Hello everyone,

Congratulations to those who passed the Cal Bar Exam last night!  Well done!

If you have the honor and privilege of retaking the exam, join the club.  I’ve been there and done that.  It’s going to be OK.  No, failing the Cal Bar Exam is not fun.  Lots of people fail the nation’s hardest bar exam.  For some, there are great reasons for it.  You didn’t finish the exam.  Prep didn’t go well.  You had one or more major life events occur.  For others, it’s more frustrating.  You finished the exam, your prep program went well, and for some reason you didn’t make it.

That’s OK.  You’re retaking an exam.  You’re not going to war.  You don’t have a terminal illness.  And, in some respects, you’re lucky.  Olympians have to wait four years just to try again!  That’s not you.  The February exam is less than four months away.  The opportunity is available.  You will meet the moment.

For the students who graduated in May and failed the July exam, you will have some complications this time around.  For many, you will need to work and study at the same time, which is different from your first attempt.  You will have to deal with the Psychology of Failure, which did not exist on your first attempt.  You wake up, and first thought of the day:  haven’t passed yet.  Last thought of the day:  haven’t passed it.  And many other times per day:  haven’t passed yet.

I’ve been where you are right now.  It is no fun.  But the sun will come up tomorrow.  Promise.  Don’t let a good crisis go to waste.  I can help.  I speak the Psychology of Failure.  Fluently.  I have bespoke plans to help you navigate work and bar prep.  I will meet you where your weaknesses are, and I will help you get from where you are to where you need to go.

I have the tools you need to pass:  next level Essay Writing Lecture and PT Lecture, tools to help you save time and words and finish your exams on time.  The industry’s only systematic issue spotting plan.  What about all that fun you had memorizing for 15 finals on the same day?  I have the industry’s lone remaining memorization program, specifically calibrated to the Cal Bar Exam.  And did I mention 1-on-1 MBE tutoring?

I’ve helped many students pass the Cal Bar and UBE exams over the last 25 years.  I heard some great news last night from Cal accredited law students who passed, and remarkably, from a law office/judge’s chambers student who passed on their FIRST TRY!  Incredible!

Reach out to me on calweasel@gmail.com or (510) 301-2791.  I tutor 20 students total, always 1-on-1, and you will get the individualized attention you need.  Spaces are filling up now.  If you need help on the February 2026 exam, reach out now while I’m still available.

Let’s generate some points!

In early October, Governor Newsom signed SB 253, which requires the Cal Bar to use the NCBE’s questions, and not ones drafted by a private vendor until at least 2027.  The bill indicates that the Cal Bar must provide 18 months’ notice that it intends for a private vendor to draft MBE questions.  Separately, the Cal Bar must provide two years notice before the Cal Bar can return to remote testing.

Eighteen months after October 15 is April 2027, which means that the absolute earliest that Kaplan (or someone else’s) MBE questions could be used is July 2027.  For remote testing, two years notice is October 2027, which means the earliest return to remote testing would be February 2028.

In Section VI of the Cal Bar’s Petition to the California Supreme Court on April 29, the Cal Bar discusses improvements for the MBE for the July 2025 exam.

There are several parts to this plan to improve the Kaplan MBE experience.  In fact, the process is so intricate, that the Cal Bar admits it needs “ample time”

to implement them:

“ample time is required to do the following:

• Select applicants with the input of the CBE;
• Confirm eligibility of selected applicants based on the
CBE’s adopted criteria;
• Perform attorney complaint and disciplinary history checks
on selected applicants (which is anticipated to be part of
the CBE’s selection policy);
• Execute contracts;
• Securely transmit the questions to the subject-matter
experts; and
• Provide ample opportunity for subject-matter experts to
review the questions for legal accuracy.”  Petition, at 61.

As a result, the Cal Bar admits this process may not be able to be completed in time for the July 2025 exam.

So, what’s the alternative?

Buried on page 62 of the 63-page Petition, the Cal Bar states (note, the reference to MBE means the traditional NCBE questions):

Up until this point, neither the State Bar nor the CBE have
considered returning to the [NCBE] MBE. But as the State Bar continues
to work with the CBE to improve the multiple-choice question
review process, this Court may conclude that, pursuant to its
plenary authority over admissions to the bar in this State, the
State Bar should be directed to utilize the MBE for the July 2025
General Bar Examination so that there is not a risk that the
process improvements are not effectively implemented before the
next administration of bar examination.

The Court’s Administrative Order 2024-10-21-01, filed on October 22, 2024,
which refers only to 200 multiple-choice questions, does not
require amendment for the Court to make this directive.

Friends, this is an earnest, eager entreaty by the Cal Bar to the California Supreme Court:

We can’t sort out 200 properly vetted MBEs by the July 2025 exam.  We need more time to implement

a proper plan.  So please, California Supreme Court, order us to use the NCBE’s MBE questions,

so we can buy enough time to put our MBE house in order.

And, while we’re at it, folks, I’d go even further.  I would ask the California Supreme Court to

direct the California Bar to use the NCBE’s MBE questions until further notice until such time

that the Cal Bar can properly, confidently, and in a manner worthy of the public’s trust, roll out 200

MBE questions for use on future exams.  If the Cal Bar’s plan takes 6 months, great.  If it takes 2 years, great.

Just get it right.

Two final notes of interest: 

1) the NCBE will stop creating MBE questions after the July 2028 exam.  As such, the California Supreme Court can 

provide the Cal Bar and Kaplan with over two years of runway to ensure that it gets its collective MBE house in order.

2) the NCBE published a statement Monday indicating that if the California Bar wants to use the NCBE questions 

on the July 2025 exam, the Cal Bar must notify the NCBE by June 10, 2025.

Hello everyone,

Remember how you and I were exceedingly unhappy about the announcement of the February 2025 Cal Bar “Retake” on March 3-4?  Only to be surpassed by the announcement that one rogue actor published (evidently accurately) one of the questions around March 1, and so the “retake” was moved a few weeks later, to mid-March?  And how that seemed SO UNFAIR because the Bar announced that they were using the same questions?  And the psychometrician also said there was no other way to have a reliable exam than to have the same questions?

That seemed SO unfair.  And it seemed like some people theoretically could have gotten quite an unfair advantage by consulting the deep reddits or the darkest parts of the web and found out what the questions were about before they saw them?

Well, the Cal Bar caved.  Even thought they said there was NO WAY they could provide new questions in time for the March 17 test, well, what do you know, they found a way.

Today, April 16, I discovered that the Cal Bar published the questions that people saw from the original exam on February 25… AND the re-test questions from mid-March.  I expected to see one new question because that’s what the Cal Bar said was going to happen.  Replace the spoiled question with a new one and retest the other 4 essays and a PT.

Nope.  What did I see today?

February 25 (original exam… note the questions were inexplicably presented in a different order for people, but they took the same questions)

1. Crim Pro
2. Wills/Trusts
3. Property
4. Contract Remedies
5. PR

And on the re-test?

1. Evidence
2. Community Property
3. Con Law
4. PR (different fact pattern/calls of question)
5. Contract remedies (different fact pattern/calls of question)

Whither the PTs?

The PTs were different.

Totally different exams, people!  I’m guessing State Bar Counsel informed the Bar that they risked SERIOUS legal exposure if they used the same questions.  Regardless of the rationale, one thing is clear:  the questions were different on Feb. 25 than they were in mid-March.

Now what does that all mean for July predictions?  Who knows? Totally unprecedented circumstances.

The Cal Bar Board of Trustees met on April 2.  In a press release summarizing the meeting, this tidbit was of interest:

At the April 18 CBE [Committee of Bar Examiners] meeting, psychometrician Dr. Chad Buckendahl of ACS Ventures also will present initial grading results as well as recommended score adjustments for November experiment participants. In addition, Dr. Buckendahl is expected to provide recommendations on scoring adjustments for impacted February exam test takers. 

So… for those of you who participated in the Cal Bar Experiment in November 24, you will get further clarity on April 18.  And we hope, February bar takers will get more clarity about scoring adjustments as well.

https://www.calbar.ca.gov/About-Us/News/News-Releases/board-approves-testing-locations-vendor-for-in-person-july-bar-exam?utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz–4BIDfMHEjoMUptoqEhBWAnU7cZzUJd8FYviGs4mKKncmJ2sL0bau_1gT7X0RLEY1-soN5R6CTMWel-M2PjKA3OW55GqWvnhThtkHGTPJZj3sDZdo&_hsmi=2&utm_content=2&utm_source=hs_email

FYI:  it’s open now.

The Cal Bar stated on its Notices page today:

March 20, 2025

The July 2025 bar exam application will be available on March 27, 2025, in the Applicant Portal.

