California Assemblymember Mark Stone, Chair of the Judiciary Committee, took the podium on Wednesday to advocate for HR 103, the resolution imploring the California Supreme Court to reconsider its bizarre decision side-stepping the petitions before it to close off any retroactive application of the new cut score.
Stone outlines the longstanding diversity issues with the California bar and the access to justice problem that an influx of highly talented attorneys — they would still have to have an absurdly high 1390 to be admitted under this plan — could address. But most persuasively he sits on the argument that the California bar already accepts five-year-old scores as fully valid and indicative of the applicant’s bar exam acumen, rendering it silly to deny entry to scores within that period that meet the new score.
Kevin Baker of the ACLU of California testified to the lack of diversity in the legal profession and the value of applying the new cut score retroactively. Improving diversity is, of course, one of the biggest advantages of opening up California’s bar exam threshold. Contrary to some of the dumber commentary out there, this isn’t “racist” or assuming that minority candidates score lower as much as recognizing that in any pool, minority representation will go up by absolute numbers if more people are accepted.
Cooley LLP’s John Crittenden, also an adjunct professor at UCLA School of Law, testified to the brain drain of the state’s old cut score detailing how one of his best students bolted to D.C. after failing the California bar and how his own son relocated to Oregon rather than deal with California’s protectionism. It’s just one more vector of evidence against the value of the bar exam — if attorneys go to other jurisdictions with lower scores and continue to excel at being lawyers then the bar exam has not only done nothing to protect the public, it’s actually done more to harm by depriving the public of talented advocates.
Evan Miller, a 2019 graduate, speaks for a lot of the California legal community when he says, “It almost feels unreal that a member of our state’s legislature is being so responsive to our problem” Still, he was a little concerned about the committee:
It was concerning to hear certain members of the committee making comments that showed they did not do their research on this issue. Especially when one member conflated it with the issue of reciprocity which is completely irrelevant. Although the majority of the committee that supported the resolution clearly knew what they were talking about.
Welcome to politics!
After the state supreme court’s order though, those ill-informed legislators are actually closer to the mark than the judges. So… count it as a win?
The video is available here and the discussion of HR 103 begins at 2:29:34.
Earlier: California Bill Recommends Lowering Cut Score Retroactive To 2015
California Supreme Court Refuses To Apply New Cut Score Retroactively
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.