'Frightening' Bar Exam Results, but No Plans to Lower Passing Score: California Chief Justice
"By all means, let's keep studying the issues, but that shouldn't hold us back from making the sensible decision to align the state's cut score with the rest of the nation," three law school deans wrote in a recent op-ed.
December 11, 2018 at 05:08 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said Tuesday the state Supreme Court has no immediate plans to reconsider the passing score on the California bar exam despite a historically low success rate on the July test.
Fielding questions at her annual meeting with reporters in her San Francisco chambers, Cantil-Sakauye said the high court will wait to see the conclusions of two related studies, one assessing California law school students and the other considering what skills contemporary lawyers need and how those traits can be tested, before considering any action.
The pass rate on the July 2018 exam plunged to 40.7 percent, marking a 67-year low for the summer test.
“I understand what those numbers mean, and it's frightening,” Cantil-Sakauye said. “So we're continuing to take a review.”
More test-takers have failed the California bar exam than have passed it in each of the last five years. In the wake of those results, law school deans and some legislators last year pleaded with the Supreme Court to reduce the exam's required passing score, or cut score—the second-highest in the nation. The justices said then that they were “not persuaded” that changing the score was necessary “ at this time.”
“We know we still need to take a look and we're waiting for those [studies'] results to come in,” Cantil-Sakauye said. “And then we'll sit around this table, all seven of us, and we'll talk about these results and whether or not we should lower the exam score.”
The dismal pass rate on the July exam reignited the debate over the California test and its pass rate, which is significantly lower than those in other states. The state bar is nearing completion of a report analyzing data about law school students, their LSAT scores and other factors that may influence bar exam scores. The second job-skills analysis is expected to be completed in the summer of 2019.
In an op-ed last week in the Los Angeles Times, the deans of three California law schools called on the state bar, the Legislature and the state Supreme Court to lower the cut score.
University of California, Hastings College of the Law's David Faigman, University of San Diego School of Law's Stephen C. Ferruolo and University of California, Los Angeles' Jennifer Mnookin wrote that the high exam failure rate is hurting the job prospects of otherwise competent would-be lawyers. Moreover, they wrote, there's no proof the high bar for passing the test provides greater protection to the public from bad lawyers.
“By all means, let's keep studying the issues, but that shouldn't hold us back from making the sensible decision to align the state's cut score with the rest of the nation,” the deans wrote. “Until this happens, California's high failure rate remains both sui generis and a self-inflicted wound.”
The chairman of the Assembly Judiciary Committee also called on the bar and the Supreme Court to take a “fresh look” at the bar exam's viability.
“The longer the downward trend continues, the more likely it will be that highly qualified applicants to law school are deterred from pursuing a career in the law and will opt for other career paths,” Assemblyman Mark Stone, D-Scotts Valley, said. “The trend will further perpetuate the downward trajectory of bar passage rates, negatively affect diversity of the legal profession and the bench, and ultimately hurt public access to justice.”
➤➤ Sign up for Ahead of the Curve to stay up on the latest innovations in legal education. Learn more.
Read more:
Key Lawmaker Urges State Bar to Re-Evaluate Bar Exam
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Right Amount?: Federal Judge Weighs $1.8M Attorney Fee Request with Strip Club's $15K Award
Kline & Specter and Bosworth Resolve Post-Settlement Fighting Ahead of Courtroom Showdown
6 minute read12-Partner Team 'Surprises' Atlanta Firm’s Leaders With Exit to Launch New Reed Smith Office
4 minute readMorgan Lewis Shutters Shenzhen Office Less Than Two Years After Launch
Trending Stories
- 1Lawyers: Meet Your New Partner
- 2What Will It Mean in California if New Federal Anti-SLAPP Legislation Passes?
- 3Longtime AOC Director Glenn Grant to Step Down, Assignment Judge to Take Over
- 4Elon Musk’s Tesla Pay Case Stokes Chatter Between Lawyers and Clients
- 5Courts Demonstrate Growing Willingness to Sanction Courtroom Misuse of AI
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250