The California Supreme Court must intervene to address the significant disruptions caused by this week’s bar exam, according to several deans from the state’s law schools. The February bar exam, which debuted a new hybrid format combining in-person and remote testing, faced major technical challenges, leaving many test-takers unable to access the exam, suffering from technical glitches, and dealing with difficulties with proctors.
“This has been a nightmare for our students,” said Michael Hunter Schwartz, dean of the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento. Schwartz criticized the State Bar of California for dismissing concerns raised by law school deans prior to the exam and described the administration as a “failed” attempt.
Widespread issues plagued the exam’s rollout on Tuesday and Wednesday, with numerous students reporting problems logging into the test and facing malfunctioning exam software. The glitches, coupled with complications in the proctoring process, have led to frustration and confusion among bar exam candidates.
Leah Wilson, executive director of the State Bar of California, acknowledged that it remains unclear how many examinees were directly affected by the technical issues. Approximately 5,600 candidates had registered for the exam, with over 964 withdrawing in advance after the bar offered full refunds due to anticipated problems.
A group of California law school deans, representing the 17 ABA-accredited law schools in the state, met on Friday to discuss the extent of the disruption. Darby Dickerson, dean of Southwestern Law School, revealed that alumni who took the exam remotely at the school experienced problems at various points during the test.
“We are calling on the California Supreme Court to intervene and provide an equitable solution for those affected,” Dickerson said. “This is a situation unlike any I’ve witnessed before, and the court must act decisively.”
Santa Clara Law Dean Michael Kaufman expressed hope that the state’s highest court would intervene with “wisdom and grace” to remedy the situation.
A spokesperson for the California Supreme Court confirmed on Thursday that the court is awaiting a full explanation from the State Bar and Meazure Learning, the vendor responsible for administering the exam. Meazure Learning did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The debacle has left many candidates feeling disillusioned. Mitch Winick, dean of Monterey College of Law, called the experience “traumatic” for students, with many already expecting a legislative investigation into the handling of the bar exam.
At least one law firm, Washington D.C.-based Tycko & Zavareei, has been retained by a group of affected bar exam candidates. Partner Katherine Aizpuru confirmed her firm plans to hold the responsible parties accountable. “We fully intend to pursue legal action to address the damage caused by this disaster,” she said. However, Aizpuru declined to disclose the number of affected examinees her firm represents.
In response to the widespread issues, the State Bar has offered candidates who failed the exam the opportunity to retake it in July at no additional cost. Those who experienced technical difficulties have been given the option to retake the exam on March 3 and 4. However, questions remain about whether the technical glitches will be fully resolved by then.
Wilson indicated that the State Bar is also considering “appropriate scoring adjustments” for candidates affected by the disruptions.
This year’s bar exam was the first to feature California’s new hybrid format, which combines remote testing with traditional in-person components. The State Bar’s goal in implementing the new system was to save up to $3.8 million annually, but this week’s technical failures have raised questions about whether the change was premature.
Santa Clara Law’s Kaufman summed up the sentiment shared by many: “The bar exam is already a stressful and difficult experience under normal circumstances. To add outrageous technical and administrative failures on top of that is unconscionable for our students.”
Read more: