Page 1
State Bar Backs Provisional Licensure for Exam-Takers
Trustees Vote to Use Agency’s Resources to Battle Trump Administration Policies
By Kimber Cooley, associate editor
The State Bar Board of Trustees has voted in favor of recommending that attorney-hopefuls who failed or withdrew from the problem-riddled February bar exam be offered provisional licensure under the supervision of admitted attorneys.
Also approved was a resolution calling for the State Bar to fund amicus efforts to gain court decisions thwarting certain policies of the Trump administration.
If the provisional licensure proposal is approved by the California Supreme Court, the move would open the door for 1,700 unsuccessful examinees, and an additional 1,300 who withdrew before the examination started, to be able to practice law while awaiting a future test. Last week, the State Bar announced the highest spring passing rate since 1965, after the high court approved the lowering of the threshold due to a host of technical and other problems with the first-ever hybrid exam.
Friday’s vote means that the state’s high court will likely consider whether to expand the Provisional Licensure Program (“PLP”), created in October 2020 in response to a delay of the scheduled bar exam due to the COVID-19 pandemic, to those applicants who were unsuccessful on the February test. The State Bar suggests a deadline of two years or Dec. 31, 2027, whichever is later, for the expiration of the PLP.
This cutoff would apply to those currently in the program and to the new February exam cohort, meaning that applicants would be required to pass a bar exam by that date in addition to meeting all other requirements for admission.
Also passed on Friday was a resolution recommending that the Committee on Bar Examiners (“CBE”) reconvene to consider further adjustments to the scoring process—including taking the higher of the first and second read scores rather than averaging them, creating an appeals process for those who came close to passing, and permitting a retake of just the performance exam portion—and exploring reports that examinees received someone else’s answers.
Special Admissions Process
Trustees on Friday further recommended a special admissions process for out-of-state attorneys, eliminating the need for such practitioners to take the California bar exam. Such a process would require approval by the Legislature, but the agency suggested that the Supreme Court expedite an interim procedure for lawyers from other jurisdictions who failed to pass the Attorneys’ Examination in February.
Assembly Bill 1522 is currently pending before the Legislature and would authorize the CBE to eliminate the requirement of taking California’s bar exam for out-of-state attorneys who have practiced, in good standing, for at least four years in their current jurisdiction and create “alternative means” of admission.
The bill is motivated in part by a concern for federal attorneys who may have lost their jobs under President Donald Trump’s administration and provides for an expedited admissions process for such practitioners.
Assembly Bill 1522 specifies:
“This bill would require the State Bar to transmit, on or before January 1, 2026, a proposal outlining a process for expediting the licensure to practice law in this state of an attorney who meets certain criteria, including that the attorney was employed by an agency of the federal government on January 20, 2025. The bill would define ‘expediting the licensure’ to mean a licensing process that does not require an attorney to take the State Bar examination.”
Board Chair Brandon Stallings, a Kern County deputy district attorney, addressed the recommendations in a Friday might release, saying:
“We recognize the exam experience was frustrating, to say the least, for many. We are truly sorry for the difficulties that were endured. The Board’s actions today demonstrate our continuing focus on how we can help applicants successfully become practicing attorneys while remaining committed to our public protection mission.”
No indication has been given by the high court as to what, if any, remedies it will approve moving forward.
Executive Actions Statement
On Friday, the trustees also approved a statement on “Recent Executive Actions Threatening the Availability of Legal Counsel and the Rule of Law” and voted in favor of amicus participation in the lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump’s executive orders. The statement is phrased so as to portray the forthcoming efforts as coming within the bounds set by the U.S. Supreme Court in its June 4, 1990 decision in Keller v. State Bar of California.
There, the high court held that use of compulsory dues to support political or philosophical causes with which the licensee disapproves violates that person’s First Amendment rights. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice William Rehnquist (now deceased) said:
“The guiding standard for determining permissible Bar expenditures relating to political or ideological activities is whether the challenged expenditures are necessarily or reasonably incurred for the purpose of regulating the legal profession or improving the quality of legal services.”
