Hearing of the Assembly Judiciary Committee on the Fall 1983 State Bar Examination

Transcription

1 Golden Gate Univerity School of Law GGU Law Digital Common California Aembly California Document Hearing of the Aembly Judiciary Committee on the Fall 1983 State Bar Examination Aembly Committee on Judiciary Follow thi and additional work at: Part of the Legal Profeion Common, and the Legilation Common Recommended Citation Aembly Committee on Judiciary, "Hearing of the Aembly Judiciary Committee on the Fall 1983 State Bar Examination" (1984). California Aembly. Paper Thi Hearing i brought you for free and open acce by the California Document at GGU Law Digital Common. It ha been accepted for incluion in California Aembly by an authorized adminitrar of GGU Law Digital Common. For more information, pleae contact jficher@ggu.edu.

2

3 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARING OF THE ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON THE FALL 1983 STATE BAR EXAMINATION (Informational Preentation) Hearing on May 21, 1984 Room 126 State Capil Sacramen, California Aembly Member: Elihu M. Harri, Chairman Lloyd Connelly, Vice Chairman Charle Calderon Goggin Ro Johnon Pat Johnn 11 Lancater iter McAliter onnier Jean Moorhead Robinon Stirling Water A LIBRARY GATE UN R. Lopez, Chief Counel LeBov, Counel Young, Counel Harri, Counel

4 VICE CHAIRMAN l'' CHARLES CALDERON TERRY GOGGIN ROSS JoHNSON PATR!O< JoHNSTON BILL LANCASTER AUSTER MCAuSTER SUNNY MOJONNIER JEAN MOORHEAD RICHARD ROBINSON LARRY STIRUNG MAXINE WATERS CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE Aembly <!rnmmittte nn 4hrl'Jictaru ELIHU M. HARRIS CHAIRMAN May 2, 1984 STATE CAPITOL SACRAMENTO. CAIJFORNIA TELEPHONE: 1916l STAFF RUBIN R. LOPEZ CHIEF COUNSEL LETTIE YOUNG COUNSEL RAYLEBOV COUNSEL MYRTIS BROWN COMMITTEE SECRETARY Mr. J. David Ellwanger Chief Executive Officer State Bar of California 555 Franklin Street San Francico, California Dear Mr. Ellwanger: It ha come my attention that the Spring 1983 California Bar Examination i embroiled in controvery. Some have alleged that the paing grade for that examination wa effectively raied from 70% what amounted 71.1%. Further, it ha been alleged that the Committee of Bar Examiner, of the State Bar, made the deciion raie the paing grade after it determined that o many peron had cored better than expected on the performance component of the examination. Therefore, the Judiciary Committee of the California Aembly will conduct a hearing on May 21, 1984, at 4 p.m. in Room 126 of the State Capil for the purpoe of invetigating the proce urrounding the grading of the Spring 1983 bar examination. The Judiciary Committee requet your participation a a witne during that hearing. Within the next week, under eparate cover, you will receive a lit of pecific quetion upon which you hould focu your tetimony. Pleae contact Mark T. Harri, of my taff, for further information and for confirmation of your participation. Hopefully, with your aitance, the fact regarding the proce ued for grading the Spring 1983 examination will come light. EMH:fb 0 Sincerely, ~,.~~~~-- -- ELIHU M. HARRIS

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Witnee Page No. Terry Flannigan Legilative Repreentative State Bar of California Herb Roenthal General Counel State Bar of California 1 2 Diane Yu Vice-Chair Committee of Bar Examiner State Bar of California Jane Peteron Smith Direcr of Examination Committee of Bar Examiner State Bar of California Stephen Klein Conultant Committee of Bar Examiner State Bar of California Tom Davi Chair, Legilative Committee Board of Governor State Bar of California David White Atrney Santiago Minguela Candidate for Admiion the State Bar of California, July 1983 Stan Napart Candidate for Admiion the State Bar of California, July 1983 Peter Cohn NAACP Wet Coat Regional Counel

6 ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY announce c f come at iue re u, 1983 Bar exam, ue who or who did exam. ue t are current ; I not only that, but Bar exam I and I've a come ome a alo anwer Bar and the

7

8 in't o o a the Committee may i re and the and that regard apect of the the California rect over are nature of a Bar fact, at leat out for re bai, l

9 petition the Supreme Court and diagree with examination, and and, exercie, an overight, becaue the re the matter are Court. By the Court that keep omeone out of certify omeone 1 the Committee admiion, either ha failed the Bar Examination, or becaue i not the moral that the Committee the Court. ect court review. All determination are ASSEMBLYMAN CHARLES CALDERON: Excue me, o the Court admit practice, any individual which 1.-U'HU!L.Lttee? Bar Examiner State Bar ha not MR. ROSENTHAL: That' correct If it o chooe do ASSEMBLYMAN CALDERON: To, ha ever ROSENTHAL: Ye, it' moral area. It fact I cannot think of a recent IS area. ASSEMBLYMAN CALDERON: - 4 -

10 HARRIS Let me a t of 1, Bar I Let me, Mr. Supreme Court, function that the Committee Court. Doen t State Bar the of? MR of Bar Examiner are CHAIRMAN HARRIS: But i no quetion that the State Bar litie, i correct. I want ure State Bar Now, doe State Bar? I'm I over Court between than State Bar jut appoint, receive report, or not, in fact, they are i tandard of review?

