This week, California’s bar exam candidates faced significant turmoil as the State Bar of California struggled with the implementation of its new attorney licensing exam. The roll-out mishap left numerous applicants unable to complete their bar exams, prompting some to initiate a proposed federal class action lawsuit.

The online examination platform experienced frequent crashes before some candidates even began. Others encountered difficulties saving their essays, suffered from screen delays and error messages, and were unable to copy and paste text from exam questions into their responses, despite officials assuring that this functionality would be available.

“It was a complete disaster,” remarked David Drelinger, a 2023 graduate of Lincoln Law School in Sacramento, in an interview with The Times.

Drelinger logged into the testing platform at around 9:45 a.m. Tuesday, 15 minutes before his scheduled exam at 10 a.m. However, the system crashed when a proctor joined. After numerous reboot attempts, he resorted to using three different laptops and solicited neighbors for alternate Wi-Fi passwords.

After trying to log in 35 times, he abandoned his efforts.

“Today was one of the worst days of my life,” Drelinger wrote in an email to the State Bar. “I felt on the verge of a panic attack and almost needed to call an ambulance, worrying I might die at my computer all alone.”

The State Bar had promoted the new exam as a cost-efficient solution, allowing candidates the option of remote testing. However, the deans of several of California’s leading law schools had raised concerns to the State Bar and the California Supreme Court for months leading up to the exams.

“This is shocking incompetence from an organization that exists to evaluate competence,” stated Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of UC Berkeley School of Law. “It’s simply unacceptable. This is a critical test that students prepare for extensively, directly affecting their job prospects.”

On Thursday, a group of deans from California Accredited Law Schools sent a letter to the California Supreme Court, asking for “immediate action” to address the “disastrous mismanagement” and “mitigate the profound damage” caused to test takers.

The deans requested several measures from the Supreme Court: block the proposed March retake of the exam, initiate an accountability review, determine a fair remedy, and publicly reinforce that appropriate oversight will be maintained in the future.

Additionally, some students filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, criticizing Meazure Learning, the exam administration company, for “spectacular failure” resulting in an “unprecedented disaster.”

The proposed class action does not include the State Bar as a defendant, as test takers generally sign legal waivers limiting the agency’s liability for any software or hardware failures. However, the lawsuit claims the regulatory body rushed the new exam format to save costs.

Later that same evening, the State Bar recognized in an email to candidates that many experienced “substantial” technical difficulties and customer service issues.

“We sincerely apologize,” the Office of Admissions stated. “These technical issues were unacceptable. Our top priority is ensuring a fair and reliable exam experience, and we are actively assessing our next steps.”

The State Bar had initially announced that remote applicants facing technical issues could retake the exam on March 3 and 4. However, following the week’s problems, they are now also considering other remedies, including adjustments to the scoring.

By Thursday, the State Bar rescheduled the retake exams to March 18 and 19, citing inappropriate actions by some individuals who allegedly attempted to thwart the retake by posting exam questions online.

The State Bar stated that such behavior is strictly prohibited. Forensic experts will be engaged to identify those responsible and impose strict penalties. Individuals found to engage in such unethical conduct may jeopardize their future licensing with the State Bar of California.

Frustrated test takers took to Reddit and Facebook groups over the past few days to voice their complaints about the exam’s execution. Some expressed that their experiences had caused them both physical and emotional distress after investing time off work, financial resources for exam preparation, and planning travel arrangements.

Drelinger, a single father with full custody of his 11-year-old son, emphasized the importance of passing the bar. With over $100,000 in student debt, he believed that clearing the exam would provide a pathway to a better life for himself and his son, allowing them to move from their cramped one-bedroom apartment.

“What hurts the most is the time I’ve disregarded my son to prepare for this test only to tell him that it’s not over and may not be for a while,” Drelinger expressed in his communication with the State Bar. “I’m uncertain about my next steps.”

Another candidate, who wished to remain anonymous due to concerns about retaliation, described feeling exhausted and suffering from a headache after encountering multiple glitches during the exam. He explained that while he sought assistance from more than ten technicians, time kept ticking away. In the end, he had only 10 minutes to complete his performance test, which typically requires 90 minutes to finish.

“I feel cheated,” he stated.

The exam format includes five one-hour essay questions, a 90-minute performance test, and 200 multiple-choice questions, conducted twice a year—in February and July. If the State Bar permits him to retake the exam in March, he will need to take additional time off work, and he doubts that the issues will be resolved in such a short timeframe.

“I lack hope for the future,” he said. “It feels like a money grab. We pay for our right to practice law, and they can’t even administer it properly.”

