The State Bar of California
  • Log in
  • News
  • Forms
  • Contact
Admissions:
  • Requirements
  • |
  • Examinations
  • |
  • Moral Character
  • |
  • Special Admissions
  • |
  • Law School Regulation
  • Public
    • Free Legal Information
      • Legal Guides
        • Finding the Right Lawyer
        • Problem With a Lawyer
        • Lawyer Referral Service
        • Lawyer Fee Dispute
        • Client Security Fund
      • Unauthorized Practice of Law
        • Avoiding Fraud by Immigration Consultants
      • Immigration Resources
        • Immigration Legal Services Providers
        • Proveedores de Servicios Legales de Inmigración
        • Recursos Legales de Inmigración
          • Alerta de Fraude a la Frontera
      • FAQ
    • Complaints & Claims
      • How to File a Complaint
        • Before You File
        • Why File a Complaint
        • After You File
      • Unauthorized Practice of Law Complaint
        • After You File
      • Fee Disputes
      • Client Security Fund
        • Client Security Fund Application Process
        • Application Instructions
      • Complaint About a Lawyer Referral Service
      • FAQ
    • Need Legal Help
      • Free Legal Help
        • Legal Help After a Disaster
        • Fraud Alert
        • Attorneys Impacted by the California Fires
        • Consumer Protection Guidelines
      • Lawyer Referral Service
        • California Statewide
        • Central Coast Area
        • Central Valley Area
        • Los Angeles Area
        • Sacramento Area
        • San Diego Area
        • San Francisco Area
    • More Languages
      • En Español
        • Cómo presentar una queja sobre un abogado
        • Quejas Contra Abogados
        • Recursos Legales de Inmigración
        • Antes de Presentar su Queja
        • Por qué Presentar una Queja Contra un Abogado
        • Despues de una queja
          • Grafico: Despues de una queja
        • Inmigración Abogado Quejas
        • Consultores de Inmigración
        • Problemas Con Un Proveedor Legal No Licenciado
        • Como Encontrar El Abogado Apropiado
          • Se Especializan Los Abogados
          • Es Importante Tener Un Acuerdo de Honorarios
          • Cómo Puedo Ayudar a Edificar Un Equipo Exitoso Entre Abogado y Cliente
        • Servicios de Referencia de Abogados
          • Servicios de Referencia de Abogados: Certificación
          • Servicios de Referencia de Abogados: ¿Quién opera los servicios?
        • ¿Tiene Algún Problema con su Abogado?
          • ¿Tiene Algún Problema Con su Abogado?: Disputas Sobre la Factura
        • ¿Tiene una Disputa de Honorarios con su Abogado?
        • El Fondo de Seguridad del Cliente Puede Ayudarle
          • Fondo de Seguridad del Cliente Instrucciones
        • Folleto Sobre Notarios
        • Instrucciones Para la Solicitud
        • Después de una queja de UPL
          • Gráfico: Después de una queja de UPL
      • Tiếng Việt
        • Cách Nộp Đơn Khiếu Nại Luật Sư
      • 한국어
        • 불만을 제기하는 방법
        • 제기하기 전에
        • 변호사에 대한 불만 제기 이유
      • 中文
        • 如何对律师提出投诉
        • 为何投诉律师
        • 投诉前
        • 欺诈提醒
        • 移民法律资源
      • Русский
        • Как подать жалобу на адвоката
        • Зачем подавать жалобу на адвоката
        • Прежде чем подавать жалобу
        • Юридические ресурсы
  • About Us
    • Our Mission
      • Protecting the Public
        • Regulation Overview
        • Public Comment
          • Public Comment Archives
            • 2019 Public Comment
            • 2018 Public Comment
            • 2017 Public Comment
              • 2017-12
            • 2016 Public Comment
            • 2015 Public Comment
            • 2014 Public Comment
            • 2013 Public Comment
            • 2012 Public Comment
            • 2011 Public Comment
            • 2010 Public Comment
        • Reports
        • Public Records
      • Promoting Justice in California
      • Promoting Diversity
    • Who We Are
      • Board of Trustees
        • Roster
        • Meetings
        • Supreme Court Appointments
        • Board Task Force
      • Committees & Commissions
        • Meetings
        • California Attorney Practice Analysis Working Group
          • California Attorney Practice Analysis Working Group Roster
        • California Board of Legal Specialization
        • Client Security Fund Commission
          • Client Security Fund Commission Roster
        • Judicial Nominees Evaluation
          • Background
          • Appointments
          • Roster
          • FAQ
          • JNE Demographics Reports
        • Committee of Bar Examiners
        • Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct
        • Committee of State Bar Accredited and Registered Schools
          • Committee of State Bar Accredited and Registered Schools Roster
        • Council on Access and Fairness
          • Roster
          • Publications & Resources
          • Goals Strategies
        • Law School Council
          • Law School Council Roster
        • Lawyer Assistance Program Oversight Committee
