California's Bar Exam Evaluated Again, This Time on Job Skills
AccessLex Institute has given the state bar $515,000 to look at how California lawyers do their jobs and how the bar exam tests those skills.
September 13, 2018 at 04:57 PM
3 minute read
A major new study by the State Bar of California seeks to determine the skills and competencies the state's lawyers need to do their jobs and how those traits can be tested on the bar exam.
The results of the study, dubbed the California Attorney Job Analysis Study, will inform further research and considerations of the state's closely watched bar exam. The exam has been under intense scrutiny in recent years as pass rates plummeted to an all-time low of 27.3 percent in February, fueling criticism that the state's notoriously high cut score should be lowered. (California has the second-highest cut score in the country at 144. Only Delaware has a higher cut score, at 145.)
The job analysis is funded through a $515,000 grant from AccessLex Institute, a nonprofit organization that advocates for access to legal education and law school affordability. The latest study will offer a foundation to look at not only the exam's cut score but also the content and format of the all-important licensing exam.
“AccessLex Institute strongly believes in the power and application of quality data to best ensure that legal education and admissions to the bar evolve to meet the needs of aspiring lawyers and the world in which they will practice,” said President Christopher Chapman. “We applaud the State Bar of California for showing the courage to comprehensively evaluate its current licensing exam and follow the data to its logical end, whatever that may be.”
The California Bar last year commissioned a separate study of the bar exam with an eye to the cut score. That July 2017 report concluded that 144 is an appropriate cut score to ensure new lawyer competency, but that it could be lowered to 141 without compromising the consumer protection function of the exam. The state's law school deans joined the call to lower the cut score, but the California Supreme Court—which has the final say—in October opted against changing the cut score.
“Last year, the State Bar conducted a groundbreaking series of studies into the California Bar Exam, and the upcoming Job Analysis Study is a critical next step,” said state bar executive director Leah Wilson. “Together this body of research will help us better determine whether adjustments may be needed on the content or other aspects of the California Bar Exam.”
The state bar plans to use the results of the job analysis to look at how what is tested on the bar exam correlates to the current and changing legal practices, and help develop a definition of minimum attorney competency. It will also help the bar determine what subjects should be tested on the exam. The results of the study are expected in the summer of 2019.
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 AllAssessing the Second Trump Presidency’s Impact on College Sports
LSAT Administrator Sues to Block AI Tutor From Using ‘Famous, Distinctive’ Test Prep Materials
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1South Florida Attorney Charged With Aggravated Battery After Incident in Prime Rib Line
- 2'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 3Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 4‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 5State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
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