Ceren Aytekin, a 2024 master of laws graduate from UC Berkeley, recounted her experience logging in at an exam center in downtown Los Angeles to write her first essay, only to have her screen freeze and find that she could only type 70% of the time.

After raising her concerns during a lunch break, she received a new laptop, but the issue persisted, worsening to where she could only type 50% of the time. Shortly thereafter, an error message appeared, indicating that her answer had not been saved. An IT technician reassured her, saying, “You guys keep complaining. What do you expect? There are going to be glitches and lags. There are 2,000 candidates using Meazure at the same time.”

The following day, the director of the State Bar’s Office of Admissions allowed her to use her personal laptop at the testing site, and she experienced fewer technical complications. However, she remained anxious about how the problems on the first day might affect her overall score.

“No one wants to retake the exam,” she remarked. “This is torture.”

California has long been recognized as having one of the most challenging bar exams in the United States, with 54% of applicants passing in July 2024, and only 34% of applicants passing in February 2024.

Last year, faced with a $22.2 million deficit, the State Bar opted to replace the test questions generated by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, which does not accommodate remote testing. They announced a new $8.25 million five-year agreement with Kaplan Exam Services to develop multiple-choice questions, essays, and performance test queries.

The new exam was anticipated to save the Bar approximately $3.8 million annually.

However, issues became apparent in the preceding weeks as several candidates reported difficulties scheduling their exams and encountered technical problems during mock assessments.

“This new exam has not been rolled out as intended, and we, the Board, apologize along with State Bar leadership and staff,” stated Brandon Stallings, chair of the State Bar Board of Trustees, in a Feb. 21 statement. “The ongoing problems with testing locations, scheduling, technical issues, and miscommunication have distracted candidates from their preparation and caused confusion.”

The Board of Trustees also offered candidates who withdrew from the February 2025 exam or did not pass the opportunity to retake the exam in July at no additional cost. Approximately 1,066 out of 5,600 registered for the February exam chose to withdraw.

Many of those who took the test this week are now demanding reparations for the multitude of errors experienced.

Some candidates have requested refunds, while others are advocating for a grading curve adjustment to increase the pass rate for candidates.

“This exam was a complete failure, falling short of all professional standards,” one candidate voiced on Reddit. “We all deserve a refund, regardless of passing or failing, as this situation constitutes a breach of contract at the very least. This is far from what we paid for.”

Before the testing concluded, some were already sharing contacts for class action attorneys.

“If your exam software crashed while taking the California State Bar, you may have a legitimate claim for compensation,” a class action firm based in Washington, D.C., suggested in a post shared within a Facebook group for 2025 California bar candidates. “Contact us now for more information about your legal rights.”

“How do I sign up?” queried an anonymous user.

Harshita Ganesh, an attorney from Massachusetts who flew to L.A. for the test at her law firm’s request, expressed her interest in joining a class action lawsuit.

“The level of incompetence has been astounding,” she remarked, contrasting her experience taking the equivalent exam in Massachusetts last year.

She noted she was unable to copy and paste, the highlight function often failed, and the software exhibited significant lag. The questions in the new exam, she said, seemed nonsensical, as if generated by artificial intelligence.

“It’s unacceptable for the California bar to treat us like test subjects,” she stated.

State Bar General Counsel Ellin Davtyan acknowledged in a statement that some applicants might be considering legal remedies.

“That is certainly within their rights,” she affirmed, adding that the State Bar will assess and respond to the merits of any potential legal claims as appropriate.

Edmond Aruffo, an adjunct professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego who passed the California bar exam in 2020 while navigating his own legal challenges, mentioned he has received many calls from distressed students.

“The level of stress faced by candidates was beyond anything I have witnessed in any exam,” Aruffo remarked, noting that many could risk losing their jobs if they don’t pass.

However, he explained that pursuing legal action may face challenges, as California generally requires test-takers to sign legal waivers. If candidates can prove fraud was involved, this could override the waiver, but he clarified that fraud has specific legal criteria.

“Demonstrating that they intentionally misled individuals, with knowledge that they were selling an inadequate product, is essential,” Aruffo explained. “The Cal Bar may have been aware of existing issues because they conducted a mock exam, but that doesn’t definitively indicate intent to defraud.”

No matter the outcome, Aruffo speculated that some remedy must be provided—whether allowing candidates to retake the test in July for free or grading solely based on what was successfully submitted.

“The bar exam failed in its obligation to provide a fair assessment for students seeking licensure. Action must be taken,” he concluded.