A tempest of legal and legislative action is brewing in California following the profoundly disruptive February 2025 Bar Exam, a critical gateway for aspiring attorneys. The State Bar of California has taken decisive legal steps, filing a comprehensive 23-page complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court on May 5, 2025, against Meazure Learning, the vendor entrusted with administering the high-stakes examination. The lawsuit casts a long shadow over Meazure Learning’s operations, accusing the company of “Fraudulent Inducement / Concealment,” “False Promise,” “Negligent Misrepresentation,” and “Breach of Contract,” along with “Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing,” and seeking a “Declaratory Judgment”. The complaint asserts that Meazure Learning “promised a seamless test-taking experience for thousands of law students that would be free of material defects”, a promise that, according to the State Bar, was spectacularly unfulfilled.
The allegations paint a stark picture of an examination riddled with technical glitches and administrative shortcomings, profoundly impacting an already stressful ordeal for thousands of applicants. The State Bar of California, a public corporation serving as the administrative arm of the California Supreme Court for attorney admission and discipline, emphasized its foundational responsibility: “One of the State Bar’s key responsibilities is to facilitate fair, accessible, and reliable examinations to test the competence of applicants who aspire to represent clients as attorneys in California”. To fulfill this, the State Bar “must rely on the integrity and competence of contractors to deliver the Bar Exam efficiently and securely to thousands”.
A Vendor’s Grand Promises and Alleged Shortcomings
Meazure Learning, identified in the complaint as ProctorU, Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning, allegedly presented itself as a “superior, high-stakes exam provider”, making “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 company, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in McLean, VA, claimed impressive capacity and technological prowess. Meazure Learning allegedly boasted of administering “25,000 exams over a two-day period at the exact same time,” and assured the State Bar it had “no concerns” about scaling to meet remote testing demands.
Furthermore, Meazure touted its extensive experience with “more than 2,200 prior customers over 20 years,”including prominent organizations like the Law School Admissions Counsel (LSAC) and the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). The company even asserted it was the “most secure and accessible” in the “tech-enabled assessment solutions” industry, capable of delivering “more than three times the volume as its next largest competitor”. Promises of robust support were also made, with Meazure claiming chat and phone support wait times of “a minute or less every day of the year,” and an average tech support duration of “12 minutes or less”.
However, the reality of the February 2025 exam, as detailed in the complaint, allegedly diverged sharply from these assurances. Despite the exam involving only about 4,200 applicants—a fraction of Meazure’s stated 25,000-exam capacity and “less than one-fifth of Meazure’s touted 25,000 exam capacity and fewer than original estimates for February” —the system allegedly buckled under the pressure.
The February Exam Debacle: A Litany of Malfunctions
The complaint outlines a series of critical failures that besieged test-takers both remotely and at in-person sites. “On exam day, chaos ensued”, the lawsuit states. Applicants reportedly “could not enter Meazure’s platform without significant delays”. Once logged in, many “often were unable to submit responses, and experienced frequent crashing and freezing”. Basic word processing and document review tools, which Meazure had “repeatedly represented would be functional,” allegedly failed, with “copy and paste, highlighting, and annotation functions did not work”. Even the fundamental act of “basic typing exhibited significant lags”. The complaint further alleges that proctors were “incapable of helping test takers and appeared insufficiently trained to administer the Bar Exam”. The overall impact, according to the State Bar, was that “Meazure’s faulty testing platform and its poor administration of the Bar Exam wreaked havoc at an already stressful time for test takers”.
These issues were not unforeseen, according to the complaint. A November 2024 bar examination study, intended to test Meazure’s capabilities, revealed initial login problems for some test-takers. Meazure allegedly attributed these to “test taker preparedness and communications and incompatibility of applicants’ computers with the platform”, promising fixes through better communication. Subsequently, a mock exam in January 2025 for all remote applicants reportedly experienced “a number of technical glitches,” including problems with entering and reentering the exam, submitting responses, and using “certain, basic word processing functions”. Again, Meazure allegedly “assured the State Bar and prospective test takers that it would (and did) fix these issues before the February exam”. However, the complaint unequivocally states: “But it did not”. Just two days prior to the actual February exam, the spell check feature was still causing the platform to freeze, forcing its suspension.
