Bill calls for audit of State Bar’s disastrous February exam

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee has introduced legislation ordering an audit of the California State Bar’s embarrassing rollout of its new exam earlier this year.

In late March, Sen. Tom Umberg, D-Santa Ana, amended a spot bill, SB 47, to order the State Auditor to conduct an audit of the February 2025 bar exam. The bill would direct the auditor to submit findings “as soon as possible” to the Bar’s board of trustees, the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court and the Senate Judiciary Committee and its Assembly counterpart.

If approved, that bill could add to an already long string of negative headlines for the Bar this year alone – and it’s only April.

On February 25 and 26, the Bar debuted a new, hybrid, remote or in-person exam, which did not incorporate any components of the national bar exam that had previously a mainstay of the Bar for decades. The move to allow supervision of the California Bar exam by online proctors was projected to save as much as $3.8 million by cutting the need to rent out large spaces.

It also would have been a first: no other state offers a remote bar exam for would-be lawyers.

But there were enormous problems throughout the test’s maiden voyage. For example, test takers had difficulties signing up for in-person testing locations.

Indeed, before it was even administered, the Bar took the unprecedented step of offering a full, $830 refund to the 5,600 people scheduled to sit for the exam. When it was actually administered at the end of February, glitches and crashes and login problems blocked others from finishing it.

On February 27, three test takers filed a proposed federal class-action suit against the Bar’s test vendor, Meazure Learning.

In early March, the California Supreme Court issued an apology and directed the Bar to administer its July exam in-person only.

The fiasco has generated a multitude of ugly headlines for the Bar, which alternatively described the situation as “chaos” and a “disaster.” Those came right before the bar’s annual fee bill was scheduled for its first hearing next month.

Umberg, who is responsible for shepherding that bill through the legislature this year, told Capitol Weekly he will not support an increase this year in light of what happened with the exam.

“The Bar needs to perform its core function competently,” the senator and licensed attorney said.

It’s long been a tradition in the legislature that the chairs of the judiciary committees in the Senate and the Assembly trade off on sponsoring the Bar’s fee bill, which authorizes the annual fees the Bar charges licensed attorneys. That bill serves as the primary oversight the legislature has over the Bar since the agency is considered a part of the state’s judicial branch.

“The Bar needs to perform its core function competently.”

In the past, legislators have used the bill as political leverage to spur the agency to make changes. A common gripe in these bill negotiations has been over the Bar’s perpetual backlog of disciplinary cases. But two years ago, Umberg threatened to eliminate the fees altogether in the wake of revelations about the infamous California attorney Tom Girardi, who fostered a close relationship with the attorney watchdog while embezzling $15 million from clients.

It’s Umberg’s turn again to sponsor the fee bill – SB 253 this year – and he said the Bar has shown such a “lack of competency” in rolling out its new exam that he doesn’t believe other legislators or lawyers would support a fee increase this year.

This year, the Bar would seem to have a good reason to ask for an increase: it’s budgeted to run a nearly $5 million deficit. But the agency told Capitol Weekly it will not seek one.

In fact, it says when it received a fee increase last year it had made clear it would not ask for another in 2025.

“We received a much-needed fee increase for 2025,” the Bar said in a statement. “Through cost reductions, which have some short-term financial impacts but longer positive security and growth, and other fund-generating programs, our financial stability is much improved.”

Indeed, while there might be a sense around the Capitol that the Bar always wants a fee increase, the agency said it’s only “formally” requested one twice in the last five years.

As for Umberg’s other bill ordering an audit, the Bar says it welcomes outside scrutiny and has commissioned its own independent investigation into what happened with the exam.

“We are deeply concerned about the issues and experiences reported by February bar exam test takers. We understand the anger and sense of urgency commenters expressed,” said Board of Trustees Chairman Brandon Stallings in a March 6 statement. “At the same time, deciding on appropriate remediation and accountability measures requires that we take the time and do the work to understand what happened and why. That is why we are directing the hire of an independent investigator.”