          • LAP Oversight Committee Roster
        • Legal Services Trust Fund Commission
        • Moral Character Working Group
          • Moral Character Working Group Roster
        • Task Force on Access Through Innovation of Legal Services
      • Staff
    • News & Events
      • News Releases
      • California Bar Journal
        • Ethics/CLE
        • Attorney Discipline
          • Disbarments
          • Suspensions and Probation
          • Discipline by County
          • UPL Cease and Desist Notices
        • News Highlights
        • Archived Issues
      • Reports
      • Fact Sheets
      • Public Meetings Calendar
      • Legislative Newsletter
        • County Map
        • Past Issues
          • October 2018
    • Careers
      • How to Apply
      • San Francisco Careers
      • Los Angeles Careers
      • Benefits
      • Salary
    • Business Opportunities
      • Previous Opportunities
  • Attorneys
    • Attorney Regulation
      • About Your State Bar Profile
        • Fees & Payment
          • Agency Billing
          • Annual Fees FAQs
          • Voluntary Contributions
          • Fees and Charges
        • Status Changes
        • Address Change
        • Reporting Requirements
        • Certificate of Standing
        • FAQ
      • Fingerprinting Rule Requirements
        • For In-State Attorneys
        • For Out-of-State Attorneys
        • For Out-of-Country Attorneys
          • Out-of-Country Deadline Extension Request
        • Multijurisdictional Practitioner
        • Fingerprinting FAQ
        • Penalty Schedule
        • Limited Accommodations
        • Glossary
      • Lawyer Assistance Program
        • LAP Services
        • Counseling LAP
        • Resources
        • FAQ
      • Mandatory Fee Arbitration
        • Approved Programs
        • Forms & Resources
        • Arbitration Advisories
      • Opening and Managing Law Office
        • Insurance Programs
        • Limited Liability Partnerships
          • FAQ
          • Forms
          • Rules
        • Law Corporations Program
          • FAQ
          • Forms
          • Rules
        • Revoking Law Corporation
      • For Judges
      • FAQ
    • MCLE & CLE
      • Requirements
        • Types of MCLE Credit
        • Proportional Requirement
        • MCLE Recordkeeping
        • Attorney Exemptions
        • Approved Jurisdictions
        • Education Approval
          • Evaluate Credit
          • MCLE Credit Request
        • New Admittees
        • Inactive or Not Eligible Status
        • Out-of-State Residents
        • Good Cause Modification
        • FAQs MCLE Exemption
      • Compliance
        • Who Must Report Compliance
        • Compliance Groups
        • Audit FAQ
      • New Attorney Training Program
      • E-Learning Portal
      • MCLE Providers
        • Provider Search
        • Single Activity Provider Status
        • Multiple Activity Provider Status
        • Provider Records
        • Qualifying Activities
        • ADA
      • CLE
        • CLE Calendar
        • Online CLE
        • CLE Self-Study
      • Rules
        • Rules Specific MCLE Credits
      • FAQ
    • Conduct & Discipline
      • Lawyer Regulation
      • Self-Reporting FAQ
      • State Bar Court
      • Client Trust Accounting & IOLTA
        • Guidelines
        • Client Trust Accounting Handbook
        • Client Trust Accounting Resources
        • Update Form
        • Financial Institutions
          • Eligible Institutions
          • About Leadership Banks
        • Interest Rates
        • FAQ
      • Rules
        • Rules of the State Bar
          • Title 1 Global Provisions
          • Title 2 Rights and Responsibilities of Licensees
          • Title 3 Programs and Services
          • Title 4 Admissions and Educational Standards
          • Title 5 Discipline
          • Title 6 Governance
          • Title 7 Miscellaneous
          • Appendixes
          • New and Amended Rules
        • Rules of Professional Conduct
          • Current Rules
            • Chapter 1. Lawyer-Client Relationship
            • Chapter 2. Counselor
            • Chapter 3. Advocate
            • Chapter 4. Transactions with Persons Other than Clients
            • Chapter 5. Law Firms and Associations
            • Chapter 6. Public Service
            • Chapter 7. Information About Legal Services
            • Chapter 8. Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession
          • Previous Rules
        • Selected Legal Authority
          • Constitution Excerpts
          • The State Bar Act
          • California Rules of Court
          • Statutes
      • Ethics
        • Hotline
        • Opinions
          • 2009-176 to Present
          • 1998-152 to 2008-175
          • 1992-126 to 1997-151
          • 1988-96 to 1991-125
          • 1984-76 to 1987-95
          • 1979-48 to 1983-75
          • 1971-24 to 1977-47
          • 1965-1 to 1970-23
        • Professional Competence
        • Ethics Schools
          • Class Schedule
          • Registration
        • Ethics & Technology Resources