11 MR. ROSENTHAL: The an on an, a a i I now i three, and of what Board' variou back mot recent area, I've re IS I not in the ene in, what 11 term I

12 ene. The Committee come in overight a well with the Board when the Committee propoe rule; the rule regulating admiion practice. By law, the Committee ha the power promulgate, that i, formulate, be precie, but only the Board can approve. So any kind of change that the Committee want with regard a rule change, they have go through the Board and jutify it. That tart with the Board Policy Committee, normally the Board Committee on Lawyer' Service and then the full Board. Alo, if the Committee ha an idea for a Supreme Court rule, it' only the Board that can propoe thoe rule the Supreme Court. So accordingly, they mut bring it through the Board, the Board ha pa on it, and make it recommendation the Supreme Court. One other area, which i extremely important, i the budget proce. All of the activitie the Committee in advance have be propoed and pelled out for the Board' Committee on Finance and Operation, and then that recommendation of the Finance Operation Committee goe the Board for ultimate approval that are That goe alo for the fee the Board can ign off on the fee for CHAIRMAN HARRIS: So then Board ultimately i reponible for operation of the Committee of Bar Examiner? MR. ROSENTHAL: For the operation, overall operation. But not for pecific act, which are of a judicial nature which court, lf, overight

13 CHAIRMAN the MR CHAIRMAN MR. ROSENTHAL No t a trac 've CHAIRMA.~ i, MS. DIANE N. name i N Yu, I'm erving a of I think I wa MS. ome concern I A on out. i and 1

14 eleven are member of minority group active in thoe concern. Hipanic, Aian and Black, we alo have five women member and it doe have a fairly broad repreentation in term of age. So it' probably one of the mot integrated and mot divere Committee in the State Bar. One of the reaon that we're here, a I undertand, i that there i ome concern about the way the lat Bar exam, well actually it wa the July, 1983, which we call the Fall Bar exam, wa graded. That exam wa unique in the United State, becaue it had three component. The multi-tate Bar exam, which many of you are familiar with, i the objective quetion-type tet, which i adminitered throughout the United State in many juridiction; ix eay quetion, which many of you alo know are familiar a ort of the tandard law eay, and a performance tet, which wa the new element and had two, three and one-half hour component. The performance tet wa omething that the Committee of Bar Examiner devied in repone ome contructive criticim about the fact that the Bar exam, perhap, could ue ome improvement, in term of trying tet, not jut memory work and ability analyze legal fact, which i important, but alo an applicant' projected ability practice law. And through the performance tet, we hope and hoped then alo, be able tet for certain type of kill, lawyering kill, that could not be teted on a multiple choice format, uch a the multi-tate Bar, or in a hort one-hour eay format, uch a the traditional - 9 -

15 eay. So we are a tet, a more well-rounded tet, that tet, wa one of the concern we had ome giving had attempted control ome way, -rate. I can tell you without any ' not true. Committee made it determination about particular tet in March of 1983, four been any attempt on tet wa never ha member try control in any way or ele, the pa-rate wa. So that iion wa made well in advance. ASSEMBLYMAN CALDERON: But in't a that your Fall paage rate, a well a do you call the other exam, I forgot, MS. YU:.. Becaue re come out in the Fall. ASSEMBLYMAN CALDERON: Now, in't it true that they have pretty much 11 a? MS. YU: Actually, ' not true It' gone all up and down. The Bar actually a 49 pa-rate, but you hould American Bar A Their pa-rate pretty and that wa a 1.5%, for tance, wa 70. from the from.. the ' firt-time taker. -rate i uually 1 wa 49, year. The year I ok it, it wa 55%, I mean i no from our

16 point at all a what it i. We have no idea how people are going do. And we don't have any projection in advance that we would like them do certain CHAIRMAN HARRIS: Let me ak a preamble quetion. What, in fact, make up the Bar exam. What are the determining facr in the tructure, in it content, and what, in fact, it' teting for. What make up thoe determination? MS. YU: When you ay what i thi tet, are you talking about what kill or what i on the tet? Subject area? CHAIRMAN HARRIS: What make the Bar exam what it i? Why i it what it i, and what i it deigned do? M. Yu: Actually, I'd like have Jane Smith anwer that. She' Direcr of Examination. MS. JANE SMITH: Thank you, Diane. A Direcr for examination for the Committee, I'm reponible for implementing Committee policy and developing and grading. A a matter of policy, the Committee ha determined that there are 11 ubject area which comprie minimal competency and we have a three-day examination coniting of three part deigned tet different kill that make up minimal competency practice law. The multi-tate examination i a 200-item objective tet that i given nationally. It tet applicant' abilitie analyze pecific ituation and apply principle of law. It cover ix ubject area. The eay examination conit of ix one-hour quetion. The eay examination alo tet analytical kill and it require applicant apply law fact, but it alo tet their writing ability

17 tet thee kill. The lity iple of, but applicant are not on They are the fact and law be the choice portion and the written are aked write both, future performance tet are a negotiation So of practical kill, uch are the three component our exi CHAIRMAN HARRIS competency or MS. SMITH Bar. I? examination for purpoe of term of ability contitutional igni, uch a are be fairly facry moral character. CHAIRMAN are we are looking for. You're aying that the Bar exam i now manipulated ome 1 1, term of the number of peop year? MS. SMITH No no A matter of fact, I'll be quite frank with of reaon I wa ted in erving on the Committee wa particularly in I the ome concern in that area, CHAIRMAN We 1 even ' not a de jure or, in fact, an, doe,in,the nature of the proce work analyi? Doe not, in fact,

18 the nature of, of at the exam and making a core hould be, i.e., in the Fall, wa3 exam, e anyway. In't that the practical cone of thoe of manipulation of number? MS. SMITH: Not real What we did lat year wa decide if you cored 1260 point or more out of the theoretical maximum number of 1800, then you would pa and we tently throughout; we never changed that, never tampered with it and never manipulated it. We et that be the tet wa given and it'; (inaudible) o there wan't going on a the tet. that right? CHAiru1AN HARRIS: But, didn't work out that way, i MS. SMITH: No, did work out that the 1260 wa the f. CHAIRMAN HARRIS: Okay, wa the precie number of ible that examination? MS. SMITH: number of point wa mean, we're CHAIRMAN HARRIS: wa the actual? I we're talking about the rea of And o I don't need talk about theory. MS. YU: Steve i tatitician, here. MR KLEIN: actual core range wa

