Fee structure The State Bar of California is one of a small number of State Bars whose member fee structure must be ratified annually by both the legislature and the
governor. Without such annual reauthorization, it can charge California lawyers only $77 per year. In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in
Keller v. State Bar of California that attorneys who are required to be members of a state bar association have a First Amendment right to refrain from subsidizing the organization's political or ideological activities as was the case with the California State Bar's activities. In October 1997, Governor
Pete Wilson vetoed the fee authorization bill for that year. He pointed out that California's bar had the highest annual fee in the country at $478. He also stated that the State Bar had become bloated and inefficient and criticized its Conference of Delegates for taking positions on divisive political issues like
abortion. The State Bar's political and lobbying activities, combined with the compulsory nature of its dues, had already resulted in a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the State Bar was forced to allow attorneys to opt out of paying dues to support positions that they found abhorrent,
Keller v. State Bar of California, . As a result, the State Bar was forced to lay off 500 of its 700 personnel on June 26, 1998. For six months, the State Bar's attorney disciplinary system was nonfunctional. On December 3, 1998, the Supreme Court of California unanimously held that it had the power to impose an emergency annual fee of $171.44 on all California lawyers to fund the attorney disciplinary system. See
In re Attorney Disciplinary System, 19 Cal. 4th 582 (1998). By then, the backlog of unprocessed complaints had soared to 6,000. On September 7, 1999, Governor
Gray Davis signed a bill that set the annual fee for the State Bar at $395, thus ending the funding crisis. Since then, the State Bar has undertaken several reforms to improve the efficiency of its operations. In 2002, the State Bar split off the Conference of Delegates into a separate volunteer organization, now known as the Conference of California Bar Associations. On October 11, 2009, Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the fee authorization bill for 2010. In his veto message accompanying the return of the unsigned bill to the Legislature, he stated that just as in 1997, the State Bar had again become inefficient, scandal-ridden, and excessively politicized. In 2015 and 2016, the California State Auditor's Office found that the State Bar was inefficient and had failed to properly engage with stakeholders. The State Auditor's Office also determined that the State Bar's financial reporting lacked transparency and had obscured a growing shortfall in its Client Security Fund, masking a high volume of claims that the State Bar expected the fund would be required to pay. In 2018, however, the State Bar "split" into two entities, with a newly appointee-only board of trustees. In late 2019, the State Legislature approved the first licensing fee increase for the State Bar in over 20 years. Annual licensing fees for active attorneys now total $510.00.
Admissions criteria The task of deciding whom to admit to the bar is performed by the Committee of Bar Examiners and the Office of Admissions under procedures set out in the State Bar Act. Prior to law schools in the U.S., the only way to become an attorney was to "read" for the law. Usually this was done by reading
Blackstone's
Commentaries on the Laws of England as a textbook, and by interning for a judge or a lawyer for a prescribed period. The Bar candidate would then be questioned by a panel of court justices and accepted or rejected as an officer of the court. If accepted, the candidate was sworn into the Bar. California requires two years of pre-legal education before beginning the study of law. Once the pre-legal education is met, California has different paths to become a licensed attorney: • Attending a law school accredited by the
American Bar Association or approved by the Committee of Bar Examiners and passing the California Bar Examination (bar exam). • Study law for at least four years by: • : * Attending a law school authorized by the State of California to award professional degrees that is not accredited by the ABA or approved by the State Bar of California. (including
online law schools) and pass the bar exam, or • : * Participating in an approved course of study in a law office or the chambers of a judge and pass the bar exam. ("Law Office Study Program"; see below.) • Already being licensed in another state in the United States and taking the California Bar Exam. Lawyers who are already licensed (and have been active for four or more years) in another jurisdiction may be able to waive out of taking the
Multistate Bar Examination portion of the bar exam. Regardless of the path one takes to becoming a licensed attorney, most bar applicants take a special private preparation course for the bar exam immediately following their graduation from law school. There is no citizenship requirement for admission to the California Bar Exam; a person can be a citizen of any country and be admitted to practice in California. No particular type of visa, including a
green card, is required for
admission to the bar. However, applicants must have a
Social Security Number to apply. Applicants are able to petition for an exception to the latter rule. Prospective applicants must also pass the
Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination and undergo a background check to determine if the applicant has the "
good moral character" necessary to practice law in California. A prospective applicant must receive a "positive determination" as to the inquiry on their "moral character" in addition to satisfying all other educational requirements and exam passages to be granted a license to practice law in California.
Examination routes Accredited law school study California is one of several states that allow study at law schools accredited by the American Bar Association and as well as other law schools. Through its Committee of Bar Examiners (CBE), the State Bar approves certain California law schools. Study at registered unaccredited law schools, including full-time online law schools, is also allowed. The majority of prospective lawyers studying for the California Bar attend law schools accredited by the ABA or approved by the CBE. Once they receive their J.D. degree from these schools they are eligible to take the bar exam.