          • Ethics Opinions Related to Technology
          • Ethics Articles on Technology
          • Online Participatory MCLE Programs
          • Online Communication
          • Electronic Files
          • Law Firm Websites
          • Social Media
          • Internet/Email Scams
          • Miscellaneous
        • Senior Lawyers Resources
          • Rules
          • Opinions
          • Publications
            • Wellness Guide
          • Articles
          • MCLE
          • Links
          • Closing a Law Practice
          • Contact Us
          • Attorney Surrogacy
        • ADA Claims Information
        • Judicial Ethics
        • Attorney Civility and Professionalism
        • Publications
          • Ethics News
          • Hotliner Articles
            • Archives
          • Pub 250
          • Compendium on Professional Responsibility Index
        • Committees
          • COPRAC
            • Education
              • Ethics Symposium
            • Opinion Requests
            • Rules
            • Roster
          • Rules Revision
            • Rules Commission 2017
              • Summaries
              • Proposed Rules
              • Roster
            • Rules Commission 2014
              • Action Summaries
              • Meetings
              • Roster
    • Ethics
    • Legal Specialization
      • About Certified Specialization
      • Becoming a Certified Specialist
        • Exam Information
          • Exam Preparation Information
          • Laptop Computers
          • Testing Accommodations
      • Current Certified Specialists
      • Legal Specialty Areas
      • Specialist Search
      • MCLE Requirements for Certified Specialists
      • Education Providers
      • Governance
        • Board of Legal Specialization
          • Roster
      • FAQ
      • Rules & Standards
        • Advertising
    • Volunteer
      • Pro Bono Training Events
      • Special Master
        • FAQ
        • Rules
        • List
  • Admissions
    • Requirements
      • Registration
      • Education
        • Pre-Legal Education
          • College Equivalency Education
        • Legal Education
          • Fixed Facility
          • Correspondence or Distance Learning
          • Law Office or Judge's Chamber
          • Foreign Education
            • Foreign Law Degree
      • Social Security Exemption
      • Attorney Applicants
      • Admissions Information Management System (AIMS) FAQs
    • Examinations
      • Dates & Deadlines
      • California Bar Examination
        • February 2020 California Bar Examination
        • Hotel Information
        • Changes to Bar Exam
        • Admittance Bulletin for July 2019 Exam
        • Testing Accommodation Hotels
        • Using Laptops
        • Exam Results Information
          • Bar Exam Pass List
        • CBE FAQs
        • Past Exams
        • Grading
        • Scaling
        • Refund of Fees Policy
        • California Bar Examination Scope
        • Attorney Oath
      • First-Year Law Students' Examination
        • Admittance Bulletin
        • First-Year Law Exam Information
        • Laptops for First-Year Exam
        • Exam Results Information
        • First-Year Law Exam Hotels
        • First-Year Law Exam Grading and Scope
      • Exam Rules
      • Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination
      • Requesting Testing Accommodations
      • Exam Administration
        • Becoming a Grader
        • Becoming a Proctor
    • Moral Character
      • Moral Character Statement
      • Factors
    • Special Admissions
      • Multijurisdictional Practice (MJP)
        • FAQ
      • Pro Hac Vice
      • Out-of-State Attorney Arbitration Counsel (OSAAC)
        • FAQ
      • Foreign Legal Consultants (FLC)
        • FAQ
        • Foreign Legal Consultants List
      • Practical Training of Law Students
    • Law School Regulation
      • Law Schools
      • Committee of Bar Examiners Meetings
        • Minutes
        • Minutes Archive
        • Committee Roster
      • Exam Statistics
  • Access to Justice
    • About the Office of Access & Inclusion
      • Our Projects
        • Incubator Projects
        • California Justice Gap Study
      • LRS Provider Certification
      • Publications
    • Access to Justice
    • Legal Aid Grants
      • 2020 Grant Recipients
      • 2019 Grant Recipients
      • Applicant Information
    • Pro Bono
      • Pro Bono Directory
        • Central Coast and Eastern Sierra Pro Bono Directory
        • Central Valley Area Pro Bono Directory
        • Los Angeles Area Pro Bono Directory
        • Sacramento and Northern California Pro Bono Directory
        • San Diego Area Pro Bono Directory
        • San Francisco Area Pro Bono Directory
        • Statewide Pro Bono Directory
      • Pro Bono Practice Program
        • Pro Bono Practice Program FAQs
      • Pro Bono FAQ
      • Volunteer After a Disaster
      • Volunteer for Veterans
    • Diversity & Inclusion
  • California Bar Examination
Seal of The State Bar of California The State Bar of California

