Did the Bar Lower the Bar?
Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana) called the new pass rate a “huge deviation.” Bar-watchers, legal educators, and practicing attorneys are split. Many welcome relief for those caught in a systemwide failure. But others allege that California is simply “handing out law licenses,” possibly weakening the profession’s credibility and harming future clients.
A recurring theme: Are DEI policies and political pressures making the exam easier for some, tougher for others? Critics claim the shifting standards are part of a broader pattern of lowering barriers, especially as state and federal authorities scrutinize the Bar’s performance and decision-making.
“The public deserves lawyers who are both competent and vetted by a fair process—not beneficiaries of backroom fixes,” argued one Los Angeles litigator who asked to remain anonymous, fearing blowback from colleagues.
Multiple lawsuits are now swirling. Some filed by frustrated test-takers, others—ironically—by the State Bar itself, targeting the outside vendor that administered the botched February exam.
Another controversy: 29 of the 200 multiple choice questions were reportedly written by ChatGPT. The California Supreme Court quietly approved a pass-score adjustment anyway, further fueling the debate over the exam’s validity and the profession’s standards.
And in what may be a new record, 55.9% of applicants passed the exam before this latest score adjustment, with the number now ballooning to 63%—a surge unseen in California history.
Applicants with disabilities are demanding answers after the Bar allegedly failed to provide required accommodations, potentially running afoul of state and federal civil rights laws. In a recent email, the Bar said it would respond to these complaints by September 30.
Meanwhile, a proposal before the California Supreme Court could allow all February applicants—including those who withdrew before the exam even started—to practice law provisionally under supervision.
This episode raises profound questions: Is California right to bend over backward for test-takers caught in a system-wide disaster? Or is it endangering the integrity of its legal profession—and the clients it’s supposed to serve?
Some warn of a “lawyer glut” in a state already oversaturated with attorneys. Worse, they argue, the profession risks filling its ranks with poorly trained advocates who could do real harm to vulnerable clients.
Others see the recalibration as overdue compassion for test-takers who faced extraordinary circumstances—and argue that more access to legal representation is a public good, not a threat.
Still, the timing and nature of these moves—hastily rolling out grading fixes, lowering pass scores, and now considering provisional licenses for nearly everyone—has alarmed even seasoned insiders.
Some legal experts and lawmakers now say the State Bar’s actions should be investigated—possibly by state or federal authorities. “It doesn’t sound right that a grading debacle just leads to free passes to practice law,” said a Sacramento policy analyst. “There has to be accountability, or public trust in the legal system will erode even further.”
The Bar’s leadership, for its part, insists it’s doing everything possible to repair the damage, while the California Supreme Court is now proposing to expand its direct oversight of the Bar’s operations and exam scoring.