The State Bar’s statement (the full text of which appears below) is phrased in terms of maintaining legal services. It makes reference to administration policies that, it says, frustrate “providing immigration legal services” and “have a chilling effect on the availability of competent legal counsel to represent clients unpopular with the Administration” which, it alleges, “may be particularly harmful for those who lack economic means and rely on pro bono representation to access legal services.”
The statement declares:
“The State Bar reaffirms that attorneys have an ethical duty to provide competent representation regardless of how controversial their clients’ causes may be and must exercise independent professional judgment free from external influences. Recent actions by the federal administration threaten these core principles. These actions imperil lawyers’ ability to competently represent clients and create a chilling effect on availability of legal services, threatening access to justice and the rule of law. The State Bar encourages California attorneys to speak out in support of the right to competent legal counsel for all and of the rule of law.”
State Bar Takes Aim at Administration Policies
To State Bar licensees and the public we serve:
The State Bar of California exists to protect the public through the licensing, regulation and discipline of attorneys; the advancement of the ethical and competent practice of law; and supporting efforts for greater access to, and inclusion in, the legal system. In carrying out its duties, the State Bar of California acts in accordance with certain fundamental principles that define the legal profession and are central to the State Bar’s mission:
1. Attorneys have an ethical duty to provide competent and diligent representation to clients, regardless of how unpopular or controversial their causes may be.
2. Attorneys must exercise independent professional judgment, free from external pressures or influences that might compromise their representation.
3. Attorneys must not reject, based on personal considerations, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed.
4. All attorneys swear an oath to uphold the United States and California Constitutions, and to faithfully discharge the duties of an attorney to the best of their knowledge and ability.
5. In both the federal and state legal systems, courts determine the meaning of the law, and all attorneys, including those in other branches of the government, have an obligation to comply with court orders.
These core principles, embodied in our Rules of Professional Conduct and the State Bar Act, are not merely aspirational—they are essential to the rule of law and the administration of justice.
When any action, regardless of its source, discourages or penalizes attorneys for representing certain clients or causes, it raises serious concerns about the ability of the legal profession to fulfill its obligations. The independence of the legal profession is a cornerstone of our justice system.
Recent actions of the current federal administration’s executive branch (the Administration) threaten these core principles. The Administration has taken actions against law firms, including through executive orders against certain law firms and negotiations that have resulted in agreements with others, based on those law firms’ representation of clients and positions unpopular with the Administration. Many of the representations criticized by the Administration are matters undertaken on a pro bono basis for indigent individuals, such as providing immigration legal services.
The Administration’s actions have included directions to government agencies to revoke law firm employees’ security clearances, limit access to federal buildings and employees, refrain from hiring law firm employees, and require federal contractors to disclose any business with targeted law firms.
Such actions directly imperil the ability of lawyers at these firms to competently represent their clients, and have a chilling effect on the availability of competent legal counsel to represent clients unpopular with the Administration. This effect may be particularly harmful for those who lack economic means and rely on pro bono representation to access legal services. The threat to the legal system of these actions targeting law firms is such that United States District Court Judge Beryl Howell on May 2,2025 permanently enjoined enforcement of an executive order issued against a law firm “to protect the independence of counsel to represent their clients vigorously and zealously, without fear of retribution from the government simply for doing the job of a lawyer.”
The State Bar reaffirms that all lawyers must be permitted to exercise their professional judgment and ethical duties without fear of reprisal. This position is not partisan but foundational to the advancement of ethical and competent practice of law and the preservation of the rule of law.
The State Bar encourages California attorneys, consistent with their oath to uphold the United States and California Constitutions, and to faithfully discharge their duties as attorneys, to speak out in support of the right to and availability of competent legal counsel to all and of the rule of law.
This statement is made on behalf of the State Bar of California, a state government agency. It is not intended to represent the views of any individual licensees of the State Bar of California.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company