Tectors, who are trying to practice law in California, have experienced chaos as California’s state law fumbles around the rollout of a new lawyer licensing test, with many failing to complete the bar exam and some filing proposed federal group lawsuits.
The online testing platform crashed repeatedly before even some applicants began. Others struggled to finish and save the essay, had experience with screen delays and error messages, and were unable to copy and paste text from test questions into the exam response field.
“It was a very catastrophe,” David Drellinger, a 2023 graduate of Lincoln Law School in Sacramento, told The Times.
After logging remotely around 9:45am on Tuesday (15 minutes before the 10am remote exam), Drelinger said the test platform crashed when Proctor logged on. He rebooted multiple times, eventually trying three laptops, knocked on the neighbor’s door, and accessed passwords to various internet connections.
After attempting 35 logons, he gave up.
“Today was one of the worst days of my life,” Dorrellinger wrote in an email to a bar in the state. “There were some points I thought I was having a panic attack and today I didn’t want to die alone on my computer, so I had to call an ambulance.”
The new exam was promoted by state lawmakers in California as a cost-saving tool that will provide a choice of remote testing. However, many deans at California’s top law schools had flagged concerns in the state’s bars and the California Supreme Court for the months leading up to the exam.
“They are incredibly incompetent from the entities that exist to measure their capabilities,” UC Berkeley Law Dean Irwin Kemerinski told The Times. “There’s no other way to explain it than something outrageous and inexcusable. This is a test that students prepare for months and decide whether they can be hired.”
On Friday, California Senate Attorney Speaker Thomas J. Amberg (D. Santa Ana), said his committee fully understands that he will conduct a detailed examination and seek an audit of the state by a California auditor, and that he is “smashly wrong.”
“The failure to manage the February 2025 bar exam is unacceptable and unprecedented,” Umberg said in a statement. “I do everything with my strength to ensure this never happens again and that procedure will be taken to remedy this fiasco.”
Umberg said the California dean of California sent a letter to the California Supreme Court on Thursday, demanding “urgent action” and “remedial harm and damages” before investigating it.
The dean demanded that the Supreme Court take several steps. We will immediately block the proposed March revival of the exam, launch a review and accountability process, determine fair remedies, and publish a statement reassuring the public that there is adequate monitoring in the future.
Some students also filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Thursday, accusing the company that administered the exams of “magnificent failure” and “unexempt disasters.”
The proposed class action lawsuit does not list state bars as defendants. Test Takers usually sign legal exemptions limiting the agency’s liability for malfunctioning computer hardware or software applications. But it advocates for regulators who oversee the state’s lawyer license and oversee the discipline that “quickly tracks” new exam formats to save money.
In an email to Tecker on Tuesday night, the state bar acknowledged that many people had experienced “critical” technical and customer service challenges.
“I’m so sorry for that,” wrote the bar’s admissions office. “These technical and support issues have not been accepted. Ensuring fair and reliable exam experience is our number one priority and we are actively evaluating the next step.”
The state bar told applicants that they had planned to allow remote applicants who experienced technical issues on March 3 and 4 ahead of this week’s failed test, but they were now also exploring additional relief measures, such as scoring adjustments.
However, on Thursday, California bars reschedule recovery tests on March 18th and 19th. Some individuals then tried to prevent recovery from occurring by posting exam questions online.
“This practice is strictly prohibited,” state Barr said in a statement, identifying the person responsible for forensic experts and imposing “stricken sanctions.”
“Individuals who are found to be engaged in this type of prohibited, unethical behavior will find it difficult, if not impossible, to secure a license at a California state bar.”
Over the past few days, annoyed test takers have logged on to Reddit and Facebook message boards to complain about the development of the exam. The challenge they encountered was that they had caused physical and mental harm to them after they took off work and paid for their test preparation and arranged for a trip.
His father, Dorelinger, who is in full custody of his 11-year-old son, said he rides a lot of things past the bar. He hoped that by accumulating over $100,000 student debt and putting the exam behind him, he would improve his life for his son and move out of his trembling one-bedroom apartment.
“The only thing that really stabbed me is that I have to tell him that it’s not over and not immediately,” Dorrellinger wrote in a state bar. “I don’t know where to go from here.”
Another test customer who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation said he was exhausted and his head hurt after experiencing multiple glitches on Wednesday. He said the clock continued to go on a ticking journey from more than 10 technicians for help. In the end, he only had 10 minutes to complete the performance test. This is a process that would likely take 90 minutes.
“I feel like I’ve been fooled,” he said.
