In the grand, gilded state of California, where the sun shines on ambition and the law is a sacred circus, a spectacle unfolded in February 2025 that would make even the most stoic jurist weep with laughter—or despair. The California Bar Exam, that hallowed rite of passage for would-be attorneys, descended into a farce of technical tomfoolery and administrative absurdity, leaving graduates of Santa Clara University School of Law clutching their diplomas like life rafts in a sea of glitchy software and indifferent proctors.

As Dean Michael J. Kaufman put it with the weary eloquence of a man watching his house burn down, the exam was a “fiasco through the entire process,” a sentiment echoed in a biting alumni call-to-action posted on February 28, 2025, by the law school’s news page.

Picture this: thousands of eager legal eaglets, their minds sharpened by years of torts and contracts, sat down to prove their mettle, only to be thwarted not by tricky hypotheticals but by the digital equivalent of a drunk stenographer. The State Bar, teetering on the edge of bankruptcy like a bankrupt vaudeville troupe, had outsourced its sacred duty to Meazure Learning/ProctorU, a company stepping into the spotlight for its first big California Bar Exam performance. The result? Lagging screens, proctors who might as well have been napping, and exam questions—penned by Kaplan, no less—that raised eyebrows for their quality. Oh, and the price tag? A cool grand-plus, because nothing says “justice” like gouging the dreams of the young and broke.

The Bar’s official mea culpa came mid-exam, a Tuesday night announcement that some poor souls would need to redo parts of the test due to “technical difficulties.” Imagine the scene: bleary-eyed examinees, already battered by hours of legal labyrinths, told to pencil in a redo like it’s a dentist appointment. Meanwhile, registration for the July exam, usually open by March 1, remains in limbo—an apt metaphor for the whole enterprise. The Bar’s Board of Trustees, wringing their hands, dangled refunds and a July mulligan, but Santa Clara’s Professor Devin Kinyon, with the earnestness of a man rallying the cavalry, urged alumni to speak out: “The Santa Clara Law community always shows up for our students. We need their voices on this issue.”

Dean Kaufman, bless his soul, has appealed to the California Supreme Court, that lofty pantheon of judicial wisdom, to swoop in and save the day. But why stop there? If the Bar can’t manage a simple exam without turning it into a technological trainwreck, what hope is there for their Law Reader program—that quaint, Dickensian relic where aspiring lawyers study under mentors instead of in classrooms? If they can’t keep a Zoom call running, how can they oversee a mentorship system that’s supposed to churn out competent counsel? Maybe it’s time to ditch the whole charade and embrace diploma privilege—let the schools vouch for their own, and spare us the circus of proctors who can’t find the mute button.

The alumni call-to-action, a rallying cry penned with the urgency of a wartime telegram, begs Santa Clara Law alumni who are admitted to practice in California to storm the Bar’s March 5 meeting or fire off emails to [email protected], demanding fairness for the February victims and a July exam that doesn’t repeat the madness. “Generously evaluate” the test-takers, they plead, and don’t just shrug and offer a free retry—lost time and sanity don’t come with a coupon. Return to in-person exams, they suggest, until someone invents a remote system that doesn’t crash harder than a first-year’s dreams after a Civ Pro final.

So here we are, in the Golden State’s latest comedy of errors, where the Bar’s incompetence is the punchline and the students are the punch-drunk audience. As Kaufman told Reuters, it’s “unconscionable” to pile this mess atop an already grueling ordeal. Maybe it’s time to hand out law licenses with diplomas and call it a day. After all, if the Bar can’t examine, why should we trust them to gatekeep?

The post Opinion: California Dreamin’ of a Bar Exam That Works appeared first on DiplomaPrivilege.

On Saturday, November 16, 2024, prominent justices from Arizona and Florida addressed key reforms in the legal profession during a discussion organized by The Federalist Society. Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick and Florida Supreme Court Justice Charles Canady shared their insights on the evolving landscape of legal services, particularly focusing on the bar exam and access to justice.

Justice Bolick highlighted Arizona’s pioneering efforts in deregulating the legal profession, emphasizing a series of reforms aimed at enhancing access to justice. Among these reforms is the introduction of alternative business structures (ABS), which allow non-lawyer ownership in legal firms. Bolick pointed out that this initiative has fostered innovation within the legal market, allowing firms to explore new business models that could better serve clients. He cited the example of a firm investing in patents, showcasing how collaboration between lawyers and non-lawyers can benefit clients.