19 773 at CHAIRMAN HARRIS: 't you me. MS. YU Steve, right. CHAIRMAN HARRIS: I want be ure ASSEMBLYMAN CALDERON 1, we the iue I jut want ome more generally Bar exam, me one of.. I never I ASSE~1BLYMAN Now I why I e MS. ASSEMBLYM&~ I LSAT Bar a 0 are

20 MS. YU: True. ASSEMBLYMAN CALDERON: l ion being that ome a te for real world, baed on I aume are tied in ome way conumer protection concept. So, what do you believe, given, I aume that i really what Bar exam all, correct me if I'm.. conumer MS. YU: 'our... ASSEMBI,YMAN CALDERON: minimum competency level are you te achieving your term of ure are you are actually conumer out there, and doe the Bar exam achieve that purpoe?.l<1s. YU: Okay. ' a valid quetion. Well, in making any i the ttee i alway faced with or We cannot alway be ure we are r ; we the deciion we make are at or, or all of f l In exam, we re with an ome 3,00 The throughout enormou at every a term, the grading aked, the length of t anwer ect matter. We now a tet we 1 allow for an

21 e we i and ana, and alo tet, u ome 1 or a So 00, one

22 Bar, exam, a legal and o on. an We ran after the for two did examination nee, graded their, and a core. There wa a very on tet, or et of tet, performing actual core on the Bar examination. Mot i we an were the any way. Bar, or, a or j o on. independently wa project 1 and wa Bar et the a we've a i I'm root a conumer out not? I S

23 real que 1 can re ene i cannot a tet, we 't i be. o on ignificance have a complete which i, a ha al f a out or ifting through 13,000 MR. KLEIN: I re exam meaure, are not all the ll are nece and ficient be a good meaure ome ll are con, a an Nobody i exam meaure al are nece, nor are are out rea r.. ASSEMBLYMAN MR. KLEIN at AS SEJI-1BL YMAN Bar? MR. KLEIN: Ye. MS. YU: true o, i we can t tet can - 1

24 CHAIRMAN HARRIS: Well, why don't you, in fact, licene people for trial practice, a oppoed imply, I mean why don't look at ter veru the kind of an MS YU: A I undertand it, that ha been propoed other juridiction beide our, and the tradition of law that ha developed in the country really would have undergo a or before we could do that. CHAIRMAN HARRIS: There have been a lot of people talking about people who are licened practice, but are incompetent in court. MS. YU: That' true. And fortunately, for thoe people, they can often find good law practice where they don't have go in court, but they can be effective a contracr. CHAIRMAN HARRIS: But, unfortunately, you alo licene thoe people, and they are going repreent people in court who have eriou right in jeopardy. MS. YU: You're right: I ee ome of them court ASSEMBLYMAN CALDERON: But, that' the whole MS. YU: It' not a perfect ytem, I'll admit ASSEMBLYMAN CALDERON: But that' the point I'm making. The point I'm making i that we are omehow elevating thi whole notion of a Bar exam ome exalted poition, when in, we may be attempting tet for omething that i non-te And o quetion i, "houldn't there be ome other proce" for intance, and I'm only throwing thi out for an examp

25 , real e a i I 0 1

26 ~~~~-D~A~V_I~S~: HARRIS: I wa going I undertand ut are over a plane leave. I know you know what doe, doe fact, doing any kind of an determination a or not, in fact, or not, in fact, there are, the bar exam? Obviou of their ucce or failure State Bar and I'm jut, the Board of Governor Bar ~uuuti4ttee of Bar Examiner. DAVIS: I think what you've been, in fact, with a I could, anwer HARRIS: So, then, f time pent a it re Committee of Bar or and, in fact, how, They work u over a thing they're do a I would have leave HARRIS: Do you do any, a report? Do you

27 imp liten, or do do anything, in, demontrate ome or of their function? them 1 Californ applicant, and you hould know that many tudent, or many applicant, it o not any other tate becaue they what many tate do i they cloe before they tart law chool tudy and, ort of. u~.x,vc~s: not be more appropriate? Have? CHAIRMAN HARRIS: Let me interrupt. I want you Our i not lower your tandard. Our, ay that there ought be more Bar. Our i, a, ure i conitency, make ure that the Bar exam term of i, in fact, equitable in 1, and real concern with the Bar exam

28 f, but you're u concern me, are changed and I'm not exam ene thi time when ure they have any MS. YU: Well, next pic I wa going which i one method by wa ome ing, fairne. or 1977, a No matter how 1987 will compenate one tet one year wa more a t doen't matter of you could tet we ' State Bar 't been include on the te

29 race can over, can i ea ame i 1 're or ra a on any one ana Jut we ame 1

30 t ective quetion tet we of tate CHAIRMAN HARRIS: MS. YU: Becaue for the ame uniform di e objective tet, CHAIRMAN HARRIS: MS. YU: CHAIRMAN HARRIS: MS. YU: CHAIRMAN HARRIS MS YU j t for the wa a new tet. We what ha been a

31 a Well, wa HARRIS: No, tet t on tet Ye Both ea t? fact, are i te a

32 a CHAIRMAN HARRIS: f MR. KLEIN: Well, 80 It e tet, 0 f CHAIRMAN MS

33 Bar So that core one tet t ue 4 of next corre meaurement. It' of t core not we wa It wa a real ue We never we

34 One of we'd make that we eliminated on the Multi-tate Bar and on the performance tet, a a I undertand, all on have the Committee Bar Examiner and a reconideration of their grade would not have paed the exam anyway. In fact, generally, i an advantage applicant becaue the Multi-tate over the lat number the mot, the eaiet year ha turned out tet pa, and caling alway tend cale core On thi tet, becaue wa a unique had the effect -- well, we couldn't predict what e wa. When we made the deciion in 1 we did not know whether it wa going help people, wa no a at all, or whether it wa going harm certainly, of anyone. CHAIRMAN HARRIS: So your We wa had no intention,.. i the eal wa, in fact, a whether or not, if will, for applicant in term of were pa Bar exam? I that what you're aying? MR. KLEIN: No. It wa wind and the rain that Diane we the controlling 't know what the weather condition were going on that tet. CHAIRMAN HARRIS: What Yu jut aid wa that the individual who are now that o-called purgary, they're not in hell at thi point. anyway. MS. YU: They wouldn't have pa without caling - 29

35 wa,? I net 0 e o no caling one f you that core.

