‘The system failed us’: California law school grad describes major failures in 2025 bar exam | Opinion

I graduated from law school last year and took the California Bar Exam in July of 2024. I missed the passing score of 1390 by just 50 points — only 3.6% shy. Determined, I took more than a month off work to prepare for the February 2025 exam. I paid $1,000 to register and spent over $600 on bar prep materials. I was ready.

But the State Bar of California (CalBar) and its vendor, Meazure Learning, were not.

Instead of a fair test, we were subjected to a deeply broken system. Across the exam days, I — and many others — experienced major technical failures: long delays, error messages, software crashes and vague or contradictory instructions. At one point, I was locked out of my exam entirely. The system showed I had nearly an hour left to start, but when I clicked “Start,” it told me I had missed it.

Throughout the process, the software was glitchy and slow. Sometimes, it failed to detect my keystrokes as I typed. Other times, the timer ran even while we waited on proctors or technical help. I couldn’t finish portions of the exam — not because I didn’t know the law, but because the platform literally wouldn’t register my work.

When I reached out to Meazure’s support team, I was bounced between agents, received conflicting advice and, at one point, had unauthorized software installed on my computer without clear consent or explanation. Proctors rebooted my system, asked me to switch browsers mid-exam and could not answer basic questions like whether I was being recorded, or if the time lost would be restored.

CalBar has offered vague “psychometric adjustments” to paper over these failures. But no statistical formula can fix the real harm caused by stress, confusion and lost time. Some applicants lost minutes, others lost full exam sections and we all lost confidence in a licensing authority that’s supposed to set the standard for “minimum competence” but failed to meet that standard themselves.

I was hardly alone. This system-wide breakdown has prompted CalBar‘s trustees to launch an independent investigation.

Adding to that failure, CalBar and the California Supreme Court fast-tracked the adoption of the new exam platform — without adequate vetting — in order to cut nearly $4 million in administrative costs. The consequences of that rushed roll-out fell squarely on applicants.

CalBar’s solution? Offer a retake to just 87 people out of more than 4,000. But a retake is no remedy. It means additional lost income, time off work and mental strain. And it doesn’t erase the damage done: If CalBar believes the February exam was flawed enough to justify a free retake in July, then why are we still being judged by its results?

There are better, fairer options.

California has precedent for supervised licensure. Under the Provisional Licensure Program, applicants who scored just below passing between 2015 and 2020 could practice law under supervision without retaking the exam. A similar remedy should be applied now.

Unfortunately, the California Supreme Court is winding down the Provisional Licensure Program and has already rejected CalBar’s proposal for a Provisional Bar Examination — a supervised practice-based licensing pathway. That decision should be reconsidered. The failures of the February exam prove exactly why alternative licensing pathways are necessary and not optional.

Other states have recognized the need for alternatives and acted accordingly: New Hampshire’s Daniel Webster Scholar Honors Program allows selected law students to bypass the traditional bar exam through supervised practice and assessments; Oregon and Washington have adopted supervised practice portfolio examinations; Arizona’s Lawyer Apprentice Program permits graduates who narrowly missed passing the bar to gain licensure through supervised practice in underserved areas; and South Dakota has launched a pilot program allowing students to complete 500 hours of supervised public service as an alternative to the bar. These models assess real-world competency, not just test-taking ability.

CalBar’s mission is to protect the public by ensuring lawyers are competent and ethical. But by cutting corners on exam delivery and rejecting viable licensing alternatives, CalBar and the California Supreme Court aren’t protecting the public, they’re protecting themselves.

We did everything right. We studied, we paid, we showed up. The system failed us.

It’s not just about one bad exam, it’s about trust in a licensing process that should reflect the values of fairness, integrity and professional readiness. CalBar cannot demand competence from us while refusing to demonstrate it themselves.

Applicants deserve more than silence, spin or a statistical shrug. We deserve a real solution.

This story was originally published March 28, 2025 at 9:30 AM.