California Bar Exam Ends 3-Year Slide, As Nearly Half Pass July Sitting
The percentage of prospective lawyers who passed California's July bar exam crept upward to 49.6 percent, ending a three-year skid in scores marked last year by the lowest pass rate—43 percent—in three decades.
November 17, 2017 at 10:36 PM
4 minute read
The percentage of prospective lawyers who passed California's July bar exam crept upward to 49.6 percent, ending a three-year skid in scores marked last year by the lowest pass rate—43 percent—in three decades.
The exam results, released by the state bar Friday evening, showed gains among first-time test-takers. The success rate for graduates of American Bar Association-approved law schools in California rose from 62 percent in July 2016 to 70 percent this year. The numbers also were up for rookie test-takers from schools accredited only by California, 21 percent to 33 percent.
Leah Wilson, executive director of the state bar, said she was pleased by the results. “We look forward to studying the factors that may have resulted in the increase,” Wilson said in a prepared statement.
The July exam was the first administered by California over two days instead of the traditional three. The number of test-takers, perhaps enticed by the exam's shorter format, increased from 7,737 to 8,545.
Pass rates have risen across the country this year, with the average score on the Multistate Bar Examination increasing by about 1.4 points over last July to 141.7, according to the National Conference of Bar Examiners. The average national score would not be high enough, however, to pass California's bar exam, which requires a 144—the second-highest in the nation behind Delaware.
The pass rates in large states still far outpace California's. Nearly 70 percent of those who sat for New York's summer exam passed. The pass rate in Pennsylvania climbed to 73.6 percent this year after hitting a record low in 2016.
Those disparities—and the fact that a majority of test-takers still failed California's exam—are likely to keep the debate over the Golden State's high score simmering. Despite pleas from law school deans, students and some lawyers, the California Supreme Court in October declined to lower the score.
If they meet other requirements, including the completion of a moral character determination, the 4,236 people who passed California's July bar exam will be admitted to the bar at the end of the year.
A pass list from the exam will be published on the state bar's website Sunday at 6 a.m.
California bar exam rate summaries are posted below:
Read more:
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
© 2024 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 AllNew Class Action Points to Fears Over Privacy, Abortions and Fertility
Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
5 minute readCourt rejects request to sideline San Jose State volleyball player on grounds she’s transgender
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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