36 ASSEMBLYMAN CALDERON:. in individual cae, the actual effect wa hurt thoe people. MR. KLEIN: Not true. No. The net effect for every ingle applicant of the caling wa increae everybody' core. There wa no one if we had, for example, throughout all the caling tally and aid, "All right. Your core on the Multi-tate Bar Examination i the number of quetion you anwered correct divided by 200, your core on the multiple choice portion of the performance tet wa the number of quetion that you anwered correctly divided by the number of quetion that were aked. If you ued that procedure determine a peron' core, which i throw out all the caling, then what would happen i everybody' core would go down. Everyone. CHAIRMAN HARRIS: Let me ak a quetion now. Let me ak a very pragmatic and kind of concluionary quetion. What you're aying, then, i that the paage of rate on that pring 1983 examination wa not actually raied above 70 percent. I that what you're aying? You did not change the rule of the game; that, in fact, a 70 percent paage rate wa, in fact, maintained by the procedure that you, in fact, applied that examination. I that correct? MR. KLEIN: That' not correct. The term "70 percent" doen't mean anything actually in thi context. What we're talking about i 70 percent of the theoretical poible core CHAIRMAN HARRIS: Wait. No, no, wait a minute. Let me back up, then. Either it doe or it doen't. If 70 percent i

37 mean I 7 that I read, i the rate MR. KLEIN CHAIRMAN MR CHAIRMAN MS. YU f 1800, core f core wa ued. wa...? i f 1800 wa not the core wa 70 wa. MR. 0 core wa ued wan't ible, then how cou you MR. Let' look at If the e 73 MR., you ue T if you be around 1282, So if you ue , you take ' where the / 1 're up 't it in there, " make any ene e

38 CHAIRMAN HARRIS: 1, it eem me, I read about 70 percent wa the pa core. eem me t f of language, but it eemed me c were changed in the middle of the MR. KLEIN: ly, what the rule aid wa t of 800 the rule aid wa wa 260 (7 ) and the 70 percent wa 180 ome Fal CHAIRMAN HARRIS: All right. It ay under the, i thi document in? I gue i Thi i a letter a '83, General Bar Examination, General Atrney, j the date. I gue the announcement, grading portion that, i 11 be ued Ju core " o on and o paing core i 70 0 YU: CHAIRMAN HARRIS: Right? l-is 800. MR i 1800, I CHAIR1 1AN HARRIS: Yeah, but it o doe not 773 i You put in i

39 70 8 0, but f ' not tal core, core Do you want me one? Yea! know when I, I out I 70 of, wa 70 of MR. KLEIN: 3 6. I be 260. core, we tate Bar

40 didn't anwer a ingle quetion performance tet and didn't anwer a tern on tet of 1 at, how you get that 137, point on the Multi-tate and about 54 tet but you can, 're not anwering a ingle that core you get that do i it take 27 point off range from zero 1800 an That' why taking 70 percent of more an iue and it really doen't a ort of meaning. It' like trying take 70 temperature i 50 degree. Twice a warm a 25 not really becaue it could get colder than zero So problem term "70 percent" in context aid 70 percent / i 26 i a 32 2 thing that' i not o context. carried over, but that' It MS. YU: And we did not change 1260, a Jane alway... MS. SMITH: I think '11 a 1 were ent applicant, beginning change December, 1982, at time, were core on all three

41 be combined, and that the paing core would be were ld in June 1983 that the multiple choice f tet were be ea the ld would Phae I, Phae JI. They were again ld that the core on the exam would be a combined tal of t ame wa ent out with admittance ticket, again aying t would be caled and that the core red o 260. CHAIRMAN HARRIS: 'l'hey were alo ld the tal po le woul MS. SMITH: That' correct. At the time we'rp ing a ical maximum point of 1800; 600 on each part 0 CX<'lm. CHAIR1JJAN HARRIS: But it doen't ay that, in that MS. SMITH: It doe that 600 point.. CHAIRMAN HARRIS: Excue me. Excue me. I'm or y for t I'm do that. So I'm not apo i ng you I'm go do it. The 1800, f i a but it n't that it i a t~ 1 r t correct? SMITH: Well I don't know that the word ical wa ued thoe lication. You're r, r., I you'll f that there i a, there i a of ion aying what 1 that portion of the tet would be. So t

42 if you've 600 point allocated of the exam, then you're looking at a tal maximum of CHAIRMAN HARRIS: It' not all we have, 1 Go MS$ SMITH: I'd be happy ee one n't pecify That wou urprie me. MARK HARRIS: Excue me, M. I I think your tatement wa that there' no document Bar where they not have the parenthetical, t' the iue that the Chairman' reponding. We've 15, 1982 document from, I believe, the Committee of Bar Examiner, igned by lf, which et out very c tal poible core on the examination will be 1800, 600 point eay, 600 point t-'ibe and 600 point performance tet. Then it et out the paing core will be 1260, 70 The only on one, two, 1 the IS i 70 At no time wa 180 e At no wa " or Throughout of I we a et of 1800 with no diminution that po tal anywhere that MS. SMITH: Do I undertand you correctly that it doe ay core will 1260? MR HARRIS: pa core , 70 percent. Correct. CHAIRMAN HARRIS: Let me me I want bring a becaue I you've do and,