Found here:

https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions/Examinations/California-Bar-Examination/February-2025-Bar-Exam-Notices

At its March 14 meeting, the Committee of Bar Examiners voted to recommend that applicants who took the February 2025 Cal Bar Exam — and those who registered but withdrew and didn’t take the exam — be allowed to participate in the provisional licensing program.  The length of the provisional licensing program wasn’t voted on.  The Cal Supreme Court will have final say on the matter.

Separately, the Committee voted to return to “traditional, in-person testing” for July 2025 as the Supreme Court directed the Bar to do.

So:  hardcopy fact patterns for essays, hardcopy Library and File for PT, and scratch paper for both.  However, nothing was finalized about the MBE.  The Committee doesn’t like scantrons.  They seemed to want applicants to click their answers on their laptops.  However, a lot of debate ensued about whether the MBE questions should be digital, provided in hardcopy, or both.  Nothing was finalized.  That said, we all know what “traditional” means regarding the administration of the MBE in 2000, 2009, and 2019:  hardcopy questions and scantrons.  And, not for nothing, returning to NCBE’s questions, not Kaplan’s.  That didn’t seem to be on the table for consideration on March 14 at the meeting.

Hello everyone,

In its message today, the Cal. Supreme Court said the following, in relevant part, about the February 2025 applicant pool:

“At present, the complete scope and causes of the problems are still being determined.  Last week, the court asked the State Bar, in conjunction with the vendor responsible for administering the exam, to provide an expedited, detailed report regarding the problems encountered by applicants.  This information is crucial in informing how the court will provide appropriate remedies for affected applicants who deserved and expected better.”

Folks, the Cal. Supreme Court didn’t have to say what I highlighted in bold.  The Cal. Supreme Court asked the Bar to provide an expedited detailed report about what happened on the exam.  All well and good.  The Court could have stopped there.  But the Court said that it wanted the information because it will inform how the Court will provide appropriate remedies.  The Court is rather unhappy about all this, in my view.  It could have left such remedies to the Cal Bar.  Seemingly the Court wants to get involved.  I would remind the Court that results day is Friday, May 2, and I would hope that the Court will provide its thoughts before results publish on that date.

For its part, the Cal Bar emailed applicants today as well and addressed a few issues.

1. The controversial March 18-19 retest.

Turns out precious few people will be allowed to participate in the March 18-19 retake.  Just 85 people met the criteria:  unable to launch the exam at all, or submitted 1, 2, or 3 (but no more) essays/PT on exam day, or people who couldn’t access the MBE at all, or people who only competed 1 or 2 of the 4 sessions of the MBE.

That’s 85 out of 5,400 applicants, or 1.5% of the applicant pool.

The Bar didn’t address whether it would be replacing all of the essays/PTs for March 18-19, or just the one essay that was published recently.  Frankly, that should be a no-brainer:  if they can replace on essay, they can replace all of the essays and the PT, and they should do so ASAP.

2. Other remedies

The Cal Bar said in its email:  The State Bar has used psychometric remedies like score imputation, pro rata adjustments, and regression modeling in prior disrupted exams. Historically, the Committee of Bar Examiners has had purview over exam grading, and any scoring adjustment would likely be subject to Supreme Court approval.”  In other words, they can recommend something, but the Supreme Court will have to approve it.

3. Provisional Licensure

The Cal Bar said in its email:  “Many of you, as well as various law school deans, have recommended that the State Bar provisionally license February 2025 test takers. The State Bar does not have the authority to unilaterally initiate a new, or extend and modify the current, provisional licensure program. ” 

The Board of Trustees will receive an update on the February 2025 bar exam at its meeting on March 5; an overview of possible remediation steps will be provided to the Board at that time. The Committee of Bar Examiners will discuss remediation options at its March 14 meeting; however, action by either body is unlikely given that preliminary grading will not have concluded. Further, neither State Bar staff nor the Board of Trustees nor the Committee of Bar Examiners can act alone in making decisions to apply scoring adjustments or to provisionally license February exam takers. Decisions about these matters are subject to review and approval by the Supreme Court.

In other words, I don’t see the Cal Bar recommending provisional licensure at all.  Ultimately, something like that is up to the Supreme Court, which has the final word on any issues relating to the Bar Exam.  Which suggests why the law school deans wrote its letter to the California Supreme Court.  The deans seemed to know that the Court is the only entity that could approve such a remedy.

No idea what’s going to happen in this regard.  However, I’m happy to see that the Court has an interest in what’s going on.  The Court rarely speaks on Bar Exam-related matters.  I’m glad the Court is getting involved and has done so expediently.