The exam consists of five 1 hour essay questions, one 90 minute performance test and 200 multiple choice questions, and is offered only two weeks a year in February and July. If the state bar allowed him to play the exam in March, he would have to rest more time – and he wasn’t sure the issue would be fixed in just a few days.
“I don’t see any hope for the future,” he said. “It’s just a grab for money. We pay for the right to practice the law, but it can’t even be properly managed.”
Ceren Aytekin, a 2024 master’s law graduate who graduated from Berkeley, California, said that when he wrote his first essay at a center in downtown Los Angeles, the screen kept frozen, and only 60% could enter.
When she complained during lunch break, she was given a new laptop. However, the delay has gotten worse. She could only enter 50%. She then received an error message informing her that her answers were not saved. The IT technician told her not to worry.
“They said to me, “You guys are complaining. What do you expect? There are glitches and delays. We have 2,000 trustees who use myzzle at the same time.”
The next day, the director of the state bar admissions office allowed her to use her personal laptop on the test site, and she experienced almost technical issues. However, she continued to worry about how the first day’s issues affected her score.
“No one wants to get the exam back,” she said. “This is torture.”
California has long had one of the country’s toughest bar exams. 54% of applicants passed in July 2024 and 34% of applicants handed over in February 2024 died.
Last year, California’s state law faced a $22.2 million deficit, so they decided to replace the test question developed by the national conference of judicial examiners’ multi-state oversight examiner exams that would not allow remote testing. We have announced a new $8.25 million five-year contract to approve test preparation company Kaplan Exam Services to create multiple choices, essays and performance test questions.
The expected new exam would save the bar up to $3.8 million a year.
However, some test takers struggled with exam scheduling and experienced technical issues during mock exams, so we saw the issues a few weeks before their debut in February.
“This new exam is not being developed the way it should be. We are apologizing along with the leadership and staff of the state bars,” Brandon Stirlings, chairman of the state board of trustees, said in a statement on Feb. 21. “The ongoing issues regarding test locations, scheduling, technical issues, and communication lapses distracted applicants from the research and caused confusion.”
The board failed to provide it to test takers who withdraw from the February 2025 exam, or to retry the exam in July at an additional cost. Of the 5,600 people enrolled in the February exam, approximately 1,066 people have withdrawn.
Many of those who took the test this week are now demanding compensation for many errors.
Some people are seeking a refund. Others hope to change the grading curve so that a higher percentage of test takers can pass the exam.
“This was a completely failed exam that failed professionalism of all standards,” said Test Taker, Reddit. “We all deserve a refund, pass or fail because this devastating failure is essentially a violation of the contract. This is absolutely not what we paid for.”
Some shared contacts for class action lawyers before all exams are finished.
“If your testing software crashes while taking a California State University bar, you may have a legal claim for compensation,” a class action company in Washington, DC said in a 2025 post shared on the California Bartaker Facebook group. “Please contact us now for more information about your rights.”
“Where would you like to click to sign up?” an anonymous user asked.
Her law firm also hopes to practice in California, Harshita Ganesh, an attorney who practiced law in Massachusetts and jumped into LA for testing, said she was interested in taking part in class actions.
“Incompetence was amazing,” she said, noting that her experience with taking exams in California was completely different from her experience with comparable exams in Massachusetts last year.
She couldn’t copy and paste. The highlight functions worked most of the time, and the software was awfully late. She said the new test questions looked pointless, as if they were written by artificial intelligence.
“It’s not fair to accuse us of a California bar when it becomes a guinea pig,” she said.
State lawyer Erin Davian said in a statement that state lawyers understand that some applicants may be considering potential legal relief.
“That’s certainly within the right to do so,” she said.
Edmund Alafo, an adjunct professor at Thomas Jefferson Law School in San Diego, said he passed the California bar exam while navigating his criminal case in 2020 and wrote some preparations for the California state test.
“The amount of stress people had to go through was unparalleled from what I’d seen in any exam,” Aruffo said.
However, Aruffo said there are sudden hurdles to legal claims. California usually provides legal exemptions for those who sign a state bar exam. If a scam can show that the scam is involved, it eliminates abandonment. However, Aruffo said there is a very specific legal definition of fraud.
“You’ll have to show that they’re intentionally misunderstanding people. “CAL bars can know that there’s a problem. And they knew that there was a problem because they did a mock exam, but that doesn’t mean they intentionally scam anyone.”
Whatever happened, he was hoping the board would provide some sort of relief — whether it would take the exam for free in July or get them to grade only those they successfully submitted.
“The bar exam breached the contract,” he said. “They didn’t provide students with fair exams to ensure they could get their licenses. I think they have to do something.”
