General Counsel
Consulting
provided
exceptional
service in helping
my organization
recruit for a hard
to fill position.
They did extensive
work on the front
end to understand
our needs and
our culture and
began referring
highly qualified
candidates almost
immediately.
Melinda Burrows
Deputy General Counsel
- Litigation and
Compliance, Progress
Energy Service Company
LLC
Articles By Harrison Barnes From BCG Attorney Search
Trust & Estate Admin Attorney - Remote California Newport Beach California United States
"Certain beneficiaries and trustees lacking legal counsel that we fund trust loans for, generally for tax relief and property buyout purposes -- need help from an attorney. Your fees are paid by the family trust. Contact us ASAP..."
We are ...
Summary: California’s legal licensing process hit a wall after the State Bar fast-tracked simultaneous changes to both the content and delivery format of the attorney exam. Now, with lawsuits filed, examinee outrage mounting, and leadership shaken, questions loom about the future of the bar licensing system.
Introduction: A High-Stakes Experiment Gone Wrong
In February 2025, thousands of aspiring attorneys across California sat for a bar exam that was supposed to mark a new era. Instead, they endured a chaotic and error-ridden experience that drew national attention, legal fallout, and institutional consequences.
According to Leah Wilson, the recently departed executive director of the State Bar of California, the disaster was avoidable. Speaking to Reuters just two days after stepping down, Wilson admitted that the state bar pursued too many changes at once, overhauling both the content and the delivery method of the exam without fully appreciating the scope and risk of the transformation.
What Went Wrong: Tech Failures, Lack of Testing, and Ignored Warnings
The February 2025 exam was the result of an ambitious effort to decouple California’s licensing test from the national bar exam and modernize its administration. In August 2024, the State Bar decided to launch a California-specific test with optional remote testing. The move was intended to save up to $3.8 million annually by eliminating the cost of large in-person testing venues.
But the decision to accelerate the timeline proved catastrophic:
Technology Platform Collapse: The remote testing platform, managed by Meazure Learning, failed to operate as promised. Examinees experienced widespread login issues, frozen screens, and ineffective proctoring.
Insufficient Pretesting: Unlike the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE), which has spent five years developing its NextGen bar exam—including three years of drafting, pretesting, and statistical validation—California allowed less than a year for its new format.
Ignored Warnings: Law school deans cautioned against rushing the changes. Bar takers raised concerns about the technology platform weeks before the exam. Despite these red flags, the State Bar proceeded.
As February examinee Harshita Ganesh put it: “Every red flag that could have shown up did—and they did nothing to stop it.”
Leadership Fallout: Leah Wilson Resigns, Blames Meazure Learning and Systemic Failures
Leah Wilson, who served as executive director since 2017, stepped down on May 2, citing the February exam fiasco. In her interview with Reuters, Wilson acknowledged that the state bar “should have tackled one change at a time” and called the incident an “unprecedented meltdown.”
She described the root causes not as a single “smoking gun,” but rather a series of compounding failures—technical, organizational, and strategic.
The State Bar has since filed a lawsuit against Meazure Learning, accusing the company of failing to provide a platform capable of supporting thousands of simultaneous examinees, despite contract assurances.
Swift Reversals: Supreme Court Intervention and Emergency Scoring Adjustments
The California Supreme Court quickly intervened after the February disaster, ordering the State Bar to:
Revert to the previous version of the exam
Resume fully in-person administration for the July 2025 exam
Apply scoring adjustments to ensure fairness for February examinees
These emergency measures aim to restore integrity to the licensing process, but public trust has been significantly shaken.
Lessons Learned: Reform Must Be Deliberate, Not Rushed
Experts say California’s experience is a cautionary tale for other jurisdictions contemplating bar exam reform. Standardized test development is a precise science, requiring years of statistical calibration and technological validation. Attempting to shortcut that process—especially under budgetary pressure—can produce devastating results.
Judith Gundersen, President of the NCBE, emphasized that her organization’s five-year timeline for the NextGen bar exam was intentional, necessary, and grounded in educational best practices.
What’s Next for the California Bar Exam?
July 2025 Exam: Will use the traditional, in-person format with previously tested content.
Meazure Lawsuit: Pending litigation may determine future vendor relationships and policy reforms.
Leadership Search: The State Bar is now seeking a new executive director who can help rebuild confidence and oversee future reforms more cautiously.
Reform Slowdown: Calls are growing for a multi-year approach to future exam changes, with greater collaboration from law schools, test experts, and examinees.
FAQs: California Bar Exam Crisis
Q: Why did the California bar exam fail in February 2025?
A: The failure stemmed from the simultaneous rollout of a new test format and an untested technology platform. Poor planning, lack of sufficient pretesting, and vendor failures contributed to the meltdown.
Q: Who is responsible for the February exam disaster?
A: Leah Wilson, who has since resigned as executive director, acknowledged that the State Bar underestimated the complexity of implementing two major changes at once. The bar has sued Meazure Learning, its exam tech vendor, for failing to deliver a reliable system.
Q: What was the goal of the new California bar exam?
A: The new format aimed to create a California-specific licensing test and offer optional remote testing to reduce costs and modernize the process.
Q: What issues did examinees experience?
A: Test-takers faced numerous problems, including system crashes, frozen screens, login failures, disruptive remote proctors, and even inability to start the exam.
Q: How did law schools and students respond?
A: Law school deans warned the State Bar not to rush the changes. Examinees reported problems in real-time, and many have demanded accountability and relief for the mishandled exam.
Q: What is happening to the July 2025 bar exam?
A: The California Supreme Court ordered a return to the previous exam format and full in-person administration to prevent further disruptions.
Q: Will there be compensation for affected February test takers?
A: While there is no official compensation, the State Bar has made scoring adjustments to ensure fairness. Additional legal challenges or policy responses may follow.
Q: How long does it normally take to create a new bar exam?
A: According to the NCBE, a thorough bar exam development process typically takes 4–5 years, including extensive drafting, pretesting, and validation.
Q: What is Meazure Learning’s role?
A: Meazure Learning provided the software platform for the February bar exam. They are now being sued by the State Bar of California for breach of contract.
Q: Will California continue developing its own bar exam?
A: That remains uncertain. While California had planned to break from the national model, the February collapse may force a reassessment of timelines and methods.