43 1 i not the end of thi. So let me ak ome Let me firt go through ome quetion. And you, anwer thee a appropriate. 1 Now. of the tal 260 actually repreent? Okay? That repreent? KLEIN: 70 percent of the CHAIRMAN HARRIS: But what percentage of ent? KLEIN: That' 70 percent of the theoretical core 0 CHAIRMAN HARRIS: But of the actual poib, what? KLEIN: There' no way of anwering that a core range at the botm of 137 a HARRIS: 137 a traw man. Who, I mean botm. 1, it' not a, ' not a... a a traw man people who are are ome people who, indeed, did a lot of people would fail. ' It' not a traw man if you jut '4= we f l... IS no 0 of omebody who ha 138, the 137 off of the peron at core, that peron' going fail. So it' not a a 1 'caue you, thoe 137 point are all

44 CHAIRMAN HARRIS: All right. Now I'm jut quetioning. Do you have any figure a how many people were adverely ion ue caling? wa no one wa the the multiple choice portion of the exam. HARRIS: Okay. How many people cored between, over 70 percent, if you ued 70 percent of the lower MR. KLEIN: 70 percent of what figure? CHAIRMAN HARRIS: Of the 1773 figure. MR. KLEIN: What would ue, conider the pa/fail line there becaue I come up.. CHAIRMAN HARRIS: Who, okay--. If you ue MR KLEIN: If I take 70 percent of that core range.. CHAIRMAN HARRIS: CHAIRMAN HARRIS: Right. How many people fall in that? MS It' KLEIN: would a pa/fail 1 of 1282 and more would 1. CHAIRMAN HARRIS: No, that' not what I aked. I aid cored over 70 percent of that 1773 figure? SMITH: What you're really. It eem me CHAIRMAN HARRIS: I'm aking how many people fall in that category. I'm not aking you for any concluion a or not hould have paed the exam or not. I jut

45 a are 1 earn core i ee 're i or 1 a far a I 70 on? a, I, at

46 can out caling, and it. tre that the Committee did u of Bar We 11 read the brief, we will have an divergent view about caling, and you appropriate i called for a HARRIS: What option were ib. SMITH: Well, I can't.. ome of them I undertand, that we have een, would be, and our data would how would flunk. All the people affected, a petition u, would till flunk. at 1. But, ' one po 1 entire exam for ly, problem, we don't have a turn over unucceful entire et exam, o actually But, we will certainly explore thoe who have thee concern. And I for ome a a how if we change the grading now, it' going who were, and

47 fact, away. Of coure, a, a well. But we will look can promie or tran I'm we'll certainly make want meet with u follow-up. CHAIRMAN HARRIS: Ye. Have you o-ca led or coure, poitive at it re, or appellant, at uch a e real, doe it become moot, in that you are and, obviouly, they it become irrelevant and wait another nine or or a MS. SMITH: I S fficult becaue their come u 1 May of than act a a we be me, we are a cone CHAIRMAN HARRIS: I there any reaon the next exam? MS. SMITH: 1, we wanted give an a we CHAIRMAN HARRIS reaon next 're go ome concluion cannot?

48 MS. SMITH: It l next exam not Ju a ll Bar? MS. SMITH: I o. If timely certainly., I we ASSEMBLYMAN CALDERON the need for anyone tart gearing up for that econd.exarn. CHAIRMAN HARRIS: No, doen't. It n t. But it 1 in 1 if there' i any at t it. going open ASSEMBLYMAN CALDERON:, coure, I eem I mean, I I CHAIRMAN HARRIS: ASSEMBLYMAN CALDERON: a tatement concern, when I a Bar Bar before I Bar or ter te

49 t been, I mean, ' you then l l ene. MR. YU: wer ASSEMBLYMAN CALDERON: ronal ve Bar a on of Bar ' relevant. It may i l, my concern been the way that it' graded I'm jut curiou at, focu on how the quetion are e, br fly, uual I and how re Becaue I ome from 11 over coun irt place, p f I how you t. But i t t ti term of t t 're f MS. YU:, Jane e t o ASSEMBLYMAN How are u a? er i a. ' a econd, or I and exam two l

50 MS. SMITH: are State who report er they have come in; a a quetion they edit the que the Committee. Reappraier the 1 of i and a member of e we 9 It' for

51 exam. average Bar exam grader ha u 5 10 are correct exam on i one e grader. ASSEMBLYMAN CALDERON: ' the aumption underlying e? SMITH: want MS. YU: I jut that thoe peron who did, actual, honet with you, I not ure. I think wa I came on. It een a a cr I who did we 1 are more. ASSEMBLYMAN CALDERON: In other word, o far a you ha never or a ue of at re ASSEMBLYMAN CALDERON: So MS. YU.no, no one ha, o we can 6

52 A far a exam, lf ' on i eay exam, performance tet all their around the a po, thoe 1, have what amount a exam read a third er So, an about i 20 two or turnreader mot 2 4, ASSEMBLYMAN

53 CHAIRMAN HARRIS: Did you have ome quetion about how pent on each ASSEMBLYMAN CALDERON: Ye, do pend on intance, on each e quetion. CHAIRMAN HARRIS: I want hear thi, I've talked a they ' and I want hear how your anwer correlate me. MS. YU: 1 I 't out on a minute bai, but if we've got, let' ay we have an average reading aignment of 25 anwer and that we have an reported pend 25 anwer of about 2 and f Can omeone that out me? CHAI~~ HARRIS: I 5 one-half hour I heard 4 f ASSE~1BLYMAN CALDERON: You, I've a of me,, or a jut of more, although a, a, I'd ay more than out, I've hea 5 7 on CHAIRMAN HARRIS: up 6. out of ASSEMBLYMAN CALDERON: bal So, me, can te 1 me a I S

