<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/" xmlns:og="http://ogp.me/ns#" xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" xmlns:schema="http://schema.org/" xmlns:sioc="http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#" xmlns:sioct="http://rdfs.org/sioc/types#" xmlns:skos="http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#">
  <channel>
    <title>Category : Bar Exam </title>
    <link>https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/</link>
    <description></description>
    <language>en</language>
    
    <item>
  <title>California Supreme Court Approves Additional Bar Exam Remedies </title>
  <link>https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-supreme-court-approves-additional-bar-exam-remedies</link>
  <description>California Supreme Court Approves Additional Bar Exam Remedies Balassone, Merrill
Wed, 06/11/2025 - 12:57

      
              News Release
          
  
            The California Supreme Court on Wednesday issued rulings on two petitions submitted by the State Bar of California concerning the administration of the February Bar Exam, granting several key requests intended to provide further relief to impacted applicants.

The court approved an expansion of the Provisional License Program to include the February applicants, but limited eligibility to first-time takers who either failed the exam or withdrew from the exam. These applicants may now practice law under a provisional license, provided they are supervised by an eligible California attorney.

The Provisional License Program was originally established in 2020 to support law school graduates whose first bar exam opportunities were disrupted and delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court also granted the State Bar’s request to extend scoring adjustments for applicants who performed well on the November 2024 test sessions. These adjustments will be applied to the first bar exam they take during 2025 or 2026.

But the court denied without prejudice a request to explore proposals for admitting attorneys licensed in other states without requiring them to take the California Bar Exam. The court indicated that any such request must await statutory changes to Business and Professions Code section 6062, which currently mandates passage of the exam for admission.

The court also granted the State Bar’s request to modify the court’s prior order and allow imputation of performance test scores for the February exam. Due to significant technological disruptions affecting the performance test portion of the exam, the court approved the use of applicants’ essay scores to impute their performance test scores.

      </description>
  </item>
<item>
  <title>California Supreme Court Issues Statement on February Bar Exam</title>
  <link>https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-supreme-court-issues-statement-february-bar-exam</link>
  <description>California Supreme Court Issues Statement on February Bar ExamBalassone, Merrill
Tue, 03/04/2025 - 09:27

      
              News Release
          
  
            The California Supreme Court on Tuesday issued the following statement about the administration of the February 2025 California Bar Examination:


The court is deeply concerned by the troubling reports of technical failures, delays, and other irregularities in last week’s administration of the February 2025 California Bar Examination.  The court regrets this situation and apologizes for the disappointment, stress, and frustration experienced by some applicants.  At present, the complete scope and causes of the problems are still being determined.  Last week, the court asked the State Bar, in conjunction with the vendor responsible for administering the exam, to provide an expedited, detailed report regarding the problems encountered by applicants.  This information is crucial in informing how the court will provide appropriate remedies for affected applicants who deserved and expected better.  In the interim, the court directs the State Bar to plan on administering the July 2025 California Bar Examination in the traditional in-person format.&quot;


      </description>
  </item>
<item>
  <title>California Supreme Court Approves Incentives to Test Drive New Bar Exam Questions</title>
  <link>https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-supreme-court-approves-incentives-test-drive-new-bar-exam-questions</link>
  <description>California Supreme Court Approves Incentives to Test Drive New Bar Exam QuestionsBalassone, Merrill
Tue, 10/22/2024 - 18:01

      
              News Release
          
  
            The California Supreme Court on Tuesday approved a State Bar of California proposal to provide bar applicants an incentive for a study being held on Nov. 8 and Nov. 9 that will pretest experimental multiple-choice exam questions developed by Kaplan, Inc. Participants in those studies may increase their chances of passing a future bar exam under certain conditions.

The scoring adjustment will only be available to participants who meet a threshold of performance on the exam, to be determined by the Committee of Bar Examiners. “No participant shall receive a scoring adjustment simply for participating in the proposed study,” the court’s order read. The court also stated that any scoring adjustment “does not alter the maximum available points for the General Bar Examination or its passing score,” but, instead, “the proposed study potentially provides participants with additional questions through which they may demonstrate competency.” 

The court denied a related scoring adjustment proposal for participation in special sessions scheduled in conjunction with the July 2025 California Bar exam. The court denied this part of the State Bar’s request without prejudice to its resubmission pending results of the November study and the submission of additional details concerning the State Bar’s plans for the July sessions.

The court also granted a petition to make the bar exam be mostly remote administered, beginning in February 2025.

On Oct. 10, the court issued an order approving a slate of modifications based on the report and recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on the Future of the Bar Exam. As part of that order, the State Bar was directed to develop a California-specific bar exam. That order also rejected a separate proposal for a licensing alternative, the portfolio bar exam. That proposal would have allowed certain law school graduates to demonstrate their professional competence through a program of supervised legal practice in which work product created for clients would later be graded by an admissions committee.

