In a significant decision that underscores the importance of maintaining rigorous standards for attorney licensure, the California Supreme Court has rejected a proposed alternative to the state’s bar exam. The ruling, issued Thursday, confirms that the bar exam will remain the sole route for aspiring attorneys to obtain their law licenses in California.
The proposed alternative, known as the Portfolio Bar Exam, would have allowed law graduates to become licensed by completing four to six months of supervised legal work, culminating in a portfolio of real-world legal tasks. However, the Court expressed serious concerns about the fairness and reliability of this approach, ultimately ruling against its approval.
“The Portfolio Bar Exam would introduce a host of ethical and practical concerns,” the Court stated in its decision, emphasizing that varying levels of supervision could create uneven opportunities for applicants. Graduates with more experienced or committed supervisors would have a distinct advantage over others, raising issues of fairness and competence.
Despite support from the State Bar of California’s board of trustees, which endorsed the alternative in November, the Court stood firm in its decision. Public feedback during the deliberation process indicated that many were opposed to the idea, fearing that it would lower the bar for entering the profession and potentially compromise public protection.
Susan Smith Bakhshian, a Loyola Law School professor who played a key role in developing the Portfolio Bar Exam, expressed disappointment in the ruling, saying, “The court missed an opportunity to better protect the public and to improve attorney licensure.”
Proponents of alternative pathways argue that the traditional bar exam does not fully measure a lawyer’s ability to perform in real-world settings. They assert that alternative programs could close racial gaps in bar exam pass rates, provide more affordable pathways to licensure, and better equip lawyers to serve underrepresented communities.
Despite these arguments, the California Supreme Court remained unconvinced. The ruling aligns California with its current stance, which has so far resisted following the small but growing trend of states that are exploring alternative attorney licensing pathways. Oregon, for example, adopted an apprenticeship program in 2023, allowing graduates to bypass the bar exam. Washington state followed with a similar approach, offering both apprenticeship and skills-based coursework options. High courts in Minnesota and Utah are also evaluating proposals that would allow aspiring lawyers to bypass the traditional bar exam.
The American Bar Association (ABA) has taken a more flexible stance in recent years, endorsing alternative licensing pathways in May, signaling a shift in its historical pro-bar-exam position.
In 2023, California admitted 5,315 new lawyers, reinforcing its standing as one of the largest legal markets in the United States. Had the state adopted the Portfolio Bar Exam, it would have become the largest jurisdiction to embrace an alternative licensing pathway. However, with this decision, the traditional bar exam remains the primary measure of competency for aspiring attorneys in California.
Read more:
Environmental Law Faces The Biden Administration’s Immigration Policies
New York’S Even Year Election Law Overturned By State Supreme Court
Citgo Auction Faces Turmoil As Venezuelan Bondholders Seek Competing Claims