Unaccredited law school study Students may choose to become a licensed attorney through law schools that are not accredited by the ABA or approved by the State Bar of California Committee of Bar Examiners. Students attending these schools must also complete the First-Year Law Students' Examination (FYLSE, popularly known as the "baby bar") before receiving credit for their law study. Students should pass the FYLSE within three administrations after first becoming eligible to take the examination (which usually occurs upon completion of the first year of law study) in order to receive credit for law study undertaken up to the point of passage. It is possible for a student to pass the test after the first three administrations, but such a student will receive credit only for their first year of law study; no courses beyond the first year will be credited if a student takes more law school classes and passes the baby bar thereafter.
Law Office Study Program The California State Bar Law Office Study Program allows California residents to become California attorneys without graduating from college or law school, a process also known as
reading law, assuming they meet basic pre-legal educational requirements. Candidates without a college degree may take and pass the
College Level Examination Program (CLEP). The Bar candidate must study under a judge or lawyer for four years and must also pass the Baby Bar within three administrations after first becoming eligible to take the examination. They are then eligible to take the California Bar Examination.
Out-of-state attorney examination Persons already licensed as attorneys in other states may take the California Bar. Provided they have already taken the Multistate Bar Examination (MBE), they may omit that portion of the California Bar Examination. The attorneys opting to omit the MBE must have four years of being in good standing in their local jurisdictions. Attorneys without the required years of being in good standing take the General Examination, like most other applicants.
California Bar Examination California's bar exam is administered twice annually, in February and July. It is widely considered one of the most difficult
bar examinations in the United States. Several prominent attorneys and politicians have either never passed, or had difficulty passing, the California Bar Exam. Significant among these are former
Los Angeles Mayor
Antonio Villaraigosa (a graduate of
Peoples College of Law who never passed the bar exam after failing four times),
Stanford Law School dean and
Harvard Law School graduate
Kathleen Sullivan (who failed the bar in July 2005 but passed on her second attempt in February 2006), California Governor and former Attorney General
Jerry Brown, a graduate of
Yale Law School (who failed his first attempt but passed on his second attempt), former California Governor
Pete Wilson, a graduate of
UC Berkeley School of Law (who passed on his fourth attempt), former San Francisco Board of Supervisors President
Angela Alioto (who failed several times before passing) and former United States Secretary of the Interior
William P. Clark Jr. (who failed his first attempt). Before July 2017, the California Bar Examination consisted of 18 hours of examination time spread out over three days; the only U.S. state with a longer bar exam was Louisiana, at 21.5 hours of testing. (
Louisiana law, in contrast to the
common law system of the other 49 states, is based partially on
civil law and is one of the few exams without a multiple choice component.) Beginning in July 2017, the California Bar Exam adopted a 2-day format. The exam currently tests 13 different subject areas: •
Constitutional Law (Federal) •
Contracts (Common Law and
Uniform Commercial Code) •
Criminal Law and
Procedure •
Evidence (
Federal Rules of Evidence and the
California Evidence Code) •
Real Property •
Torts •
Wills (California law) •
Trusts •
Civil Procedure (
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
California Code of Civil Procedure) •
Community Property (California law) •
Professional Responsibility (California law and the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct) •
Business Associations (Corporations, Agency, all forms of Partnerships, and Limited Liability Entities) •
Remedies The written section of the exam, which includes 5 essays and 1 90 minute performance test, accounts for 50% of the total score. Applicants sitting for the California Bar Examination do not know which of the 13 subjects listed above will in fact be tested on the essay portion of the examination. In recent years, it has been increasingly common for the exam to feature one or more "crossover" questions, which tests applicants in multiple subjects. Examples of past tested essays with sample answers are available on the California State Bar website. California-specific legal knowledge is required only for Evidence, Civil Procedure, Wills, Community Property, and Professional Responsibility; for the other topics, either general
common law ("bar exam law") or the federal laws apply. Beginning in July 2007, applicants may be tested on the California Evidence Code and the California Code of Civil Procedure in the essay portion of the exam in addition to the
Federal Rules of Evidence and
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) portion of the exam accounts for 50% of the total score and is a nationally administered, 200-question
multiple choice exam. Of the 200 questions, only 175 questions are scored, while the other 25 are unscored experimental questions used to gauge their appropriateness for future exams. Additionally, applicants are required to provide fingerprints, photo identification, and a handwriting sample at the testing site. Overall bar exam pass rates tend to hover between 35% and 55%, and previously were often the lowest in the United States. Finally in 2020 the California Supreme Court lowered the passing score, effective with the October 2020 bar exam onward. This change was made not only in light of the state of the COVID-19 pandemic, but also with renewed consideration of the review conducted in 2017. The lowest pass rate occurred in February 2020 when 26.8% of takers passed. When considering only graduates of ABA-approved schools, the average pass rate for first timers in 2021 was 79%; for repeaters 26%, mirroring the percentage passing rates for all jurisdictions combined. The overall pass rate for the February 2022 California Bar Examination was 33.9%. The overall pass rate for the July 2022 California Bar Examination was 52.4%.
