February’s disastrous bar exam catalyzes state audit

Following a glitched virtual bar exam, the California Senate passed a request on May 28 to audit the bar exam. The audit request follows a May 5 suit brought by the State Bar against ProctorU, the company that administered the exam.

The request, SB 47, will need to be passed by the California Assembly and signed by the governor before it can take effect.

“Colleagues, this past February, a bar exam was administered that was unlike any other bar exam in the history of California,” said bill author and lawyer Thomas Umberg (D-Santa Ana).

“It was an unmitigated disaster on virtually every level. There were proctors who arrived late. There were proctors who gave answers to questions. There were questions that were not understandable. There were electronic glitches. There were scoring glitches. There were grading glitches. There were all sorts of problems. Lest we ever have this same challenge, the same debacle again, this bill simply provides for an audit of the February bar exam so that we capture the lessons learned and never repeat the same mistakes again,” Umberg said.

Of the 5,000 test-takers, nearly 1,000 dropped out of the exam, according to Umberg.

Test-taker Andrea Lynch testified before the Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary on May 6.

“From the outset, I faced constant disruptions. I was assigned at least five different proctors throughout the exam. These proctors routinely entered my virtual exam room, took control of my mouse without consent, sent distracting messages in the chat, and even interrupted me audibly, all while the exam timer continued to run,” Lynch said. 

The software crashed 20 minutes in—then submitted her exam before she had finished it.

“My exam had been submitted on my behalf prematurely before I’d even seen the final session. I was stunned. I sat there for 25 agonizing minutes, unable to document anything for receiving a Chapter 6 (conduct at bar exam) violation,” Lynch said.

Lynch is not able to sue because the bar is immune from a lawsuit. 

Another applicant, Amy Kassouni, said her platform constantly lagged, and a barrage of pop-up boxes flooded the screen for 30 minutes. Some of the multiple-choice questions did not make sense, and her proctor removed 15 minutes from her test. 

“I was completely demoralized, drained, and I was left to wonder how it would be possible to pass the test I had studied for seven days a week for several months at the cost of time with family and income,” Kassouni said.

The test was proctored, entirely online, by ProctorU. The State Bar’s complaint against the company, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, complained of fraud, false promise, negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract.

“In light of the significant hardships endured by the February 2025 applicants and breach of specific contractual obligations outlined in our agreement, the State Bar has taken decisive action to hold (ProctorU) accountable for its failures," said Brandon Stallings, State Bar Board of Trustees Chair.

The bill passed the Senate with 38 aye votes and no votes in opposition.

Read next: Umberg also carried a bill sponsored by the Consumer Attorneys of California. The bill would create a private right to sue attorneys who make deceptive advertisements. It just passed the Senate.

Or return to the edition guide.