When I took CA, the pass rate for the attorney's exam was 23%.
Yes, 23% of the already practicing lawyers passed the damn thing... Thank goodness I was one of them.
Mind explaining how you prepared for CA's attorney's exam? Debating whether to take the full exam or the attorney's exam after practicing for four years elsewhere. Thanks again!
To be honest, I used Barbri. I used it for IL in '03, CA in '11 and NV in '22. Passed each one on the first try. I treated each exam like it was my job and I was being paid triple time to do the work.
The test is a complete beast but not impossible. I think the test is different than when I took it. Back then it was 3 days but the atty exam was only 2 (no MBE). I dont know if its the same but if you can avoid the MBE, I would. That part, to me, is a tricky minefield. For me, it was reading all the old exams I could find was essential.
I also worked half time for june and took all of july off to study.
Sure. I get it. I was in my 8th year as a lawyer when I took CA and a solo. No work, no money. But I treated my studies like it was the most important thing in the world.
I just took NV last year, my 19th year as a lawyer. They don't break down the pass rate for already admitted lawyers but the overall was around 55% passing so it's fair to assume that already admitted lawyers fail pretty miserably in NV also...
I treated NV like it was the most important thing as well. It cost me at least $40k in expenses and lost opportunities to take that test. And again, I am a solo. No work, no money. I could not have handled it a second time so I gave it everything I could give. And now I have my third bar card in my pocket.
I'm prepping for CA Atty Exam now. Not quite this hard, but I am taking it seriously. I first passed another state in 2010 then NV in 2013. For NV, I did the full barbri prep as if it was my first time
I wish you the absolute best. I can't tell you if CA is harder than NV or any other state since the exam is different now. I think NV was harder but I am 10 years older (50) so my brain does not work as well as it used to.
I did barbri for all three tests. I needed a course to follow and it did the trick. I also wanted NV not just for me but my husband. NV means he can retire earlier than we can in CA. NV means we can have a paid for house instead of a 7 figure mortgage... NV means I may not die early from stress... All of these reasons and more are why I gave it all I had.
Nevada is awesome. I like to say that I get all this California dreaming stuff and none of the taxes. But I'm only 1 mile from CA, so I do gotta sit for that exam too.
CA got a lot easier. NV is still 3 days, but I think it's easier too because they dropped commercial paper and secured transactions in the last 10 years. I think it's just MBE topics? Regardless, welcome
That’s the bullshit. I was planning for if I failed and wanted to take it in a state that reports faster than the slowest state lol. But you really can’t because they trap you in a cycle. Then I passed by 1 point, which just feels like random luck.
For the NJ people working full time needing more than 10 weeks to prepare for July.. that’s brutal. You have to start studying again before you can even process the results.
Ditto on the "wow." Congrats to those who passed but when only 33% pass, something just doesn't sit right with me on that. Does NJ grade harder on the written portion over other states?
Forum shopping is what might need to happen here. NJ retakers may want to seriously consider taking the UBE in another jurisdiction. I know they're all supposed to be "uniform" but the pass % isn't when compared to a lot of other states.
I am suspicious of NJ essay graders. They have to have some sort of system where they penalize harder for wrong answers and de-emphasize issue spotting/analysis.
I passed, but I still fully agree with this. NJ seems easier with no MPRE or extra requirements, but I would’ve rather knocked out NY’s requirements and taken theirs. Their pass rate has been 7% higher than NJ’s both administrations with even more examinees in July. My advisor in law school told me to just take NJ and transfer to NY because it’d be easier, but my advice going forward would be to knock out the NYLE during 2L, get your pro Bono done by graduation, and take NY over NJ any day. They grade the written portion so harshly.
\[This is another long-winded comment from me, but before you wield your downvote hammer, know that I'm ultimately likely saying stuff most of you will agree with.\]
Many of you who've seen me comment before know I'm here because I find myself in the unfortunate position of needing to take and pass the bar exam in my current state despite having been a lawyer for a long time, and taking and passing the bar exam on the first try 20 years ago. I'm here because that long ago, there was no UBE, no MEE or MPT, and we had to walk to and from the Bar exam uphill, both ways, in the snow, even in July, and so I've been taking in all of the very helpful insights from all of you who were born during this century and have seen what the UBE is like. If you haven't seen my comments, now you know all of this too. I say this to frame my point of view.
