Why the California Bar Exam is necessary – Even for out-of-state lawyers
There has been a lot of controversy lately surrounding California’s licensing requirements for out of state attorneys seeking admission in California. Just this month, the California Supreme Court rejected a proposal from the Committee of Bar Examiners (via the State Bar) that would have allowed out‑of‑state attorneys to be admitted on motion without taking the California bar exam. This was not the first time the Supreme Couurt made such a ruling. In fact, in 2024, the State Bar’s Blue-Ribbon Committee not only recommended a California specific exam but also recommended reciprocity via admission on motion for out of state attorneys. The court then, and again now, flatly rejected reciprocity.
The California Business and Professions Code requires that all applicants, regardless of where they were previously licensed, must pass the general bar examination unless a statutory exception applies. The California Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that it does not have the authority to bypass these legal mandates through administrative rules or judicial discretion.
Allowing attorneys to be admitted to practice in California without taking the state’s bar examination would significantly erode the integrity, equity, and public trust that underpin the legal system. The California bar exam, as flawed as many claim it is, serves as a uniform, objective standard by which all aspiring lawyers, regardless of where they attended law school or practiced previously, demonstrate some level of competence.
Creating a pathway for out-of-state attorneys to be admitted on motion without examination would undermine the principle of fairness that the current licensing system is built on. Every year, thousands of in-state graduates and attorneys from other jurisdictions invest substantial time and resources to study for and pass the California bar exam. Permitting a subset of lawyers to bypass this process results in an unequal system, suggesting that professional standards may be waived based on geography or prior licensure. It is not that California does recognize out of state attorneys. If an out of state attorneys is in active practice in another US jurisdiction for more than four years, they can bypass the multiple-choice section of the California bar and opt for the one-day attorney’s exam. It stands to reason that the exemption from the multiple-choice section (which does not test California law) is a test of minimal competence. THE MULTIPLE-CHOICE SECTION TESTS MINIMAL LEVELS OF COMPETENCE AND THEREFORE IT CAN BE SSUMED THAT LAWYERS INOTHER STATES HAVE MET THAT THRESHOLD BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THEY THAY HAVE ALREADY PASSED THAT UNIFORM EXAM.)
This kind of disparity could also harm clients and the courts. Without consistent vetting through the bar exam, there is increased risk of inconsistent legal representation, gaps in understanding of California-specific procedures, and ultimately, reduced public confidence in the legal system. The California Supreme Court has recognized these concerns and reaffirmed that any shift toward admission on motion requires legislative change, not a judicial accommodation.
In short, the bar exam is not a bureaucratic hurdle, it is a critical safeguard. Any move to waive it, even for experienced out-of-state attorneys, must be weighed against the risk of weakening professional accountability, public trust, and the equitable treatment of all who seek to practice law in California.
If you have any questions or need assistance with your bar exam preparation, please don’t hesitate to contact us.