In addition to ABS, Bolick discussed the establishment of legal paraprofessionals—trained professionals who can represent clients directly in court. This reform aims to address the significant number of unrepresented individuals in family law cases, offering legal services at a more affordable rate. Bolick expressed optimism about the potential for these paraprofessionals to improve access to legal representation.

One of the more contentious topics was the bar examination itself. Bolick reflected on his initial desire to reform the exam, noting that it had historically served as a protective barrier in the legal profession. However, he acknowledged the need for a balance, mentioning recent changes that allow applicants scoring close to the passing mark to practice under supervision in underserved areas. This move aims to alleviate the shortage of lawyers while maintaining high standards for legal practice.

In contrast, Justice Canady expressed a strong reluctance to eliminate the bar exam, underscoring its critical role in ensuring the competency of lawyers. He articulated that if faced with the choice between eliminating the requirement to attend law school or the bar exam, he would prefer to retain the bar exam. Canady emphasized the court’s constitutional responsibility to regulate the admission and discipline of lawyers, suggesting that any move toward deregulation could conflict with this essential mandate. He pointed out that while there have been discussions about transitioning to an apprenticeship model instead of requiring a law degree and passing the bar exam, he firmly believes in maintaining the bar exam as a necessary measure to uphold high standards within the legal profession.

Both justices acknowledged the importance of public participation in legal reform processes. Bolick encouraged attendees to propose changes to legal rules, highlighting the less formal mechanisms available for driving innovation in the profession. Canady, while advocating for careful consideration of reforms, echoed the need to improve access to legal services, particularly for low and moderate-income individuals.

The discussion underscored the complexities and differing perspectives surrounding legal reform, particularly regarding the bar exam and access to justice. As states like Arizona lead the way in innovative legal practices, the conversation around these critical issues continues to evolve, reflecting the ongoing challenges and opportunities within the legal profession.

Source: The Federalist Society

The post Arizona and Florida Justices Discuss Legal Reforms and Bar Exam at Federalist Society Event appeared first on DiplomaPrivilege.

On Friday, November 1, 2024, Sage Journals published a study that examines the predictive validity of bar exam outcomes on the effectiveness of newly admitted lawyers.

The study, titled “Putting the Bar to the Test: An Examination of the Predictive Validity of Bar Exam Outcomes on Lawyering Effectiveness,” is the first of its kind to analyze the relationship between bar exam scores and the performance of new lawyers. It combines data from three distinct sources: the bar results from the State Bar of Nevada, a survey of recently admitted attorneys, and evaluations from supervisors, peers, and judges regarding the effectiveness of these new lawyers in their practice.

The research found that performance on both the Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) and the essay components of the Nevada Bar Exam demonstrated a weak correlation with assessed lawyering effectiveness. This raises questions about the reliability of bar exams as indicators of a lawyer’s competence and ability to serve clients effectively.

Bar exams are a requirement for law school graduates in the United States seeking to practice law. The National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) states that these exams aim to ensure that only individuals who exhibit minimum competence are licensed. Traditionally, bar exams assess knowledge of legal doctrine, procedural rules, analytical reasoning, and writing skills. However, the current study suggests that these skills, while related to legal practice, do not encompass the full range of competencies that make an effective attorney.

The authors highlight persistent racial disparities in bar passage rates, citing American Bar Association (ABA) data which shows that, in 2021, White law school graduates had significantly higher first-time pass rates compared to their Black, Hispanic, and Native American counterparts. These disparities indicate potential barriers to entry into the legal profession for underrepresented groups.

The study utilized Tobit regression analysis on survey data from over 500 newly licensed attorneys in Nevada. This analysis sought to determine how well bar exam performance could explain the ratings given to these lawyers by their peers, supervisors, and judges. The findings indicated that while some positive correlations were present, they were minimal and lacked practical significance.

The study also notes that the bar exam is set to undergo substantial changes with the introduction of the NextGen Bar Examination in 2026. Despite these changes, the fundamental components, such as multiple-choice questions and essay writing, will remain largely the same, suggesting that the current study’s findings may still apply to the new format.

Moreover, the research has implications for jurisdictions considering adjustments to their cut scores—the minimum passing scores for the bar exam. The authors suggest that the lack of a strong relationship between bar exam scores and lawyering effectiveness may encourage jurisdictions to reconsider their cut scores or explore alternative pathways for legal licensure.

The bar exam typically consists of multiple components: the MBE, which is a multiple-choice test; the Multistate Essay Examination (MEE), which includes essay questions; and a performance test (MPT) which assesses practical skills. The MBE constitutes 50% of the total score, while the MEE and MPT account for 30% and 20%, respectively. However, cut scores for passing the exam vary significantly by jurisdiction, with some states requiring scores as low as 260 and others as high as 270 out of a possible 400 points.