54 an e over of a l bain re alo a fact that they do normal i, reader me do it; are San Franc f you l experience, I'm, I am 've got 5 7 I, on each we up a a tate and, And we conumer MR. KLEIN: ' a I think i re 1 1 read econd econd ASSEMBLYMAN MR. KLEIN: f core one

55 MR. KLEIN:.. o, whatever it i that they are doing, are doing in term of their evaluation of the quality of, o if their evaluation were highly ubject chance ASSEMBLYMAN CALDERON: I undertand the point, but it doen't neceary follow that they. CHAIRMAN HARRIS: The econd reader doen't know what the firt reader graded MR. KLEIN: That' correct ASSEMBLYMAN CALDERON: But, it doen't necearily follow. CHAIRMAN HARRIS: Why i that. They don't mark it on examination? MR. Klein: We have a tab which i removed MS. YU: It' pulled off, o that the econd reader can't be influenced. The other thing you hould know i that the Committee participate in the grading proce, although we do not lly grade book. We participate in calibration eion, i early on in the grading before they really let looe actual book try make ure the people will properly and that, and we work on thi, o I have read exam eem a actua on calibration and mot of the anwer actually horter than what your average and it doe not take very long read. ASSEMBLYMAN CALDERON: Thee reader all go ame

56 YU No, me 've Bar exam? Bar.. he mean KLEIN: Se CHAIRMAN HARRIS YU: MR. KLEIN: e 've got a lot MS. MR. KLEIN of come t a norm CHAIRMAN HARRIS ASSEMBLYMAN, that' why I want not for exam, of tet 45 for i 2, 2 and a

57

58 KLEIN: Same e CHAIRMAN HARRIS: I want Let me a l ve m I Bar exam, I don't want won' ee, ee I 't t anwer. o. kind of cou ame et

59 , now, ome I we 11

60 I'd t Bar on out a 3, you rece

61 on rece t 70 3 Bar Examination. e on ome 60 each other in an han't been a conitent wa in parenthee, unucceful 1260 wa a Committee of Bar you not achieve a pa on 1 Bar So law I a tatement not or more, had on the July, 8-56

62 a a can It wa true on In 1972, tate Bar ha gone everal different tal poible point; 70 core required. When wa a ytem, o that you could pa the e one Bar exam, and tate Bar Examination each ection of the examination, you could pa ly. The paing grade on each thoe ection wa 70 percent. Even the multi-tate Bar Examination wa ea I and I'll proce a econd, that caling wa alway adjuted o that the maximum, poible point on the tate ea, wa the maximum poible announced on the examination. For example, thi, when 600 wa announced a the theoretical 600 wa 200, but no one Bar Examination,, if you had gotten 200 out The i, ome people got 30 out 30 on performance tet multiple-choice ection; they did wa, and yet they did not get the 200 point. ASSEMBLYMAN CALDERON: Counelor, uppoing the 1,000 tudent are caught in thi bind, you ay you repreent about 600 of them?

63 MR. WHITE: I ent even. Excue me. I repreent even. ASSEMBLYMAN CALDERON: Oh, even of I think it wa indicated that are approximately 1,000 individual applicant that might up. What would that puh the overall paage percentage rate of the Bar, if they were all admitted? MR. WHITE: I I it out, there would roughly be about 16 of the applicant that are ented by that 1000 figure. So, it would be raied approximately 66 or 67 percent from the 51 percent that it i now. The iue of ha come up and the Committee would you the impreion that caling i part and parcel of giving an objective tet Better known a a multiple choice tet. It' objective becaue only one anwer i cored a correct. Not becaue one anwer i, The fact t introduced on fact, correct. the multi-tate Bar Examination wa California State Bar Examination in February, No ing wa employed. It wa ued in July, No caling wa employed. February, 1973, no caling wa July, 1973, no caling wa employed. Only in February, 1974, on the fifth national adminitration of the i-tate Bar, wa caling employed. When the February, 1974 Bar Examination wa firt caled, it wan't caled the eay exam given on, 1974, and it wan't caled

64 the firt multi-tate Bar Examination ever given. It wa caled the econd multi-tate Bar Examination ever given. So, that it i not part and parcel of giving a multiple choice tet that one require caling. In fact, it wa never done on a multi-tate Bar Examination in any juridiction for the firt four examination. When it wa finally done by the Educational Teting Service, the econd multi-tate Bar Examination wa choen a the anchor. ASSEMBLYMAN CALDERON: How do you repond the repreentation of the repreentative of the State Bar, that caling only help, it doen't hurt? MR. WHITE: It help if you add point. It doen't he if you reduce point. It' clear that on the multiple choice ection of the performance tet, rather than getting 200 point, if you anwered 30 out of 30, you got 173 point for anwering 30 out of 30. ASSEMBLYMAN CALDERON: With caling? MR. WHITE: With caling. That i the point. That you lot 27 point. Thoe don't exit anymore. There ued be a poibility of 200 point before the exam wa given, after the exam wa given, it became clear that if you were perfect, and apparently the Direcr of Examination indicate ome people were perfect, 30 out of 30, that they only got 173 point. So that caling on the multi-tate Bar Examination i not the ame iue

