Board Discusses Supreme Court’s Proposed Admissions-Related Amendments to California Rules of Court Monday, July 7, 2025 Categories: News Releases At its July 3 meeting, the Board of Trustees discussed proposed amendments from the California Supreme Court to the Rules of Court that would update the authority and responsibilities of the Board and Committee of Bar Examiners (CBE) over key aspects of admissions and the California Bar Exam. The proposed amendments were circulated by the Court in response to the significant challenges that occurred during the February 2025 bar exam. “The proposed amendments from the Supreme Court raise important questions about governance, accountability, and the future of attorney admissions in California,” said Board Vice-Chair José Cisneros. “Thursday’s thoughtful discussion reflects the Board’s commitment to ensuring transparency, fairness, and public confidence in how we carry out our admissions responsibilities. We look forward to continuing that dialogue and providing input on the proposed amendments in our upcoming joint meeting with the Committee of Bar Examiners in August.” Among the key topics in the proposed amendments and discussed by the Board: General Oversight of Admissions: The amendments to Rule 9.5(a) revise the scope of rules requiring Supreme Court approval. This change could eliminate Supreme Court review of rules relating to testing accommodations, special admissions programs, and law school accreditation. Bar Exam Development and Governance: Proposed changes to Rule 9.6(a) establish a dual structure of oversight requiring both the CBE and the Board to review and act on matters including vendor selection for exam questions, standards for third-party proctors, standards for testing accommodations, and oversight of grading and scoring adjustments. The Board discussed whether this structure necessitates expanded Board expertise and whether the CBE should retain more independent authority. Cost-Benefit Analysis Requirement for Changes to Exam Administration: Under Rule 9.6(b), any proposed change to the administration of the bar exam would require a cost-benefit analysis. The Board considered the scope and applicability of this provision, including whether the analysis must be submitted to the Board or the Supreme Court, and whether it would be required for even modest changes to exam delivery, vendor standards, or scoring methodology. Administrative and Fiscal Oversight: Amendments to Rule 9.5(b)(2) would authorize the CBE to review revenues and expenses for the Admissions Fund and propose a budget for the Office of Admissions. Governance and Personnel: Rule 9.5(b)(3) proposes that CBE recommend to the Board a candidate for the Director of the Office of Admissions. The Board discussed whether such a role should actually refer to the Chief of Admissions or other director-level leadership positions in Admissions, and whether any subentity, or even the Board, should have an explicit role in staff-level appointments. The Board also reviewed the interaction between the proposed rules and pending legislation: Senate Bill 253 (Umberg), the State Bar’s fee bill, includes a provision that would require a two-year notice before ceasing use of the National Conference of Bar Examiners’ (NCBE) Multistate Bar Exam (MBE), effectively committing the State Bar to continued use of the MBE until at least 2027 and restricting remote or small test center administration. Assembly Bill 484 (Dixon) would require the CBE to provide a cost-benefit analysis report by November 30, 2026, on whether adopting a uniform bar exam—such as the NCBE uniform bar exam—would reduce costs and improve efficiency. State Bar staff shared that both these bills would likely drive up costs to bar exam fees given the State Bar continues to pay Kaplan North America to continue to develop multiple-choice questions, whether they are used or not, and the NCBE requires in-person testing, with no remote or small test center options, which is costly. The State Bar’s Admissions Fund could face insolvency by the end of 2026 and will need to raise bar exam fees to pay for any extra costs. The Board’s joint meeting with the CBE in early August will result in combined feedback on the proposed rule amendments that will then be prepared for submission to the Supreme Court. Public comment on the California Supreme Court rule amendments is open until July 14 at 11:59 p.m. In other actions, the Board: Approved amendments to rule 9.41.1 to align the State Bar’s Registered Military Spouse Attorney Program with recent federal changes to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. The amended rule: Expands the program to include service members in addition to service members’ spouses; Eliminates the requirement that applicants submit an Application for Determination of Moral Character; Removes the limitation that program participants may only practice under supervision; and Eliminates the five-year time limit on participation in the program. And the Board was pleased to announce the agreement to terms of a new three-year Memorandum of Understanding with SEIU 1000, the State Bar’s union. The new contract goes into effect January 1, 2026. ### Follow the State Bar online LinkedIn, X, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube The State Bar of California's mission is to protect the public and includes the primary functions of licensing, regulation and discipline of attorneys; the advancement of the ethical and competent practice of law; and support of efforts for greater access to, and inclusion in, the legal system. Previous Article