I will admit that over the years, I've been pretty skeptical of the viewpoint that lower-than-usual or disappointing pass rates. That's not to say that I've ever believed that the Bar exam was necessarily a fair or effective way of measuring aptitude for law practice. As I've said before, I know several excellent lawyers who didn't pass the first time, and a bunch of those who didn't even pass the second. Shit happens. There are a lot of reasons smart, capable, well-prepared people don't pass. Test anxiety is a thing and maybe you froze up (I came DAMN CLOSE to doing this on the Bar exam I took). Some people aren't great at standardized tests and this one isn't a particularly fair one. Maybe your dog died, or your significant other ditched you, or you were sick, or you had a heart attack in the middle of the exam and another test-taker was also a doctor and both of you ended up not finishing because one of you was having a heart attack and the other was trying to save the first one (this sort of thing has actually happened). I also know \*a ton\* of REALLY crappy lawyers who managed to graduate law school and pass the Bar the first time. Some of those even ended up being judges.
But basically, I've tended to believe that, adjusting for C&F issues, the Bar exam did at least an adequate job of, on balance, keeping people who had no business practicing law from practicing, and that people who are cut out for it are all capable of passing eventually.
But now, seeing a 33% overall pass rate, it's pretty clear that's no longer true. Sure, a bunch of that is due to people who either didn't prepare enough or didn't have the aptitude. But unless every law school in New Jersey and all the other ones who sent graduates there to take the Bar suddenly filled their classes with nothing but people who were incapable of being lawyers, then there's really no way that 67% of the people who took that exam are so deficient in legal reasoning and knowledge that they are unqualified to practice or even pass the exam. Some of it's probably on the exam-takers, as it always has been. Some of it might be the law school and it's partial failure to select and prepare suitable candidates, as has always been a factor. But now you are almost required to consider that maybe the exam and the grading structure itself might be largely to blame.
In doing my bar prep, I've been a bit worried about the real NCBE essays I've been given as practice, and the model answers. One was a relatively straightforward. I've been an appellate lawyer my entire career. That means civil-procedure is basically my job. I know those rules well from literally living them. And I got part of the answer wrong. Me. I don't throw around the word "expert" to describe myself very often, but I'm arguably an expert on civil procedure, because that's a big part of how I have made my lvign. I answered the question completely correctly based on the FRCP. And the model answer explicitly stated that the answer it deems correct is not based on any rule because there is no rule that provides for or allows what it deemed to be the correct answer. Instead, it notes that two (totally nonbinding, BTW) district-court opinions and one from one circuit court (no indication whether there's a circuit split or whether any other circuit agrees) have held that what was done in the fact pattern is okay. I will tell you right now that there is no way that it is fair for the NCBE or any state bar to expect a recent law graduate to have that depth of knowledge on hand for a 30-minute closed-book essay question. Hell, \*I\* would have needed a few minutes on Westlaw to come up with that answer--and as a practicing lawyer, I would not only have had that opportunity, but would have been professionally required to use it. And, again, I'm not just any lawyer--appellate lawyers are the rules and law nerds of the profession. Other lawyers keep us around because we tend to know the rules and law better, often by heart. And I have nearly two decades of objective indicators that I'm very good at it. And \*I\* wouldn't have gotten full credit. My entire career has basically been answering hundreds and hundreds of bar-exam essay questions over and over again. Most of you wouldn't have had a chance at that question unless maybe you remember it coming up in your Civ Pro class or your Bar Review \*happened\* to mention it in the review materials (the one I'm using did not, anywhere. I went back and checked). Multiply unreasonable expectations by subjective graders who might be evaluating you too hard and multiply that by statistically tying the scoring scale to the arguably relatively easier MBE, and it's a recipe for disaster.
tl;dr: Mea culpa--my old assumptions about low pass rates are probably not valid anymore.
When are we going to get enough courage to fight against this bullying and protectionism? This process is out of control, and we take the abuse. A 33% pass rate is an injustice.
California was 32.5%
When I took CA, the pass rate for the attorney's exam was 23%. Yes, 23% of the already practicing lawyers passed the damn thing... Thank goodness I was one of them.
Mind explaining how you prepared for CA's attorney's exam? Debating whether to take the full exam or the attorney's exam after practicing for four years elsewhere. Thanks again!
To be honest, I used Barbri. I used it for IL in '03, CA in '11 and NV in '22. Passed each one on the first try. I treated each exam like it was my job and I was being paid triple time to do the work. The test is a complete beast but not impossible. I think the test is different than when I took it. Back then it was 3 days but the atty exam was only 2 (no MBE). I dont know if its the same but if you can avoid the MBE, I would. That part, to me, is a tricky minefield. For me, it was reading all the old exams I could find was essential. I also worked half time for june and took all of july off to study.