Breach of Contract and Post-Exam Obstruction
The lawsuit highlights Meazure’s contractual obligations, including a guaranteed “99.982 percent uptime availability”during the exam, a platform that would “perform free of material defects” and to the “highest industry standards for similar services”, and a commitment to “ensure full platform functionality in less than 10 minutes” in the event of a service disruption. Meazure also promised testing environments that would be “free from any disruption”. The complaint asserts that these fundamental contractual terms were violated.
Adding to the State Bar’s grievances, the complaint alleges Meazure has engaged in delaying tactics since the February exam. “Since the February 2025 Bar Exam, the State Bar has tried to fully understand the scope of Meazure’s failures, as is the State Bar’s contractual right,” the lawsuit states. “Yet Meazure has employed delay and deny tactics to prevent the State Bar from obtaining full and critical information”. As a result, the State Bar is seeking “all appropriate relief, including damages and an independent audit, to hold Meazure responsible for its false promises, breach of contract, and the many failures that created an unacceptable February Bar Exam experience”.
Legislative and Judicial Scrutiny
The filing of the complaint coincides with broader governmental attention to the bar exam’s administration. The California Senate Judiciary Committee recently held a hearing concerning Senate Bill 47, authored by Chairman Thomas Umberg (D-Santa Ana). This bill aims to compel an audit to investigate the exam’s preparation and administration, reflecting a legislative desire for accountability and transparency.
Further compounding the challenges, the state Supreme Court intervened directly in the aftermath of the February exam. On May 2, 2025, the court approved an adjustment to the scoring of the February exam due to the problems experienced by test-takers. The passing score was modified to 534 points out of 700 for written questions and 171 points for multiple-choice questions. Significantly, the court’s order also “expressed some unease over the vendor’s use of artificial intelligence to create multiple-choice questions.” The court stated, “The court remains concerned over the processes used to draft those questions, including the previously undisclosed use of artificial intelligence, and will await the results of the impending audits of the examination.” For the upcoming July exam, the standardized Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) developed by the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) will be used for the multiple-choice component. The future role of AI in exam development beyond July remains uncertain, with a State Bar spokesman indicating, “While (the July exam) is the State Bar’s focus, any future plans would require the approval of the Committee of Bar Examiners before they are implemented, including how multiple-choice questions are created.”
The State Bar’s Vision for Accessibility and Solvency
The State Bar’s initial decision to contract with Meazure Learning was driven by a dual objective: to enhance the bar exam’s accessibility and affordability for applicants, and to maintain the solvency of the State Bar’s admission fund. According to the lawsuit, “The agreements were anticipated to make the Bar Exam more accessible and affordable for test takers”. Furthermore, they were “also projected to save the State Bar millions of dollars each year, a necessary change to avoid insolvency for the State Bar’s Admission Fund”. Brandon Stallings, Chairman of the State Bar Board of Trustees, underscored the institution’s stance in a prepared statement: “We have the legal right to ensure that vendors deliver on their promises, all the more so given the significant disruptions Meazure Learning caused resulting in unacceptable experiences for our applicants.”
The State Bar had been exploring a transition to remote and smaller test center-based testing to provide “maximum flexibility” and reduce travel and lodging expenses for applicants. This shift was also intended to address a structural deficit in the Admissions Fund, which relies solely on applicant fees and was projected to be insolvent by 2026 due to rising administration costs. The plan included developing its own psychometrically validated multiple-choice questions to move away from the NCBE’s MBE, which restricted remote administration and vendor-owned test centers. This move was estimated to “result in millions of dollars in savings annually—enough to eliminate the existing structural deficit”.
However, Meazure Learning’s alleged failures in capacity and scheduling forced the State Bar to procure additional test centers in Fresno and Bakersfield, and to utilize its Los Angeles office for over 100 test-takers, undermining the goal of reduced travel times and costs for applicants.
The legal battle between the State Bar of California and Meazure Learning is now underway, with the State Bar seeking accountability for the disruptions and failures that marred the February 2025 Bar Exam. The outcome of this lawsuit, alongside the ongoing legislative and judicial reviews, will undoubtedly shape the future of bar exam administration in California.
In re: THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA vs. PROCTORU, INC. d/b/a MEAZURE LEARNING, and DOES 1–10, Inclusive, Defendants; Case No. 25STCV13089, In the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles; Filed May 5, 2025.
Explore More
🔗 Follow us on X @RealUSAHerald
For a deeper dive into legal insights and strategies surrounding this case and other critical legal developments, join me on Patreon at Legal Insights and Strategies by Samuel Lopez, for exclusive analyses, templates, and insider tips.
