Page 1
Bill Signed Mandating Rethinking Formulation of Bar Exam
Governor Also Approves Legislation Creating Privilege Relating to Public Entities’ ‘Bias Mitigation Trainings,’ Protecting Privacy of Retired Judges’ Data
By Kimber Cooley, associate editor
Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed into law three bills relating to the legal system in California, one requiring the Committee of Bar Examiners to provide a report weighing the benefits of adopting a uniform bar exam designed for nationwide use rather than administering one tailored for California.
The legislation comes in the aftermath of the February bar exam drawing fire because some of the questions were developed for the State Bar by non-lawyers using artificial intelligence.
Also gaining the governor’s signature was a bill creating an evidentiary privilege shielding evidence of bias relating to a public employee’s racial sensitivity trainings. A third protects retired judges’ personal information from disclosure.
The bills were signed on Wednesday.
Assembly Bill 484, authored by Diane Dixon, R-Newport Beach, provides:
“On or before November 30, 2026, the Committee of Bar Examiners shall provide a report to the board of trustees, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and to the Assembly and Senate Committees on Judiciary…on whether adopting a uniform bar examination, including, but not limited to, the National Conference of Bar Examiners’ Uniform Bar Examination, would be more efficient to administer and lower the cost of administration for the State Bar and examinees.”
Uniform Assessment
To date, 40 jurisdictions have signed on to using the uniform assessment created by the National Conference of Bar Examiners (“NCBE”) as part of the admission process for new attorneys. The test contains an essay portion, two performance tests, and 200 multiple-choice questions.
Each section involves the assessment of mastery over general legal principles applicable across the nation—although some jurisdictions have added state-specific portions—and the states are authorized to set their own passing scores.
Examinees who take the NCBE’s test earn a portable score that can be used to seek admission in other states. Critics say that the move could bring an influx of new lawyers into California, which has historically been recognized as having one of the most difficult bar exams in the nation.
The law also repeals, as of Jan. 1, 2030, legislation requiring that two-years notice be given before any substantial modification to the bar exam is made.
New Privilege
Senate Bill 303, introduced by Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, D-Los Angeles, creates an evidentiary privilege shielding “information pertaining to a public employee’s bias that was obtained through or as a result of bias mitigation or elimination efforts.”
It adds §1163 to the Evidence Code, which provides:
“(a) Evidence of bias mitigation or elimination efforts…relating to a public employee, including the results of those efforts and any specific strategies developed to address the public employee’s bias conducted by or on behalf of a public entity, is confidential and shall be inadmissible for any purpose.
“(b) This section does not exclude the discovery or use of relevant evidence in a criminal action.”
The section defines “bias mitigation” as “training and education provided by a public employer that asks employees to understand, recognize, or acknowledge the influence of conscious and unconscious bias and implements strategies to mitigate the impact of such bias” and specifies:
“Those strategies can include testing for bias, analyzing bias tests, conducting bias training, and tracking bias mitigation and elimination.”
Protects Public Entities
While the legislation purports to protect a public employee’s information, the section makes clear that the privilege may be asserted by either the worker or the agency offering the training.
The adoption follows efforts by President Donald Trump to uncover DEI practices across the country, including executive orders demanding that schools, grants, and other programs be defunded from federal dollars if they promote any such programs. The law may impede the administration’s efforts to uncover the use of “bias mitigation” trainings by public agencies in the state.
“Bias mitigation” courses began making headlines in 2020, when employees across the country started raising concerns about being forced to complete the trainings at work. Some claim that they were required to admit to harboring bias in order to qualify for completion.
Also signed was Assembly Bill 343, carried by Blanca Pacheco, D-Downey. It amends the Public Records Act to add retired judges and commissioners to the list of “elected or appointed official[s]” for whom “personal information, such as residence addresses and personal telephone numbers,” may be withheld from disclosure.
The section also adds “appointee[s] of a court to serve as children’s counsel in a family or dependency proceeding” to the list of protected officials.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company