California lawmakers have enacted sweeping reforms to increase oversight and accountability in the state’s bar examination process following a high-profile testing disaster earlier this year. Governor Gavin Newsom signed a package of bills designed to prevent future administrative failures and ensure transparency in how the State Bar of California develops and administers the attorney licensing exam.
Fallout from February’s Bar Exam Breakdown
The new laws come in response to the February 2025 bar exam, which became one of the most controversial testing events in the state’s history. The California State Bar had abruptly switched from the long-standing Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) to a new, custom multiple-choice test created by Kaplan, while also introducing a hybrid online and in-person format. The changes were implemented with little notice and no pilot testing.
The rollout quickly unraveled. Technical glitches plagued test-takers statewide, and inconsistencies in question design and scoring raised concerns about fairness. Many examinees experienced difficulties logging in, software freezes, and delays that disrupted the exam schedule. The fiasco led to widespread criticism from law schools, bar applicants, and legislators, ultimately prompting the State Bar to abandon the experiment and return to the traditional MBE by the July 2025 exam.
While the shift to the Kaplan-designed test was projected to save approximately $3.8 million annually, the February failure cost the State Bar an estimated $6 million in remediation efforts—more than erasing any anticipated savings. The situation also damaged the Bar’s credibility and sparked demands for legislative oversight.
New Laws Establish Transparency and Long-Term Stability
In response, Governor Newsom approved Senate Bill 253 authored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Tom Umberg, a Democrat from Santa Ana. The law now requires the State Bar’s Committee of Bar Examiners to give:
- Two years’ advance notice before making any changes to the exam’s format—such as switching from in-person to remote testing.
- Eighteen months’ notice before replacing vendors that provide key exam components, such as multiple-choice questions.
- Public disclosure if artificial intelligence (AI) is used to develop or grade exam questions.
These new requirements effectively freeze the exam’s current format through 2027, giving test administrators and law schools time to plan and adjust while restoring stability to the bar exam process.
Senator Umberg emphasized that the legislation is not meant to hinder innovation but to ensure responsible governance. “After what happened in February, we must guarantee that future changes to the bar exam are deliberate, transparent, and subject to oversight,” he said in a public statement.
Independent Audit and Accountability Measures
Governor Newsom also signed a companion measure ordering the California State Auditor to perform an independent audit of the February 2025 exam failure. The audit will investigate decision-making processes, financial impacts, and the selection of Kaplan as the exam vendor. Findings must be delivered to both the California Supreme Court and the state legislature, with all costs covered by the State Bar.
Lawmakers say the audit is essential to rebuild public trust and prevent similar breakdowns. “The public deserves to know what went wrong, how much it cost, and who was responsible,” Umberg stated. “We can’t expect applicants to have confidence in a licensing process that isn’t transparent or accountable.”
Looking Ahead: Should California Join the Uniform Bar Exam?
A third piece of legislation requires the Committee of Bar Examiners to conduct a cost-benefit analysis before making any further modifications to the bar exam. This includes an evaluation of whether California should adopt the Uniform Bar Examination (UBE)—a nationally recognized test currently used in most U.S. jurisdictions.
The UBE, developed by the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE), allows law graduates to transfer their scores between states. The exam is currently undergoing a major update, known as the NextGen UBE, which emphasizes practical lawyering skills and reasoning over memorization.
To date, 45 jurisdictions have announced plans to transition to the NextGen UBE, but California has historically resisted joining the system. The state has argued that its large and diverse legal market warrants maintaining a state-specific exam that reflects California law and practice.
Still, the February meltdown reignited debate over whether California’s independent approach is sustainable. Many legal educators and bar applicants now favor adopting the UBE, which they argue would simplify test administration and increase fairness.
Restoring Confidence in the Licensing System
The February bar exam debacle was not the first time California’s attorney licensing process faced scrutiny. In recent years, the State Bar of California has been criticized for mismanagement, including data breaches and controversial disciplinary decisions. However, the February incident marked a turning point, as it directly affected thousands of aspiring lawyers whose careers were delayed by the testing chaos.
By enacting these new laws, lawmakers hope to restore integrity to the state’s bar exam and prevent hasty, costly decisions. The State Bar’s Committee of Bar Examiners is expected to review the implications of the new oversight requirements in its upcoming meeting, including potential adjustments to timelines and policies.
For now, California’s bar exam will continue in its traditional, in-person format with the MBE as the multiple-choice component—providing a measure of stability for future test-takers as the state works to rebuild trust in its legal licensing system.
Stay informed about legal industry developments and attorney opportunities. Visit LawCrossing — the leading job board for legal professionals.
See Related Articles:
•15 Top Law Schools: Best Program for Aspiring Lawyers
•Decode Law Schools Ranking
•Law School Profile
