The introduction of a revamped California Bar Exam was supposed to set a new benchmark for state licensing tests. Instead, its much-anticipated debut made headlines for all the wrong reasons, culminating in one of the worst failures in the history of legal-industry testing.
Aspiring attorneys who took the exam in February faced a nightmare scenario as technical failures plagued the exam process. Logins failed, test modules froze mid-exam, and entire testing centers spiraled into chaos. Some applicants waited hours for technical support that never came; others were abruptly logged out with no way to recover their progress.
The massive failure placed an immense burden on test-takers, many of whom had invested thousands in exam fees and preparation, only to see their efforts derailed. For many, the stakes were even higher—delays in bar passage threatened job offers and professional opportunities.
“Today was one of the worst days of my life,” one test-taker wrote in an email to the State Bar Association obtained by the Los Angeles Times. “There were a few points that I thought I was having a panic attack and almost had to call an ambulance because I didn’t want to die alone today at my computer.”
Early Signs of Trouble and an Unprecedented Offer
The overhauled exam was designed to streamline the testing process and reduce cost by giving bar candidates the option to sit for the two-day test in person or remotely, beginning on Feb. 25.
After racking up a budget deficit of $22.2 million last year, the California State Bar Association chose to abandon the widely used National Conference of Bar Examiners’ Multistate Bar Examination in favor of the new hybrid system. The plan was fast-tracked last August, when test prep company Kaplan Exam Services was tasked with creating new questions, and ProcturU Inc., doing business as Meazure Learning, was contracted to administer the exam. By reducing its reliance on physical testing centers, the state bar estimated the new hybrid approach would result in cost savings of $3.8 million annually.
Roughly 5,600 would-be attorneys ultimately registered to take the redesigned exam. However, according to Reuters, candidates encountered a host of technical and logistical problems in the runup to its launch, including frequent computer crashes and distracted proctors on a mock version of the test. Some were even unable to schedule their exams.
Just days before the test’s official launch, the state bar association sent an email to registrants apologizing for the “messy” rollout. In an unprecedented move, the bar also announced that candidates who failed the February exam or withdrew by the start date would be allowed to retake the test for free in July.
A Day of Chaos
More than 960 registrants eventually decided to opt out due to the anticipated problems. Unfortunately, many who chose to push ahead with the exam were greeted by chaos.
Speaking with Reuters, one test-taker recounted how he attempted to log on more than 30 times, but the platform crashed whenever a proctor attempted to join the session. He was never able to start the exam.
“I’ve invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into becoming a lawyer,” he said. “It’s supposed to pay off, eventually. It feels so far out of reach right now. I don’t know if I can do this to myself again.”
Other recurring issues reported by test-takers included system crashes and authentication failures, along with prolonged delays in accessing the platform. Some claimed proctors made unauthorized changes to their systems mid-test, while others complained of conflicting instructions and rampant disorganization among the support team. A critical feature that should have allowed candidates to copy and paste text into response fields was also disabled. Multiple choice questions were also plagued by typos, incomplete information, and what some candidates described as poorly structured reasoning.
Aspiring Attorneys “Cheated and Disrespected”
Backlash to the testing meltdown was almost immediate, as angry bar applicants flooded social media to vent their frustrations and demand accountability.
“This was an utterly botched exam that fails every standard of professionalism,” one Reddit poster wrote. “We all deserve a refund, pass or fail, because this fiasco is basically a breach of contract, at minimum. This is absolutely not what we paid for.”
However, the online furor was only the beginning.
On Feb. 28, Mazure Learning was named a defendant in the first of at least two class-action lawsuits filed on behalf of aggrieved bar candidates. The complaint, currently pending in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, alleges the Birmingham, Ala., testing company “fast-tracked” the new exam and relied on a “rushed” software platform that couldn’t handle the expected volume of test-takers.
The California Supreme Court weighed in on March 4, directing the state bar to revert to the traditional in-person format for the next round of testing in July, and to work with the vendor to provide “an expedited, detailed report regarding the problems encountered by applicants.” The State Bar Board of Trustees ordered an independent probe the next day, following two hours of public comments from test-takers furious over the failed launch.
