Page 1
State Supreme Court Approves Amendments to Rules on Bar Exam, Attorney Civility Oath
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The California Supreme Court has approved a series of amendments to the California Rules of Court governing the oversight of the state’s bar exam, admissions, and attorney civility, effective Wednesday.
Approval on Thursday largely tracks with the changes proposed by the court in May, which sought to clarify the broad authority of the Committee of Bar Examiners (“CBE”) over the examination process after a botched February test led some to criticize the State Bar’s Board of Trustees for allegedly sidelining the panel as to certain aspects of the admissions process.
Approved amendments appear to target some specific problems with the February exam, which included AI-generated questions in the multiple-choice portion of the test, technology glitches, and proctoring failures.
Included in the changes are requirements that the CBE review all exam questions, establish standards for selecting subject matter experts to analyze the queries, and develop canons for accrediting any third-party selected to administer the test.
A cost-benefit analysis for any proposed changes to future exams is also mandated by yesterday’s amendments, which call for the CBE to consider the “estimated number of temporary and non-temporary full-time equivalent positions necessary to implement the proposed changes” and “[w]hether the [proposals] have previously demonstrated their efficacy under testing conditions similar to those of the bar examination.”
The changes also include the adoption of new Rule 9.16.2, which provides that the “Supreme Court may order the State Bar Court to depublish” any opinion issued by the body relating to attorney discipline, either on its own motion or after it receives a request to do so by a member of the public.
Some of the amendments were added during the public comment period, including a requirement that the CBE publish the standards adopted by the body for assessing vendors seeking to administer any future examination and mandating that any company hired to write bar exam questions have “no financial interest” that “might create a conflict of interest” relating to the “ability to draft fair and reliable” inquiries.
The high court partially granted the State Bar’s request to promote attorney civility, amending the Rules of Court to require that all licensees annually reaffirm a pledge to “strive to conduct” themselves with “dignity, courtesy, and integrity.” Failure to do so will result in being placed on inactive status.
However, the court declined to adopt amendments to the California Rules of Professional Conduct that would make incivility a cause for discipline, citing concerns about First Amendment implications. Instead, the body encouraged the State Bar to explore alternative measures, such as lobbying for legislation that would reduce requests for attorney fees based on poor behavior and proposing new continuing education requirements relating to courtesy.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company