What changes for Californians: Thousands of aspiring attorneys who sat for the February 2025 bar exam experienced computer freezes, crashes and error messages during a newly designed licensing test, and a state audit says many of those problems could have been prevented.
Audit pins blame on rushed transition and lax oversight
The California State Auditor released a report Tuesday concluding the State Bar of California's rapid shift to a new, California-specific bar exam — including a remote testing option and new vendors — occurred on a compressed timeline and without sufficient testing or oversight. The move followed approval of the new exam format by the California Supreme Court in late October 2024 and a vendor agreement reached less than three months before examinees sat for the test.
The audit found the agency did not fully test the new systems or properly supervise contractors, and that parts of the procurement process were rushed while implementation proceeded. The result, the report said, was widespread technical interruptions during one of the state's most important professional licensing exams.
Problems reported by examinees
- Nearly half of about 2,700 examinees who responded to a State Bar survey reported their computers froze or crashed during testing.
- Roughly 1,200 survey respondents reported receiving error messages during the multiple-choice portion.
- The audit also flagged issues with newly written multiple-choice questions prepared specifically for California.
The State Bar moved away from using the National Conference of Bar Examiners' questions and instead contracted Kaplan to develop new California-specific questions. Psychometric work and question validation were provided in part by ACS Ventures, while testing services were provided under contract with Meazure Learning.
| Item | Reported figure |
|---|---|
| Survey respondents reporting freezes/crashes | ~1,350 (nearly half of 2,700) |
| Respondents reporting error messages | ~1,200 |
Wider consequences and next steps
The auditor concluded many of the technical failures and problems with exam content were avoidable and stemmed from how the State Bar managed the transition. The findings raise questions about vendor oversight, procurement practices and how future licensing changes will be carried out.
For examinees and law schools, the audit could prompt calls for clearer contingency plans, more rigorous piloting of technology and stronger state-level oversight before major exam changes are implemented.
The report does not attribute the failures to a lack of preparation by test takers. Instead, it focuses on agency decisions, vendor management and a compressed schedule between court approval and exam day.
State officials, the State Bar and the vendors named in the audit will likely face additional scrutiny as lawmakers and regulators review the recommendations and consider reforms to prevent a repeat of the February 2025 disruptions.