65 a a raw i 've at

66 i want wrote ued

67 a Seal i not MBE

68 a re a MR. were one exam, re correct ue. 'm

69 jut try ruh the concluion becaue we've got eion thirty MR. WHITE: I'd jut one CHAIR ~N HARRIS: Mr. Calderon i mean when doen't omething eat, mean when he doe get omething eat. MR. WHITE: One other of the point i thi iue Docr Klein tried raie about the range of point, ' never done before. Now the fact i that the Committee i very explicit o if you try anything in any eriou attempt on eay exam, you 40 point on that e exam, but the grading ha never been 70 mean 40 and 100. The grading ha 70 percent. So thi range of point i omething that' tally new. It doen't re anything in the i Bar, doen't re anything that' in ' tatement. CHAIR ~N HARRIS: you MR SANTIAGO MINGUELA: I much.? CHAIRMAN HARRIS: jut tate your l>ir. MINGUELA name la. CHAIRMAN HARRIS: MR. MINGUELA: Mr. i I'm a I cored 1247 on Bar exam, i over t a 0 not tet ed, , I

70 CHAirutlAN e i game i? MR MINGUELA tet tet I have not t exam. the exam 6 I a were were Bar re

71 MR. STAN NAPARST: My name i Stan Napart. I'm an unucceful applicant. I wa the peron who firt raied thi iue before the L.A. Daily Journal. I'm alo a tatitician o I can read ome of the paper and undertand them. I think I real paed the Bar at 1260, but I have a bad handwriting o I concentrated in doing well on the hort anwer my detriment. I think the Bar, if they have a problem, they can't add, they don't tell truth, and they obfucate. I'd like read you a declaration by Jane Peteron Smith and a part of. CHAIRMAN HARRIS: Would you get cloe the mike. We 1 re recording thi. MR. NAPARST: I'd like read you a part of a brief in the Sewell cae. Sewell ued the Bar get ome information, and thi thing there' a tatement that there are 160. The declaration ay there are 160 people partitioning in the Bar. In brief, it' now I mean, you have a declaration under penalty of perjury, you have a brief that' filed under of perjury, and I don't know what the right number i., thoe number are taken, Sewell ok the February '83 Bar 're citing tuff in July '83 which ha nothing do deflect the iue becaue how many people, you know the iue hould be what happened in the February '83 Bar for Sewell? Then they go around and they ay, they can't add. They ay a core of 60 on the firt reading; and 75 from a high reader on reading, the average core i 70. Well, 60 and 75 an average of 67 1/2. Now, David ha covered the iue of

72 70 I'd 1, not II a 1983 Bar, come 4.6 and not 44 f out, t and t t do

73 he dicued it, he ay, "There wa no difference in fficulty between the July Bar exam 1983 and the 1 of difficulty of the preceding eight year So I'd why he did that. Then I'd like know why they 976 a the bae year of the index? You know all about the price index. following year. Well, you choe a year, and then you look Well, 1976 happen be the year when,, they had tart getting decl and rate. hould have choe a year before then, and there' a evidence, you ee, that the Bar, the Multi-tate Bar Exam getting more difficult. You ee, they're putting harder tion in, and they are making the que f So when you talk about equalizing the level of of the exam over time, that aume that there' no everything they do i right. In the November, 1983 the "Bar Examiner.. I think it wa Aroondo 1 or Jane on aid, "Thi wa the hardet MBE we've ever had, the July, 1980, and we had mot 14 at a certain level. I had how many? I 11.3 by 3 come out about 35 I added. But 're not doing you a favor by caling. The reaon i that otherwie they, they f veru State Bar Arizona of You ee, ir argument, they violating Sect Civil Right Act, cannot, ee, "You're going omething ' meaure

74 , you and and 1 re core i 're o at not ta f ame II We are we want I would of I Bar. here 70 CHAIRJIR.AN HARRIS You Mr. We can Thank you. ~1R. 1 CHAIRMAN HARRIS a I not t 1 't No I

75 error their computation and I can knmv, and I gave taff member that they jut lize 1 f of exam and do that. CHAIRMAN HARRIS. I undertand. Thank you, Mr. Napart. come forward? MR PETER COHN: Good evening Mr. irman and member I m Peter member of the Bar of California and 'm an Wetern Regional Counel for NAACP. CHAIRMAN HARRIS: you? You didn't jut MR. COHN: Pardon? CHAIRMAN HARRIS: I want ure of 83. I 't want 1 MR COHN: No. CHAIRMAN HARRIS: Okay. MR. COHN: No. It wa '77. CHAIRMAN HARRIS: You're a r UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: Wa? CHAIRMAN HARRIS I the tatute of 1 You re MR. COHN: CHAIRNAN HARRIS You're But never can tell. MR. COHN: And I 0 f d

76 State 9 o i

77 clearly ay the paing rate i 70 It paing rate i 70 a a you a group of people So that, core e a a group t So IS unquetioned were fact, after the adminitration of the exam. It wa determined how we had procedure and ok away eight point from all the and raied the paing core. The econd point would be we are concerned about the hing point in the practice area becaue a M. Yu out, the importance of the practice area wa ee a fairer bar exam. And o the of dimini we re t. And we that wa an the exam that not, we'd like for thi of racial compo more people who fell in their manipulation not We ignificant import with re protection there, and o I that normally the Committee, and I obtain that

78 ' I i But in 't their four vote o ever reviewed the that that Additionally, I tatement, and i Our re tate ut tate ent

79 only i Court. If Bar HARRIS: 1 and your que, we 1, we'd 1 ee appropriate tion were previou e, I Mr. cla of wa o-cal c. SMITH: I don't 1 i HARRIS: Can 4

80 MR. SMITH: aked. CHAIRMAN HARRIS SMITH: It I'm going ak each one ome note and thinking ome re thoe. MS YU: Why don't we i, they were rai rt Mr MR. KLEIN: Your que i MS. YU: Which part. MR. KLEIN: Okay. MS. YU: Okay., a I concern would be the performance tet thi wa a MR. KLEIN: Right. A of caling. There wa one Bar Examination; ' part wa the on i: What i the e? We cannot ue ame of the tet. It' j cannot repeat quetion performance tet becaue one 1 I, dealt with one cae whole three and a So problem. d You j - 75 ~

