Trump has begun another trade war. Here's a timeline of how we got here
Canada's leader laments lost friendship with US in town that sheltered stranded Americans after 9/11
Chinese EV giant BYD's fourth-quarter profit leaps 73%
You're an American in another land? Prepare to talk about the why and how of Trump 2.0
Chalk talk: Star power, top teams and No. 5 seeds headline the women's March Madness Sweet 16
Purdue returns to Sweet 16 with 76-62 win over McNeese in March Madness
The State Bar of California is under fire after disclosing it used artificial intelligence to draft some questions for the February 2025 bar exam without informing test takers or stakeholders. This decision has triggered backlash from legal educators, students, and the California Supreme Court, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Out of the 171 multiple-choice questions on the exam, 23 were developed with AI assistance by ACS Ventures, a consulting firm hired by the Bar. The remaining questions were a mix of a first-year law student exam and Kaplan Exam Services. This use of AI was not disclosed to candidates until complaints about inconsistencies and irregularities surfaced post-exam.
The California Supreme Court, which oversees the State Bar, stated it was unaware of AI’s role in crafting the exam questions until media reports surfaced. The court now demands a formal explanation from the Bar, underscoring growing concern over transparency and governance.
Legal educators expressed dismay at the Bar’s decision. Mary Basick, Assistant Dean at UC Irvine School of Law, called it “unbelievable” that non-lawyers drafted questions using AI, calling it an “obvious conflict of interest.” Critics argue outsourcing critical assessments to AI jeopardizes the integrity of the legal profession’s gateway exam.
Students who took the February exam reported several questions were confusing, misaligned with prep materials, or poorly worded. Some candidates say these ambiguities affected their performance, especially given the high-stakes nature of the bar exam, which determines eligibility for practicing law in California.
Adding to the controversy, the State Bar claimed it was following prior guidance from the California Supreme Court, encouraging the exploration of new technologies to enhance cost-efficiency and reliability. However, critics argue such innovation should never come at the expense of fairness and clarity.
The Bar’s committee of examiners believed integrating AI was a responsible step toward modernizing assessments. However, it acknowledged the growing criticism and indicated a willingness to reevaluate its processes, stating it is committed to ensuring a “fair and equitable path forward” for future test takers.
Legal professionals emphasized that while AI can be useful, its limitations must be carefully considered – especially around context, nuance, and legal reasoning. There’s also a concern AI-generated content may introduce bias or inaccuracies without human oversight.
Some faculty have gone further, calling for a moratorium on AI use in exam development until comprehensive studies and standards are established. Several law schools have issued public statements urging greater transparency and a seat in discussions around AI’s role in legal education and licensing.
In response to the backlash, the State Bar has asked the California Supreme Court for permission to adjust scores from the February 2025 exam to mitigate any unfair impact.
Also Read: 'We were essentially guinea pigs': New California bar exam causes chaos after rollout of hybrid test