      </description>
  </item>
<item>
  <title>Supreme Court Names Appointments to State Bar Board of Trustees and Committee of Bar Examiners </title>
  <link>https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/supreme-court-names-appointments-state-bar-board-trustees-and-committee-bar-examiners-1</link>
  <description>Supreme Court Names Appointments to State Bar Board of Trustees and Committee of Bar Examiners Karen.Datangel
Thu, 08/22/2024 - 16:04

      
              News Release
          
  
            The California Supreme Court made various State Bar-related appointments yesterday.  

Two individuals were reappointed to the State Bar of California’s Board of Trustees, the State Bar&#039;s governing body, effective September 20, 2024. The appointees are: 

Attorney Brandon Stallings, the current chair, will serve a second year as the board&#039;s chair for 2024-2025. Stallings is a deputy district attorney in Kern County. The court appointed him to the board in 2018. 
	 
	José Cisneros, a nonattorney, public member and the current vice chair, will serve a second year as the board&#039;s vice chair for 2024–2025. Cisneros is the Treasurer of the City and County of San Francisco.  The Governor appointed him to the board in 2019. 
Four were named to the State Bar of California’s Committee of Bar Examiners. Their terms will begin next month. The appointees are:  

Attorney Alex Chan, the current committee vice chair, will serve as committee chair for 2024-2025. Chan is a partner at Devlin Law Firm.
	 
	Attorney Alan Yochelson, a current member, will serve as committee vice chair for 2024-2025. Yochelson is the Head Deputy District Attorney of Los Angeles County. 
	 
	Administrative Law Judge Robert Brody, a current attorney member, was reappointed to a four-year term. Judge Brody is an Administrative Law Judge with the State of California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board Pasadena Office of Appeals.
	 
	Attorney Paul Kramer, a current member, was reappointed to a four-year term. Kramer is retired and previously worked at the California Energy Commission.
The committee’s roles include development and administration of the California Bar Exam and oversight of the moral character determination and admissions processes for attorneys. The committee also accredits state law schools and registers unaccredited state law schools.

      </description>
  </item>
<item>
  <title>California Supreme Court Extends Provisional Licensing Program</title>
  <link>https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-supreme-court-extends-provisional-licensing-program</link>
  <description>California Supreme Court Extends Provisional Licensing ProgramBalassone, Merrill
Thu, 05/26/2022 - 14:59

      
              News Release
          
  
            The California Supreme Court on Thursday issued an order extending the Provisional Licensure Program through December 31, 2022.

The California Supreme Court first adopted the program to give 2020 law school graduates the opportunity to practice law after the COVID-19 health pandemic forced delay of the Bar Exam.

The court then expanded the program to include those with qualifying prior bar exam scores—between 1390 and 1439 on any California Bar Exam administered from July 2015 to February 2020. In July 2020, the court lowered the passing score from 1440 to 1390 for future examinees, but did not apply the new passing score retroactively.

Two-thirds of both groups of Provisional Licensing Program participants—nearly 1,100 people in total—have since been admitted to the State Bar. 

“With two-thirds of participants admitted to the State Bar prior to the program’s June 1 sunset, it is safe to say that for many the [Provisional Licensure Program] has been a success,” the State Bar of California wrote in a letter to the court. 

For the remaining 346 active participants who have not yet been admitted to the State Bar, the court’s extension allows additional time for these participants to meet licensure requirements, such as passing the bar exam and the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE), finishing the moral character determination process, and completing any supervised practice hours. 

      </description>
  </item>
<item>
  <title>Bar Exam Leak Report</title>
  <link>https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/document/bar-exam-leak-report</link>
  <description>Bar Exam Leak ReportBueno, Ivan
Wed, 09/09/2020 - 10:09

      
              Report
          
  
  
    Tags
          
              Bar Exam
          Supreme Court
              
      

  
    Topics
          
              Supreme Court
              
      
</description>
  </item>
<item>
  <title>Supreme Court Order on Bar Exam</title>
  <link>https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/document/supreme-court-order-bar-exam</link>
  <description>Supreme Court Order on Bar ExamBueno, Ivan
Wed, 09/09/2020 - 10:09

      
              Administrative Order
          
  
  
    Tags
          
              Bar Exam
          Supreme Court
              
      

  
    Topics
          
              Supreme Court
              
      
</description>
  </item>
<item>
  <title>Supreme Court Letter on Bar Exam</title>
  <link>https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/document/supreme-court-letter-bar-exam</link>
  <description>Supreme Court Letter on Bar ExamBueno, Ivan
Wed, 09/09/2020 - 10:09

      
              Letter
          
  
  
    Tags
          
              Bar Exam
          Supreme Court
              
      

  
    Topics
          
              Supreme Court
              
      
</description>
  </item>

  </channel>
</rss>
