Page 3
Supreme Court Proposes Expanding Bar Examiners’ Authority
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The California Supreme Court has proposed a series of amendments seeking to clarify the broad authority of the Committee of Bar Examiners over the bar exam and attorney admissions, after the botched February test led some to criticize the State Bar’s Board of Trustees for purportedly sidelining the panel as to certain aspects of the admissions process.
On Wednesday, the high court, on its own motion, filed a document titled “Proposed Amendments to Title Nine of the Rules of Court Involving State Bar Matters” and called for a 45-day public comment period. Many of the suggested changes appear to target problems with the February examination, which included AI-generated multiple-choice questions, technology failures, and proctoring debacles.
Among the proposals is the insertion of new language into Rule 9.6, requiring the committee to “review all bar examination questions” and to “develop…qualification standards…for the…selection of panelists and subject matter experts for any content validation panels” charged with analyzing any multiple-choice inquiries not prepared by the National Conference of Bar Examiners.
Accreditation of Vendors
Addressing the administration of the exam, the amendments would also require the Committee of Bar Examiners (“CBE”) to “develop and maintain standards for accrediting the ability of any third-party vendor to…proctor the bar examination in any format (in-person, online, or hybrid).”
A cost-benefit analysis for any projected modifications to future bar exams would be mandated by the proposals, which call for the committee to consider, among other things, “[t]he direct and indirect costs and tangible and intangible benefits of existing practices compared to the proposed changes” and “[w]hether the proposed changes have previously demonstrated their efficacy under testing conditions similar to those of the bar examination.”
Also suggested in the filing are new qualification standards for candidates to sit on the 10-person committee, including a prohibition on nominees “who are…a regular or adjunct professor of law” or “actively serving as a member of the governing…board…of a law school, with the exception of law school-affiliated alumni groups.”
Subpoena Power
Other changes would restore the CBE’s ability to issue subpoenas in admissions matters and reinstate the panel’s budgetary oversight, including authorizing the committee to set fees for the bar exam and the accreditation, registration, and inspection of law schools. The CBE is further charged with “[r]ecommend[ing] to the Board of Trustees any candidate for the Director of the Office of Admissions.”
In this year’s State of the Judiciary address, Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero hinted that changes were coming, saying:
“Even before the founding of our State Bar, the court depended on the Committee of Bar Examiners to set high standards for entrance into the practice of law. But in recent years, the examiners’ role has been diminished. I intend to explore restoring the examiners’ importance…by increasing their oversight of the admissions process, including its budget and the administration of the bar exam. Just as we trust the examiners to develop and enforce high standards to become an attorney, we should also entrust them to develop and enforce high standards to determine whether a vendor can administer an online bar exam without incident.”
New Rules 9.16.1 and 9.16.2 were also proposed, consolidating procedures for the Supreme Court’s review of State Bar-related matters and establishing protocols for requests to depublish decisions by the regulatory agency.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company