• California State Bar used AI to draft questions for February 2025 bar exam.
• The California Supreme Court demands clarity and oversight regarding the AI use.
• Criticism arises from legal scholars over the integrity of AI-generated content.
• Technical difficulties during the exam have added fuel to the controversy.
• Future implications for the bar examination process are being assessed.

The California Bar Exam has recently become embroiled in controversy after it was revealed that artificial intelligence was used to develop 23 of the 171 multiple-choice questions for the February 2025 examination. This revelation has sparked outrage among legal scholars and potential candidates, raising significant concerns over the integrity and fairness of the examination process. According to the State Bar, these AI-assisted questions were created by ACS Ventures and were subsequently vetted by subject matter experts for legal accuracy and reliability. However, critics have expressed serious doubts about the impact of such methods on the assessment of legal competence, as noted by multiple sources including Indiatimes, Los Angeles Times, and SFGATE.

The California Supreme Court has increased pressure on the State Bar, demanding answers regarding how AI was employed in question development and how the reliability of these questions was ensured. Before the revelations, the Court had not been informed that AI was used during the exam. Justices are now questioning the transparency of decision-making by State Bar officials as they had previously endorsed a contract with Kaplan Exam Services for generating the test questions. In light of the recent controversies, the Supreme Court is asking for a thorough explanation of the procedures taken to validate these AI-assisted questions and their reliability, according to Los Angeles Times and SFGATE.

Critics have voiced concerns over the decision to use AI for developing exam questions, labeling it a "staggering admission" by the State Bar, and raising issues about a potential conflict of interest, as stated by legal educators. Mary Basick, an academic from UC Irvine, has argued that hiring a non-legal expert to draft exam questions is fundamentally flawed and may jeopardize the exam's integrity. She emphasized the importance of having thoroughly vetted questions in order to maintain fairness in the examination process, reflecting sentiments echoed in several articles including Indiatimes and SFGATE.

Technical problems during the February exam have compounded the scrutiny faced by the State Bar. Numerous candidates reported issues such as lagging screens and loss of connectivity during the test, prompting complaints and a proposed federal class-action lawsuit against Meazure Learning, the vendor responsible for administering the exam. These issues have raised questions regarding the preparation and readiness of the testing platform, and have led to calls for audits and independent reviews from lawmakers like California Senator Thomas Umberg. The technical breakdown is considered a significant factor in the debacle, as noted by Los Angeles Times and SFGATE.

As the legal community grapples with these developments, the State Bar has committed to refining its examination materials and increasing the levels of independent review and validation for future tests. The organization has indicated that it will learn from the current situation to improve the testing experience and maintain high standards moving forward. State Bar Executive Director Leah Wilson reassured that future exams would incorporate the lessons learned from this incident in their preparation and moderation processes, reflecting their commitment to ensuring fairness in the examination environment, according to Indiatimes, Los Angeles Times, and SFGATE.