The February 2025 bar exam in California is now under deeper scrutiny after the State Bar of California disclosed that AI helped develop part of the test. The issue is not only that artificial intelligence was used, but that the disclosure came after weeks of complaints about the exam’s administration, question quality, and technical reliability.
What the State Bar Disclosed
On Monday, the State Bar of California revealed that AI was used to develop a portion of the multiple-choice questions on its February 2025 bar exam. The disclosure centered on 23 of the 171 scored multiple-choice questions.
According to the State Bar, its psychometrician, ACS Ventures, created those 23 questions with AI assistance. The remaining scored multiple-choice questions came from two other sources: 48 questions were taken from a first-year law student exam, and Kaplan Exam Services developed 100 questions.
The State Bar said the questions were not simply placed on the exam without review. It defended the process by saying that content validation panels and subject matter experts reviewed the questions before the exam was administered.
“The ACS questions were developed with the assistance of AI and subsequently reviewed by content validation panels and a subject matter expert in advance of the exam,” wrote State Bar Executive Director Leah Wilson in a press release.
That explanation did not resolve the concerns of legal education experts. For critics, the disclosure raised questions about authorship, oversight, and whether the exam’s quality-control process was adequate for a licensing test.
Why the AI Role Became So Controversial
The California bar exam is meant to measure whether applicants meet a standard of competence to practice law. That purpose makes the origin and review of questions especially important. When an exam affects who may enter the legal profession, even a small portion of disputed questions can become a major issue.
Mary Basick, assistant dean of academic skills at the University of California, Irvine School of Law, criticized the disclosure sharply.
“The debacle that was the February 2025 bar exam is worse than we imagined,” said Mary Basick. “I’m almost speechless. Having the questions drafted by non-lawyers using artificial intelligence is just unbelievable.”
Katie Moran, an associate professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law who specializes in bar exam preparation, called the disclosure “a staggering admission.” She also pointed to a concern about review structure: the same company that drafted AI-generated questions also evaluated and approved them for use on the exam.
The State Bar’s position is that review by panels and experts supplied the needed safeguard. Critics are focused on whether that review was independent and strong enough, particularly because the AI-assisted questions were part of the scored exam.
The Disclosure Followed Earlier Exam Problems
The AI revelation did not arrive in isolation. Before the State Bar confirmed the role of AI, test takers had already reported serious problems with the February exam. The complaints included being kicked off online testing platforms, screen lag, error messages, typos, and confusing questions.
Those problems led to a federal lawsuit against Meazure Learning, the exam administrator. They also prompted calls for an audit of the State Bar.
The California Supreme Court had urged the State Bar to explore “new technologies, such as artificial intelligence” to improve testing reliability and cost-effectiveness, according to Alex Chan, chair of the State Bar’s Committee of Bar Examiners. But the California Supreme Court told the LA Times that it “was unaware that AI had been used to draft any of the multiple-choice questions” until the State Bar’s Monday press release.
That distinction matters. Exploring new technology is different from using AI to help draft scored questions on a live licensing exam. The controversy grew because the court’s general encouragement of new technology did not mean it knew AI had already been used in this specific way.
A Broader Shift in the California Bar Exam
The February exam was part of a broader change in how California administers the bar exam. The State Bar of California switched from the National Conference of Bar Examiners’ Multistate Bar Examination to its own hybrid in-person and remote testing model last year while facing a $22 million deficit.
As part of that shift, the State Bar contracted with Kaplan Exam Services for $8.25 million to create test questions. Kaplan developed 100 of the scored multiple-choice questions used on the February 2025 exam.
Basick and Moran had already raised concerns about the quality of the February exam questions. According to the LA Times, they noted that the 50 practice questions released before the exam “still contain numerous errors” even after editing.
Basick also questioned the use of first-year law exam questions. Her concern was that a first-year law student exam has a different purpose from an exam designed to determine minimal competence to practice law.
The State Bar now plans to ask the California Supreme Court to adjust test scores for February exam takers. At the same time, it has resisted returning to National Conference of Bar Examiners exams for July, citing test security concerns with remote testing options.
What Happens Next
The Committee of Bar Examiners will meet on May 5 to discuss remedies. Chan said the State Bar is unlikely to release all 200 exam questions or return to National Conference of Bar Examiners tests soon.
One reason is applicant preference: nearly half of California bar applicants want to keep the remote testing option. That leaves the State Bar balancing several pressures at once: test security, cost, remote access, question quality, and confidence in the exam itself.
The immediate issue is the February 2025 bar exam and the 23 scored questions developed with AI assistance. The larger issue is whether licensing bodies can use AI in high-stakes testing without damaging trust. Based on the reaction in California, disclosure, independent review, and clear standards are likely to matter as much as the technology itself.