California State Bar leaders showed deep divisions Thursday on the future of the bar exam, as the clock ticks for them to decide whether, after their first attempt failed, they’ll try again to develop a test unique to the Golden State.
The bar has three options, staff said: Using questions developed by the vendor that wrote the bulk of questions on the February test temporarily, as a “bridge” to creating a new exam; adopting the National Conference of Bar Examiners’ NextGen test; or creating a new, permanent exam that could be streamlined like Nevada’s shorter 100-question multiple choice test that is in development.
The Committee of Bar Examiners has until April 2026 to complete its cost-benefit analysis. It has until July 2026 to secure approval from the California Supreme Court, under pending state legislation that would require two-years notice to switch exam vendors.
That timeline has the bar on track for a new test by July 2028—where seating in large facilities is sure to be complicated by the simultaneous Los Angeles Summer Olympics, bar staff noted in a joint meeting of the Committee of Bar Examiners and Board of Trustees.
“Just a little glitch to put on your radar screen,” said Chief of Admissions Donna Hershkowitz of the Olympics. The timeline is six months further out than they originally expected, Hershkowitz noted.
‘California Exceptionalism Theory’
Bar leaders urged caution after the rollout of a new test in February 2025 that glitched and crashed, sparking lawsuits, audits, and revelations that some questions were Chat-GPT-generated.
They splintered over whether to press on with creating a new, state-specific test, and how it should be delivered. They also split on whether to hike the bar exam fee, after the February test debacle plunged the admissions fund into a deficit.
The California disputes track with a national push to reform lawyer licensing. A national group of judges and court administrators said in a July report that bar exams must better cover the realities of practicing law, such as talking to clients or conducting negotiations.
Committee of Bar Examiners Vice Chair Paul Kramer said the bar should reduce its expectations of conducting a test remotely and it should seriously consider using the new test the NCBE has been “battle testing.” At least 45 jurisdictions have already decided to adopt it.
“Why reinvent the wheel with some sort of California exceptionalism theory that we’re so much different or better than everyone else, that we can’t use the same bar exam that they do?” Kramer said. “Maybe there’s a reason for it. I’ve never heard one.”
Trustee Ryan Harrison, who was on the California commission that recommended creating a new test, said he strongly disagreed. A remote option available more than twice per year is needed to alleviate the financial burden of the bar on applicants, he said.
“The NCBE appears to have what is close to being a monopoly on this bar exam deliverance,” Harrison said. “And I don’t want to be in a position where the State of California has to follow what the NCBE tells it to do.”
Separately, a proposal to increase the exam fee by $150 dollars failed after it received a 5-5 vote from the Conference of Bar Examiners and a 5-6 vote from the Board of Trustees—the committee tasked with exam development, administration, and grading, and the governing body of the regulatory organization, respectively. Meant to address the $6.2 million hit the admissions fund took in the wake of the February exam rollout, it would’ve raised the fee from $850 to $1000 for nonattorney applicants, and from $1,500 to $1,650 for attorney applicants.
“The timing just couldn’t be worse,” said Trustee Debra Gore, who voted “no.”
“We’re trying to make a prudent business decision right now,” Gore said. “But the narrative is going to be that the leadership—and I’ll speak for trustees—botched this and the attorneys are paying the price.”
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editor responsible for this story: