By Alexander M. Wood
On May 5, 2025, the State Bar of California filed a lawsuit against ProctorU, doing business as Meazure Learning, which was contracted to facilitate the remote and in-person administration of the 2025 February Bar Exam. In 2024, for the first time in its history, the California Supreme Court approved a remote option in addition to the in-person Bar Exam to reduce exam-related expenses. However, the February 2025 Bar Exam was plagued by significant technological issues. Test takers reported many serious issues, including login failures, system lags, broken typing functions, and failed copy-and-paste features. These issues severely impacted the test-taker’s experience and ability to take the test.
The State Bar’s lawsuit against Meazure Learning alleges five claims. First, the complaint alleges that Meazure Learning affirmatively concealed and failed to disclose information relating to remote exam capacity limits. Second, the complaint alleges that Meazure Learning falsely promised that it had no concerns about remote exam capacity limits and the State Bar reasonably and in good faith relied on that statement. Third, the complaint alleges negligent misrepresentation by Meazure Learning in relation to their support wait times, uptime availability, backup systems, and expertise and competency in administering the Bar Exam. Fourth, the complaint alleges breach of contract for Meazure Learning’s failure to substantially perform its contractual obligations with respect to delivering an issue-free exam. Lastly, the complaint alleges that Meazure Learning breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to provide a platform free of defects and by misrepresenting its ability to accommodate the State Bar’s needs. As of recently, there has been virtually no movement in the State Bar’s litigation against Meazure Learning in the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Since the State Bar filed its complaint, several remedies have been adopted. On June 11, 2025, the California Supreme Court issued two rulings addressing challenges faced by test takers. First, the Court approved expanding the Provisional License Program to include February applicants; however, it was limited to first-time takers who either failed the exam or withdrew from the exam. If approved, applicants may practice law under a provisional license, provided an eligible California attorney supervises them. Second, the court granted the State Bar’s request to extend scoring adjustments for applicants who performed well on the November 2024 test sessions. These adjustments will be applied to the first bar exam they take during 2025 or 2026. The Court, however, denied other alternatives to allowing admission to the State Bar because the statute mandates passage of the California Bar Exam. The score adjustment, approved by the Court, revealed that 55.9% of Bar Exam takers passed, the highest since 1965, and 76.5% passed the one-day Attorney’s Examination.