The State Bar of California is in hot water. It brazenly acknowledged that it used AI to generate a section of the multiple-choice questions for the February 2025 bar exam. This fact immediately caused an outcry among law professors and would-be lawyers.
Numerous test-takers had already complained about technical failures and contradictions. Now the furor has grown. In response, the Bar plans to ask the California Supreme Court to adjust test scores. Clearly, the decision has opened a heated debate on ethics, legal standards, and the role of non-lawyers in drafting bar exams.
AI’s Unexpected Role in the Bar Exam
The Bar disclosed on April 21 that it employed artificial intelligence to produce 23 of the 171 scored multiple-choice questions. Also, 48 questions were copied from an earlier first-year law student exam. Kaplan Exam Services provided the last 100 questions.
The Bar justified its action by pointing out cost savings and innovation. But critics feel the move crossed the ethical boundary.
California Supreme Court Was Not Aware
Even when the Bar justified its use, the California Supreme Court was not aware of the AI role. A spokesperson acknowledged that the judges only became aware of it later. The court, in the past, had invited the Bar to venture into new technologies, such as AI.
However, it never sanctioned using AI to generate exam material. This lack of disclosure has only fueled the public outcry.
Law Faculty Raise the Red Flag
Several legal professionals were outraged. Mary Basick, assistant dean at UC Irvine School of Law, termed the episode “worse than imagined.” She was surprised that non-lawyer psychometricians, using AI software, had developed high-stakes legal questions.
In her opinion, this was an apparent conflict of interest. Basick’s remarks reflect a mounting concern that AI would compromise legal education and licensing if left unregulated.
State Bar Responds to Backlash
Under fire, Committee of Bar Examiners Chair Alex Chan justified the Bar’s move. “We believe our suggestions to the Supreme Court represent a fair and substantial way forward,” he said. He emphasized that the Bar is still dedicated to fairness and will continue to improve its exam procedures.
Alex Chan also reminded the public that the court had previously proposed exploring AI to enhance cost-effectiveness and reliability.
Where Innovation Meets Accountability
This scandal points to a deeper problem. Innovation in testing is significant, but so is accountability. Bringing AI into the bar exam process without transparent disclosure has damaged trust.
With more professional industries embracing AI, regulators need to impose oversight, preserve human judgment, and protect quality control. This California incident may be a turning point for how the legal community approaches AI in credentialing.