The study also discusses the challenges of using attorney discipline rates as a measure of lawyering effectiveness. It points out that such measures are limited and do not accurately reflect the competencies required to practice law effectively. Previous studies have indicated that even among disciplined attorneys, the reasons for discipline may not align with the skills assessed by the bar exam.

In conclusion, the study underscores the need for ongoing scrutiny of the bar exam’s effectiveness as a measure of lawyer competence. The authors call for rigorous validation testing of bar exams to ensure that they accurately assess the skills necessary for effective lawyering, particularly in light of ongoing discussions about racial disparities and access to the legal profession.

“More research is needed, but this study finds that while the bar is serving as a significant barrier to the practice of law, there is little indication that it is a robust indicator of what it takes to be a “good” lawyer,” the authors said.

This research contributes to a growing body of literature questioning the efficacy of standardized testing in the legal field and emphasizes the importance of evaluating the skills that truly predict success in legal practice.

Source: Sage Journals

The post New Study Questions Bar Exam’s Predictive Validity for Lawyer Effectiveness appeared first on DiplomaPrivilege.

On Monday, November 4, 2024, the Utah Supreme Court announced a significant proposal that could reshape the path to legal licensure in the state. The court is considering allowing law graduates to become licensed attorneys without the traditional bar exam, following a growing trend seen in several other states.

The proposal permits graduates from American Bar Association-accredited law schools to practice law in Utah after completing 240 hours of supervised practice under an experienced attorney, along with additional requirements. While this alternative pathway is being presented, law graduates will still have the option to take the bar exam if they choose.

The court is currently soliciting public feedback on the proposal until December 19, 2024, prior to making a final decision. This initiative arose from recommendations submitted to the court by a working group established in 2020 to explore alternatives to the bar exam. The decision to seek public input indicates that the justices are open to innovative licensing methods for attorneys.

This movement toward alternative licensing options has gained momentum in recent years. Utah had previously implemented a temporary diploma privilege during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, allowing law graduates to bypass the bar exam. Brigham Young University law professor Catherine Bramble, a member of the working group, noted that the success of this temporary measure could lend support to the current proposal.

Bramble expressed optimism about the timeline for implementation, suggesting that if the proposal is approved, it could be in effect as early as the summer of 2025. The National Conference of Bar Examiners, which oversees the development of bar exam components used in many states, has not yet commented on the Utah proposal.

Utah’s proposal aligns with recent reforms in other states, including Oregon, which initiated an apprenticeship pathway for law school graduates in 2023 that does not require a bar exam. Washington state followed suit with a similar approach in March, and Arizona introduced a plan in July that allows law graduates who fail the bar exam to obtain a license through a practical skills program.

Conversely, the California Supreme Court rejected a comparable proposal in October that would have allowed law graduates to work under supervision for six months and submit a portfolio of their legal work for evaluation. The court cited potential ethical and practical issues with this approach.

The working group’s report emphasized that the bar exam is not the sole or best measure of a candidate’s readiness to practice law. It criticized the exam for failing to encompass the full range of skills and knowledge necessary for new lawyers, as well as for not adequately protecting the public. Additionally, the report highlighted disparities in exam scores among different demographic groups and pointed out the financial burdens associated with preparing for and taking the bar exam.

Under the proposed alternative pathway, in addition to the required hours of supervised work, participants would need to complete a series of courses while attending law school and pass a written exam akin to the Multistate Performance Test, which is part of the current national bar exam.

The post Utah Considers Allowing Law Graduates to Practice Without Taking Bar Exam appeared first on DiplomaPrivilege.

On Wednesday, July 17, 2024, the Supreme Court of Arizona established the first-of-its-kind effort, dubbed the Arizona Lawyer Apprentice Program, to address lawyer shortages in rural communities across the state.

The program seeks to boost the number of attorneys available in Arizona’s “legal deserts,” which are areas with few practicing lawyers. It also aims to help government and nonprofit legal employers recruit and retain attorneys. Under the new program, law school graduates who score between 260-269 on the Uniform Bar Exam, just short of the 270 passing score in Arizona, can become fully licensed lawyers after two years of working under the supervision of an experienced attorney in a rural or underserved area.

Arizona ranks 49th out of 50 states in lawyers per capita. The Supreme Court order noted the lack of legal professionals negatively impacts access to justice and the effective operations of the court system. It also cited a desire to encourage lawyers to remain in Arizona rather than move to other states with lower bar exam pass scores or delay their careers by retaking the exam.