California Bar Examination Studies

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Share with Email

Reports

  • Report 1: Recent Performance Changes to the Bar Exam
  • Report 2: Standard Setting Study
  • Report 3: Content Validation Study
  • Final Report on 2017 Bar Exam Studies
  • Report 4: Performance Changes on the California Bar Examination

Background

In late 2016, the State Bar of California began a comprehensive evaluation of the California Bar Exam. The evaluation was prompted by several factors, including a multi-year decline in pass rates. This trend raised the question of whether the current pass line, or cut score, of 1440 is appropriate.

The current pass line was established over three decades ago. Critics point out that California’s pass line is higher than every other state in the country except for Delaware. Others contend that factors other than the cut score influence pass rates.

The California Supreme Court, which has ultimate authority over the Bar Exam and cut score, directed the agency to ensure that these studies:

  1. Identify and explore all issues affecting California Bar Exam pass rates;
  2. Analyze and determine whether protection of potential clients and the public is served by maintaining the current pass line; and
  3. Include broad participation of subject matter experts, stakeholders, law schools, and technical experts.

2017 Studies

The first three studies were completed in 2017. Each study was led by an outside consultant with nationally recognized expertise in the subject. In addition, the State Bar hired additional subject matter experts to serve as external reviewers of the studies’ methods and findings. A working group comprised of a single representative from the California Supreme Court, and two representatives each from State Bar Board of Trustees and the Committee of Bar Examiners, oversaw the work.

The 2017 studies included:

  • A historical analysis of California Bar Exam pass rate trends from 2008, 2012, and 2016, which suggested that downward shifts in law school applicant performance are a contributing factor in declining bar exam pass rates.

    Conducted by Dr. Roger Bolus, a nationally known psychometrician with extensive experience evaluating bar exams, the study analyzed data from 2008, 2012, and 2016. It revealed noticeable downward shifts in applicant performance, as measured by law school median LSAT scores. It suggested that approximately 20 percent of the decline in bar exam pass rates could be attributable to changing applicant abilities. However, the lack of individual student performance data limited the ability to identify a causal connection between changes in applicant abilities and bar exam passage rates. Report

    Read more

  • A standard-setting study that defined minimally competent performance expected of entry-level attorneys and applied it to bar exam performance for the purpose of recommending a pass line.

    The study was led by Chad Buckendahl, Ph.D., a nationally recognized expert in educational assessment and testing. It involved a two-and-a-half-day workshop with 20 practicing attorneys, representing diverse demographics, geography, employment and firm type, and legal practice area. The study utilized a modified version of the Analytic Judgment Method, a structured, iterative process of group discussions and individual rating of exam responses. The method was developed in the 1990s and field tested in different settings through a multi-year study funded by the National Science Foundation. It is considered particularly suitable for evaluating constructed response (essay) questions.

    Participants reviewed exam content specifications, developed Performance Level Descriptors, and sorted exam responses in three categories: not competent, competent, and far exceeding minimum competence. Combining the panelists’ exam sort with actual scores, the study identified a range of scores for borderline cases, evaluated the impact of specific cut scores within the borderline range, and presented cut score recommendations for policy consideration. Report

    Read more

  • A content validation study to assess the alignment of bar exam content with the abilities, skills, and job-related knowledge needed by an entry-level attorney, according to a national attorney job analysis.

    The study was also led by Chad Buckendahl, PhD, and involved a two-and-a-half-day workshop with practicing attorneys. They evaluated the fit of items, tasks and scoring criteria relative to job-related content; reviewed knowledge and task statements from a job analysis conducted by the National Committee of Bar Examiners in 2012; and rated test items and tasks by cognitive complexity level and job relevance.