“You guys are the body that is determining if we are competent to earn a living,” said one attendee, according to The New York Times. “Finances are being destroyed. Lives are being destroyed, and are about to be destroyed even more.”
An AI Disclosure and Impending Resignation
In late April—more than two months after the exam’s disastrous debut—the California Bar Association admitted that some of the test’s multiple-choice questions were written by a non-lawyer using the artificial intelligence platform ChatGPT, kicking off yet another wave of anger and criticism.
“The debacle that was the February 2025 bar exam is worse than we imagined,” Mary Basick, assistant dean of academic skills at the University of California, Irvine, Law School, told the Los Angeles Times. “I’m almost speechless.”
On May 2, Leah T. Wilson, the bar association’s embattled executive director, informed the Board of Trustees that she would not seek another term in the position she has held since 2017.
“At the end of the day, I am responsible for everything that occurs within the organization,” Wilson said in a statement announcing her resignation, effective July 7. “Despite our best intentions, the experiences of applicants for the February Bar Exam simply were unacceptable, and I fully recognize the frustration and stress this experience caused. While there are no words to assuage those emotions, I do sincerely apologize.”
Hours later, the California Supreme Court ordered a return to the Multistate Bar Exam—the 200-question multiple choice portion of the test in use prior to February—for the July exam, citing concerns “over the process used to draft those questions, including the previously undisclosed use of artificial intelligence”.
In addition to granting the state bar’s request to lower the passing score for February’s exam to 534, California’s highest court also ordered the bar to “impute” scores for candidates unable to complete significant portions of the test.
What’s Next for California Bar Candidates?
The California State Association has since filed suit against Meazure Learning in Los Angeles Superior Court seeking compensatory and punitive damages, along with a court-mandated audit of the vendor.
The bar asserts the company failed to deliver on its promise of a platform capable of supporting up to 25,000 test-takers and delayed providing information and data on issues candidates encountered in February. When Meazure eventually furnished the information, the bar association claims it was incomplete.
The results of the February bar exam were released the same day. Nearly 56% of candidates passed once the scoring adjustments were made—the highest spring pass rate in 60 years.
The bar association’s Committee of Bar Examiners convened later that evening to consider several other potential remedies. The members subsequently voted 8-2 to approve a previously tabled proposal that would allow applicants who failed or withdrew from the February exam to receive provisional licenses to practice law under an attorney’s supervision for two years. However, they would still need to take and pass a bar exam to be fully admitted as attorneys in California.
Test-takers who either failed or withdrew from California's challenging February bar exam may still have an opportunity to work under the guidance of an experienced lawyer while preparing to retake the licensing exam.
On May 9, the State Bar of California's Board of Trustees voted to extend a provisional licensure program originally launched in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. This program would allow February bar examinees who were unsuccessful or withdrew to work under supervision for up to two years while they attempt to pass the exam. However, the expansion of this program still requires approval from the California Supreme Court.
Many February examinees had requested various remedies in public comments to the board, including a program that would permit them to practice under supervision without needing to pass the bar exam. Despite these appeals, the board did not discuss such an option during its meeting.
The Bottom Line
According to the state bar association, it will cost at least $2.3 million more than anticipated to address issues that arose in February when the California Bar Exam is next administered in July.
What started as an attempt to reduce costs and enhance efficiency has instead exposed the risks of hasty implementation without adequate infrastructure, oversight, or transparency. For many test-takers, this debacle was more than a technical failure—it was a profound breach of institutional responsibility. The emotional and financial toll inflicted on candidates, some of whom may never fully regain their confidence or career momentum, is immeasurable.
The California State Bar Association has taken some important steps to remedy the situation, but the damage is already done. The real question now is whether the bar—and the broader testing industry—will draw meaningful lessons from this debacle, or if February 2025 will simply serve as yet another cautionary tale of bureaucratic ambition outpacing reality.