Arizona’s Administrative Office of the Courts will oversee the apprenticeship program. Apprentices must spend at least 30 hours per week for 24 months working under the supervision of an attorney with at least five years of experience in a rural county with under 600,000 residents or at a public law office. Upon completion, apprentices will be admitted as fully licensed attorneys in Arizona.

Although details like the number of expected participants are still unknown, between 40-80 Arizona bar exam takers typically score in the program’s eligible range each year. The effort aims to address lawyer shortages in Arizona’s rural communities based on an ABA study finding 10 of its 15 counties had fewer than one attorney per 1,000 residents, amongst the worst in the nation.

The post Arizona’s New Lawyer Apprentice Program Offers Second Chance for Bar Exam Test-Takers appeared first on DiplomaPrivilege.

On January 23, 2024, 18 new attorneys were admitted to the State Bar of Wisconsin through the diploma privilege pathway. The ceremony was held in the Supreme Court Hearing Room in Madison.

Those admitted represented graduates from both the University of Wisconsin Law School and Marquette University Law School. Stories from some of the new lawyers highlighted the different paths they took to earning their Juris Doctor degree.

Justis Hagberg was part of a cohort at UW Law that graduated half a year early by taking on extra course loads. He noted it was challenging but helped him get a job sooner with Dane County Corporation Counsel. Jessie Fink attended law school at UW while working as a project manager, encouraged by a coworker who said she’d make a great lawyer.

Kamau Faines had dreamed of becoming a lawyer since childhood and will now work at the law firm Michael Best and Friedrich LLP in Milwaukee. Aaron Earlywine was advised in high school to find a team and sees being an advocate as a way to work towards larger goals. David Princeton went to Marquette Law 20 years after college and plans to offer legal services in addition to his risk-management consulting services.

Some themes emerged in their stories. Many pursued law school to help others through legal services in varied ways. They also showed dedication through nontraditional paths and work ethic to take on heavier course loads. Their accomplishment of earning a law degree and admission to the bar was meaningful to them and their families.

In closing, diploma privilege is an important pathway to bar admission in Wisconsin. It allows graduates from the state’s law schools admission without having to take the bar exam. This recognizes the rigorous legal education received in Wisconsin and can help new lawyers get working sooner. As these stories show, many seek legal careers to serve their communities. Diploma privilege supports that goal and getting attorneys into the workforce to expand access to justice.

The post 18 New Lawyers Admitted in Wisconsin Through Diploma Privilege appeared first on DiplomaPrivilege.

The Harvard Law School Center on the Legal Profession recently published an analysis looking at apprenticeship models for attorney training and licensure. In the article, the Center examines definitions of apprenticeships, examples from other countries and professions, and considerations for incorporating more formalized apprenticeship programs into the process of becoming a licensed lawyer in the United States.

Apprenticeships are generally defined as structured on-the-job training programs where new professionals learn skills through productive, paid work under an expert mentor. This contrasts with more theoretical classroom education and unpaid internships. Research shows that learning-by-doing apprenticeship models can be highly effective for mastering complex occupational skills.

Many other high-income countries require apprenticeship-like periods of supervised practice before licensure as attorneys. For example, the U.K. mandates one to two years of work experience in law firms before becoming a solicitor or barrister. Germany also incorporates two years of trainee supervision between law school and licensure. Only Delaware in the U.S. presently requires a short apprenticeship-like “clerkship” before or after law school.

Registered apprenticeship programs are on the rise in the United States following presidential commitments to expand the model. These are often in sectors like manufacturing, construction, and increasingly healthcare and hospitality fields. Defining clear occupational skills standards is seen as important for success. Experts argue formal apprenticeships could help address high youth unemployment and the rising costs of higher education compared to learned-by-doing models.

Some U.S. states have alternative pathways to licensure through law office study programs resembling apprenticeships. In Vermont, Virginia, California, and Washington, individuals can obtain a law license by self-studying under a supervising attorney’s guidance instead of law school. Pass rates on bar exams for these programs are generally lower than law school graduates, however.

Considerations around incorporating more structured apprenticeships into attorney training and licensure include whether supervised practice should be required or optional, paid or unpaid, and how competency standards would be established. Ensuring diverse access to mentors is also important to avoid replicating inequities. While informal on-the-job training is already a key part of new attorney development, more formal “clinical residencies” could strengthen competencies as proposed models.