    The final report evaluated bar exam alignment including:
    • Representation of the exam items in terms of content, cognitive complexity level relative to the knowledge and task statements of the NCBE job analysis;
    • Aspects of the NCBE job analysis that are missing from the exam; and
    • Aspects of the exam that are not aligned with the NCBE job analysis.
    Results suggested that the exam's content and cognitive complexity were consistent with job-related expectations of entry-level attorneys, based on the generalized national job analysis. The study also suggested that the exam's relevance for skills needed by California entry-level attorneys could be better assessed following a California-specific attorney practice analysis. Report

    Read more

2017 Report; Supreme Court Response

After completing the standard-setting study, the State Bar invited public comment, surveyed practicing attorney and applicants, and conducted public hearings. In September 2017, the State Bar issued a report to the California Supreme Court, which has ultimate authority over the California Bar Exam cut score.

The State Bar Board of Trustees offered three options for the Supreme Court’s consideration:

  • An interim cut score of 1390
  • An interim cut score of 1414
  • No change in the current score of 1440

The report also outlined key issues related to the Court's policy decision – public protection, access to justice and diversity.

In October 2017, the Supreme Court issued its response, maintaining the current cut score for the time being, as the State Bar continued its research.

Law School Performance Study

The fourth study, completed in 2018, examined changes in the characteristics of students taking the California Bar Exam to provide a better understanding of the declining trend of the bar passage rates. The study found that changes over time in the characteristics of exam takers accounted for between 20 and 50 percent of the decline in bar exam performance during the study period. The study was unable to account for a substantial amount of the decline in pass rates, concluding that other unexamined factors have contributed to the decade-long decrease in bar exam performance.

Dr. Roger Bolus led the study. An advisory group of law school deans participated throughout the project. The study examined detailed data on over 7,000 students (from 11 ABA law schools participating in the study) who took the California Bar Exam in July 2013, 2016, and 2017.

Individual data included information on students’ undergraduate grade point average (GPA), undergraduate major, LSAT score, final law school GPA, course work in law school, and basic demographic information. The study examined these characteristics in relation to bar exam performance—both pass/fail outcomes and scores. The study found that:

  • Changes over time in the characteristics of exam takers accounted for only some of the decline in bar exam performance during the study period. The study found that these changes accounted for between 20 and 50 percent of the decline in bar exam performance during the study period, depending on the performance metric chosen and year compared;
  • The two student characteristics that most strongly predicted performance on the California Bar Exam were a student’s GPA in the final year of law school and a student’s LSAT scores;
  • Changes over time in entering credentials (undergraduate GPA and LSAT) and law school credentials (final law school cumulative GPA) contributed roughly equally to that portion of the decline in bar exam performance attributable to changes in student characteristics during the study period;
  • The proportion of test takers who were ethnic minorities or female grew slightly over the study period, but the study found no correlation between these demographic characteristics and pass/fail outcomes among students with similar abilities; and
  • Ultimately, the study was unable to account for a substantial amount of the decline in pass rates, concluding that other unexamined factors have contributed to the decade-long decrease in bar exam performance. Report
Read more

California Attorney Practice Analysis

In December 2018, the State Bar began the first California-specific study of the knowledge and skills needed by entry-level attorneys. The study will collect detailed, empirical data about how attorneys use their knowledge and skills to perform routine tasks in their legal practices. Key components of the study will include focus groups and surveys of California attorneys. Castle Worldwide is conducting the study. A working group, with members selected by the California Supreme Court from state and national stakeholder groups, oversees the study.

The final report, scheduled for completion by December 2019, will set the foundation for revisiting the California Bar Exam pass line and content, as well as exam format and other aspects of the test.

For questions contact: Ron Pi, Principal Analyst, Office of Research & Institutional Accountability, 415-538-2013, ron.pi@calbar.ca.gov

Additional Information

Fact Sheet: California Attorney Practice Analysis

Bar Seal
Protecting the public & enhancing the administration of justice.
  • Public
  • About Us
  • Attorneys
  • Admissions
  • Access to Justice
  • News
  • Forms
  • Careers
  • Staff Log in
  • San Francisco (Main Office)
    180 Howard St.
    San Francisco, CA 94105
    415-538-2000
  • Los Angeles
    845 S. Figueroa St.
    Los Angeles, CA 90017
    213-765-1000
Copyright © 2019 The State Bar of California
  • FAQ
  • User Policies
  • Contact
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on LinkedIn