The February bar exam is just more evidence of the need for change

This week I emceed the swearing-in ceremony for our graduates who passed the February Bar Exam. I always conclude the event with a call for the new attorneys to reflect on their licensure experience and, if motivated to do so, be advocates for change. But those sentiments took on a new meaning in light of the calamitous February Bar Exam.

The flaws in the February Bar Exam have been covered widely. Anyone who has followed the news even passively knows about the unproven and ultimately incapable online platform, and the State Bar's addition of multiple-choice questions that still have not been proven fair, legally accurate, and free from editorial errors. The Committee of Bar Examiners and the State Bar Board of Trustees continue to discuss reasonable remedies, and the State Supreme Court and Legislature have appropriately demanded audits of the State Bar's decision-making process.

As someone who has coached students through their California Bar Exam preparation for over a decade, I have always had a hard time justifying what the Exam asks of Bar-takers. It's not clear this path has ever effectively identified minimally-competent lawyers. Anyone who starts working in a law office after passing the California Bar Exam would struggle to see the connection between memorizing thousands of rules and speeding through multiple-choice and essay questions, and how this demonstrates their ability to write a brief, argue before a judge, redline a contract, interview a witness, negotiate a deal, or offer advice to a client.

Our Bar admissions process is broken and has been for a long time: the February Bar Exam was just one more example of that.

The State Bar and the profession have been talking about how to reform our admissions process for years. We've seen analyses of the kinds of work that new lawyers actually do. We've witnessed debates about how in synch our process should be with other states. We've heard denunciations and defenses of traditional exams, memorization, and various passing lines. But we're still giving the same basic kind of bar exam we have for decades - and seemingly the same one that will be in place for years to come.

When I talk about my work with lawyers in practice, they almost always have a two-step response. First, they recall how difficult it was preparing for and taking the Bar Exam. They remember the costs of Bar prep, the incredibly long hours of study after they'd already completed years of law school, and the stress of actually taking the exam and waiting for results. Then they talk about how it must be an effective test because they passed, they're a good lawyer, and everyone else should be subject to the same grueling path they walked to enter the profession.

For me, as someone who travels in the Bar Exam world much more than the vast majority of lawyers in this state, the fact that I walked a hard path to passing the California Bar Exam is not a reason to advocate for the status quo. It makes crystal clear the urgency with which this process must be reformed.

We, the whole of the profession - members of the Bar and the judiciary, the law schools, and State Bar leadership and staff - all of us must engage in this conversation. We all need to be advocates for reform, and that means being open to thinking about what is best for our profession, not just what has been done in the past.

For attorneys licensed in California, we must demand that the State Bar adopt a process that has a direct relationship to the skills and knowledge we need from new lawyers. Multiple studies have given us data on those competencies necessary to successfully enter the profession. None of those studies has suggested that memorized arcana and multiple-choice strategy are top professional skills for lawyers. Attorneys also need to advocate for a process that is fair to all Bar applicants. A process that reinforces bias and keeps out potential attorneys who could help meet Californians' unserved legal needs does not serve our profession's values.

For California law schools, we must engage in the Bar admission process as a necessary culmination of our students' educational goals. We cannot hide behind the amorphous principle of teaching them to think like a lawyer when they need concrete skills to succeed in practice. We must continue to evolve such that our students are ready for admission to practice when they graduate, which includes successfully navigating the Bar admission process.

For the judiciary and political leaders, we need your oversight and accountability to ensure change happens. It is too easy for Bar admission to be out of sight, out of mind. The February Bar Exam has appropriately drawn attention from all corners of our state's leadership. This attention must continue such that real change happens. We cannot allow ourselves to simply repeat broken patterns.

And for State Bar leaders, we need transparency about past mistakes and openness to meaningful change. Outsourcing exam development and delivery without actually ensuring effectiveness doesn't solve current problems. Real change means engaging with experts, and bringing the Bar admission process into alignment with what the profession actually requires.

To all the new lawyers being sworn in after the February Bar Exam, welcome to the profession. Your hard work in preparing for and passing the California Bar Exam, especially under the circumstances, is incredibly admirable. Now, please don't forget what you've just experienced, and be an advocate for change for the future lawyers who will come after you.