81 que tet Mr i o ea No iue. He a, Mr. quoting me, " a " That i abo true. i a difficulty of a tet where tally out core fact, if been c 1 11 'm ut Mr. i wa 6

82 procedure 0 one a CHAIRMAN HARRIS: We MR. KLEIN: ignored caling on part of the tet, and F ' core after would

83 tet out wa So I exam. 11 HARRIS: 7 't

84 MS. YU One ment do with the, I wa. MR MR. FLANNIGAN: e that the only exam \va I wa te MS YU: of ttee of Bar matter,, alo March of 1983, 1 Committee that we State Bar. MS. SMITH: I i note that we ea tet MBE wa omeone a more wa me, te MS. YU:, were two I Mr. 1 of I wa a '83 9 -

85 recon I We 1 e 1 or a well one and ASSEMBLY11AN CALDERON I 't 't aume of, I 't k wa MS 1, we we ee not cut one, or We a f Bar mean So

86 ASSEMBLYMAN CALDERON: There are obviou complication, I think, that a cae i being made,, I need find out more about the, the and impact on how they approach the Bar exam. And what, I don't blame them. I don't think any of u who paed the Bar approached any differently. Becaue become important i pa the tet, not a not how our kill, what we've learned, but tet. And o thoe repreentation that are being made have an on the approach the tet, and the fact that we re on, a I did, and I'm ure all of u did, on recommendation from exam coure preparer, for lack of a better term, I wa on, probably wa wiely relied on, I uppoe, kind of thing that you do when you're trying it real bring in quetion, the validity of exam, I have alway quetioned. Perhap I'n1 a our, 1 term my CHAIRMAN HARRIS: Let me ome Firt of all, I would like 11, o we can, fact, undertand what' whole thing trace down. Secondly, I am very intereted ome ect of chool, and admiion practice, I think, looked at, and I would like a State Bar,

87 't that, I'll ome way But I think ' the appropriate place a Bar e, am concerned, example, l Bar, a oppoed law l the broad ene. Some Bar a or a conideration are are core on the Bar exam. Now how we they are going chool, or not, Bar I'm I d at on, a term of or not are j a i or are f a

88 or i cant? Are we i I'm 1l a or not 1 State Thoe are ome of have, I kind of I wou 1, becaue we 11 a Bar Fall look at re ate e Court and t j Bar We're a It lo ome at court e o

89 1 hearing on thee matter and, in fact, do get due. I'm not ure that they are currently getting that a of current and the current procee that are, I are ome ASSEMBLY~~N CALDERON: Mr. Chairman, I would add, probably at leat a dicuion of the apprenticehip and whether or not that really ha any impact on the Bar, cuion of the accredited and non-accredited o-cal and non-accredited chool, I don't know exactly what a l mean, but anyway, and what impact it ha that we eem a larger number than other tate, and alo, i the we practice in thi tate any different than the law that they practice in Colorado, or Wyoming, or any other tate, a much higher paage rate on their Bar, and admittedly, not a fficult a Bar exam a in California? And in examination, we have have one of the ughet Bar exam in the? Are the o-called conumer in other tate with a Bar fficulty, any le important? I mean, i jut a policy deciion? CHAIRMAN HARRIS: One final thing. I'm real a, in looking at the quetion of whether or not, current Bar Examination i, in fact, going be, whether or not, in fact, there' going be term of that examination and that

90 A a final note, though, I would really ak---thi i, I gue, directed imply you, that I think the Committee of Bar Examiner really owe thi cla of applicant a very peedy deciion in thi area, becaue I really think that they need have---and I have a feeling that I know how that deci i going come down. I don't think there' much doubt about it and I really think if my concluion are correct, that they really ought be given an opportunity purue thi in court a quickly a poible. But I think the Committee of Bar Examiner i by neceity going be defenive in thi matter, and I think that they are probably going conclude that, in fact, they did follow the correct procedure and if that' the cae, then I don't think they need procratinate in that deciion. They need go ahead and render a deciion and let people purue their remedie in court. I think that, currently, people have a placebo, certainly I don't think they have a real right and one of the thing I would like ee the Legilature do i make ure that people who, in fact, take the Bar Examination are given due proce, I mean if they tudied law, one of the thing that we keep drilling in their head, i everyone hould be guaranteed due proce and equal protection under the law. I'm not ure that all law chool graduate who, in fact, take the California Bar Examination are receiving that. All right, i there any other concluion, any other quetion, any other tatement? Anything that you would like add in concluion?

91 MR. FLANNIGAN: Mr. Chairman, all I can ay i, a you mentioned, I think we both brought up many quetion day. Thoe that we have not anwered or addreed from the previou witnee in reviewing the trancript, we hope bring out anwer thoe at the hearing coming up on the 23rd. CHAIRMAN HARRIS: Thank you. I'd jut like ay; firt, I want thank all of you for taking thi time. I know it' arduou and I know there are many, many other thing you could be doing, including preparing for the next trial by ordeal, but I do undertand the difficulty of the tak in examining people. And certainly a a former examinee, I do know that that i a difficult tak and I don't want you think that we don't appreciate the difficulty involved, but I alo want you undertand that we think it' very, very important. And we want make ure that we are all atified that both the proce and the examination itelf, i ultimately fair and, in fact, i going reult in not only the highet tandard for Californian or anyone ele who, in fact, would like practice law in thi tate, but that, in fact, that we may perhap continue erve a a ort of an example for the ret of the country, rather than the other way around. But we really want continue give thi crutiny, we certainly wih your input, any advice, any recommendation you may have, including legilation, or in fact, if there are thing that you may be recommending in change and procedure that we ought be aware of, we gratefully receive all of thoe recommendation and any advice that you may care hare with u. So, thank you all very much for your time

92 MS. YU: Thank you very much for your interet. CHAIRMAN HARRIS: Thi conclude our hearing

93