2019 release of test subjects In early July 2019, State Bar employees provided several high-ranking law school Deans with a list of the test subjects to be given on the bar exam in a few weeks' time. Some of these Deans shared this list with their students prematurely. Learning that only some schools had this information, the State Bar decided to release the shortened list to all exam takers. A report issued by the California Supreme Court concluded that the release was inadvertent "human error" but redacted the names of State Bar personnel responsible for the error.
2024 vendor changes and exam issues On August 14, 2024, California finalized a $8.25 million deal with test prep company
Kaplan Exam Services to produce the state's bar exam for the next five years. The goal of the vendor switch was to plug the bar's increasing budget deficit by not having to follow the restrictions imposed by the
Uniform Bar Exam, which required it to rent expensive conference venues. California Supreme court officially approved a change in modality to online and in person administration of the bar exam on October 22, 2024. The state bar also contracted Meazure Learning to develop the software for the online exams. The rollout of the new exam format with a newly rewritten exam has been widely criticized as a disaster and complete failure. The state bar has sued Kaplan for, among other things, using AI to write questions containing typos and using non-lawyers to write exam questions. The numerous issues faced has meant the state bar did not end up saving money from the vendor switch, as hoped, but rather incurred an additional $3 million of expenses. The State Supreme Court approved remedies including extensions to its Provisional License Program in attempts to alleviate some of the problems caused. Refunds and retakes have been offered to around 5,600 affected test takers.
Admission of undocumented immigrants On February 1, 2014,
Sergio C. Garcia, an undocumented immigrant, was sworn in as a member of the State Bar of California, making him the nation's first undocumented immigrant to become an attorney. The bar admission came almost one month after the state supreme court held that undocumented immigrants were not automatically disqualified from being licensed as attorneys in the state. Under that ruling, as well as a statute that Governor Brown signed into law taking effect on January 1, 2014 (in order to take advantage of a specific provision of the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act discussed at oral argument before the state supreme court), Garcia was admitted to the state bar.
Professional responsibility rules Pre-2018 rules Prior to November 1, 2018, California was the only state that did not use either set of
professional responsibility rules developed by the American Bar Association. From 2001 to 2014, the Commission for the Revision of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California worked on a comprehensive revision of the California rules that was intended to, among other things, convert them into a heavily modified, localized version of the
American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct. That is, the result would look like the Model Rules, but with modifications to preserve the substance of existing California rules that better reflect local laws and customs. However, the commission's progress was very slow because there are so many substantive and structural differences between the California rules and the Model Rules. The Commission finally finished nearly all the revisions in 2010, and the State Bar Board of Governors (later renamed the board of trustees) ratified them in July and September 2010. However, the proposed revisions could not go into effect until the Supreme Court of California approved them. As of 2014, 11 of 67 proposed rules had been finalized and submitted to the Supreme Court for its approval. On September 19, 2014, the Supreme Court of California returned to the State Bar all proposed revised rules that had been submitted for its consideration. The Court's letter directed the State Bar to start the process all over again with a new commission, and to submit a new set of revised rules by March 31, 2017.
2023 revisions Responding to criticism of the Bar's corrupt oversight of disgraced attorney
Tom Girardi,
Lawyer discipline As its primary post-split function, the Supreme Court of California operates the
State Bar Court, staffed by judges who specialize in handling only professional responsibility cases full-time. Complaints against attorneys are investigated and prosecuted by the State Bar's Office of the Chief Trial Counsel. Under the State Bar Act, upon receiving a complaint, the Bar may choose whether to open an investigation. If the Bar does find sufficient evidence of misconduct, decides that it has standing, and decides to take action to impose discipline, it has the power to proceed against accused attorneys either in the Supreme Court of California or in the State Bar Court. The State Bar holds that it may decline to review complaints that are not made by a judge who heard a matter related to the complaint. Complaints of professional misconduct are usually first prosecuted in the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court. Lawyers disagreeing with an adverse decision may appeal to the Review Department of the State Bar Court, and from there to the state supreme court. Although the State Bar Court's decisions are technically only recommendations, the distinction is largely academic. Failure to comply with conditions imposed as part of any form of lesser discipline short of disbarment can itself result in a recommendation of disbarment, which is virtually always ratified because the attorney's noncompliance with the State Bar Act will have been clearly established by that point. In February 2012, Jon B. Streeter, President of the State Bar, said: ==Licensee services==