As the legal profession has always required gaining skills through work experience, the Center’s analysis explores how apprenticeship principles could help produce more practice-ready lawyers while advancing goals around competency, equity, and justice in the licensing process. Formalizing elements of supervised practice presents opportunities but also challenges to consider going forward.

The post The Harvard Law School Center on the Legal Profession Explores Apprenticeship Models for Attorney Licensure appeared first on DiplomaPrivilege.

As nine states have committed to adopting the NextGen bar exam, diploma privilege remains the best alternative path to licensure for law school graduates.

The National Conference of Bar Examiners recently unveiled plans to replace the current bar exam with their NextGen exam, which aims to better assess skills relevant to legal practice. According to the NCBE, the new exam was developed over several years with input from 15,000 legal professionals.

States that have committed to adopting the NextGen exam include Maryland, Missouri, Oregon, Arizona, Iowa, Kentucky, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Connecticut. These states will administer the new exam starting in July 2026 or July 2027.

While the NCBE says the NextGen exam matches the realities of legal work more closely, it does not go far enough in reforming bar exam requirements.

Bar exams in general fail to accurately measure competence and disproportionately prevent the licensure of marginalized groups. Stressful high-stakes exams do not reflect how well graduates can actually practice law.

Diploma privilege grants a license to practice law automatically to any graduate in good standing of an accredited state law school. Wisconsin, Washington, and Utah currently have some form of diploma privilege.

Law school itself ensures graduates are qualified, and graduates deserve to use their extensive legal educations, not gamble their careers on a single test.

While the NextGen exam promises minor improvements, it does not solve the fundamental problems with bar exams. Only replacing exams altogether with a system focused on competency can ensure access to justice and opportunity for all.

The post Nine States To Adopt NextGen Bar Exam, But Is It Enough to Address Licensure Disparities? appeared first on DiplomaPrivilege.

A steering committee assembled by the South Dakota Supreme Court has proposed allowing an alternative option for law students to become licensed attorneys in the state.

The 51-page report from the committee recommends creating a pathway for students interested in public interest law or serving rural communities. Rather than taking the bar exam, eligible students would complete required courses and an externship under the supervision of training attorneys. They would also commit to two years of public service work post-graduation.

The committee was comprised of representatives from the judiciary, state bar association, Board of Bar Examiners and University of South Dakota School of Law. They met to study issues around bar admission in South Dakota at the request of the Supreme Court.

Their recommendation comes after the state legislature debated a bill in 2021 that would have let law school graduates practice without a passing score on the bar exam. Currently, passing the exam administered by the Board of Bar Examiners is mandatory to be licensed to practice law in South Dakota.

The report acknowledges South Dakota’s legal community is at a crossroads. It aims to ensure new lawyers are competent while also addressing the growing unmet legal needs of residents, especially in rural areas. Most committee members agreed to keeping the bar exam but supported supervised practice as an alternative option.

The South Dakota Supreme Court will now accept public comment on the committee’s proposals at a future hearing. Any changes would be considered for implementation later this year. The proposals could potentially make it easier for law students interested in public service to become attorneys, especially in underserved parts of the state.

The post Committee Proposes Alternative to Bar Exam for Aspiring South Dakota Lawyers appeared first on DiplomaPrivilege.

The Oregon Supreme Court recently greenlit a new path for law school graduates to become fully licensed attorneys in the state without taking the bar exam. Beginning in May 2024, aspiring lawyers can opt to complete a Supervised Practice Portfolio Examination instead.

Through this alternative program, individuals would gain 675 hours of on-the-job legal experience while working under a mentoring attorney. They must also develop a portfolio composed of at least eight written works and documentation of leading at least two client interviews, counseling sessions, and negotiations. This collection would then be evaluated by the Oregon Board of Bar Examiners.

If the portfolio demonstrates competency, the candidate will become eligible for bar admission. This pathway aims to provide a more practical assessment of skills for practice compared to the traditional exam. Notably, it is open to graduates of both in-state and out-of-state institutions – a rarity among other existing alternative models in Wisconsin and New Hampshire.

Oregon had instituted temporary diploma privileges during the pandemic’s disruptions like some other states. However, this new program offers a permanence option beyond that. The board also intends to create a second option involving practice-focused legal education over the final two years of law school. But the supervised program will launch first in order to introduce more innovation to attorney licensing.

As scrutiny against the exams has increased regarding adequate preparation for legal careers, Oregon’s portfolio assessment could prove influential if successfully implemented. A revised national bar exam is also upcoming in 2026 with strengthened skills-based components.

The post Oregon Approves Alternative Licensing Program for Aspiring Lawyers appeared first on DiplomaPrivilege.