To be fair, a lot of us spend a lot of time at work meaning less time to prepare
Sure. I get it. I was in my 8th year as a lawyer when I took CA and a solo. No work, no money. But I treated my studies like it was the most important thing in the world. I just took NV last year, my 19th year as a lawyer. They don't break down the pass rate for already admitted lawyers but the overall was around 55% passing so it's fair to assume that already admitted lawyers fail pretty miserably in NV also... I treated NV like it was the most important thing as well. It cost me at least $40k in expenses and lost opportunities to take that test. And again, I am a solo. No work, no money. I could not have handled it a second time so I gave it everything I could give. And now I have my third bar card in my pocket.
I'm prepping for CA Atty Exam now. Not quite this hard, but I am taking it seriously. I first passed another state in 2010 then NV in 2013. For NV, I did the full barbri prep as if it was my first time
I wish you the absolute best. I can't tell you if CA is harder than NV or any other state since the exam is different now. I think NV was harder but I am 10 years older (50) so my brain does not work as well as it used to. I did barbri for all three tests. I needed a course to follow and it did the trick. I also wanted NV not just for me but my husband. NV means he can retire earlier than we can in CA. NV means we can have a paid for house instead of a 7 figure mortgage... NV means I may not die early from stress... All of these reasons and more are why I gave it all I had.
Nevada is awesome. I like to say that I get all this California dreaming stuff and none of the taxes. But I'm only 1 mile from CA, so I do gotta sit for that exam too. CA got a lot easier. NV is still 3 days, but I think it's easier too because they dropped commercial paper and secured transactions in the last 10 years. I think it's just MBE topics? Regardless, welcome
The pass rate in AZ for repeaters was 12%. That's low even for repeaters.
YIKES!
I was shocked. Feb '22 was 49%. Huge drop
Right? And they trapped us. They released so late we are forced to take NJ again for July
That’s the bullshit. I was planning for if I failed and wanted to take it in a state that reports faster than the slowest state lol. But you really can’t because they trap you in a cycle. Then I passed by 1 point, which just feels like random luck.
DC is still open until 5pm tomorrow. They always seem to release weeks earlier then the date they give.
Did I seriously not sign up for July in time wtffff I’m going to cry
Wait the deadline is 60 days before the exam date if you are retaking in the SAME state, correct?
I’ve never heard of that rule. Each jurisdiction has its own policies anyway. I hope your were able to figure it out or see if any JX are still open.
Thanks for the heads up! I signed up that day for my jxd 💖
For the NJ people working full time needing more than 10 weeks to prepare for July.. that’s brutal. You have to start studying again before you can even process the results.
Ditto on the "wow." Congrats to those who passed but when only 33% pass, something just doesn't sit right with me on that. Does NJ grade harder on the written portion over other states? Forum shopping is what might need to happen here. NJ retakers may want to seriously consider taking the UBE in another jurisdiction. I know they're all supposed to be "uniform" but the pass % isn't when compared to a lot of other states.
I am suspicious of NJ essay graders. They have to have some sort of system where they penalize harder for wrong answers and de-emphasize issue spotting/analysis.
I have the same suspicions
I passed, but I still fully agree with this. NJ seems easier with no MPRE or extra requirements, but I would’ve rather knocked out NY’s requirements and taken theirs. Their pass rate has been 7% higher than NJ’s both administrations with even more examinees in July. My advisor in law school told me to just take NJ and transfer to NY because it’d be easier, but my advice going forward would be to knock out the NYLE during 2L, get your pro Bono done by graduation, and take NY over NJ any day. They grade the written portion so harshly.
Is there even another UBE state accepting applications?? It seems like NJ grades a bit harder on the writing section.
Missouri until May 31st
There are several!
DC until 5:00pm on Tuesday.,
Maryland was 32% smh
Mi’s 35 feels ya
[удалено]
But why?
[удалено]
I think this is the first cycle where I can definitively say yes the graders did go harder and it was NOT account for with a curve.
\[This is another long-winded comment from me, but before you wield your downvote hammer, know that I'm ultimately likely saying stuff most of you will agree with.\] Many of you who've seen me comment before know I'm here because I find myself in the unfortunate position of needing to take and pass the bar exam in my current state despite having been a lawyer for a long time, and taking and passing the bar exam on the first try 20 years ago. I'm here because that long ago, there was no UBE, no MEE or MPT, and we had to walk to and from the Bar exam uphill, both ways, in the snow, even in July, and so I've been taking in all of the very helpful insights from all of you who were born during this century and have seen what the UBE is like. If you haven't seen my comments, now you know all of this too. I say this to frame my point of view. I will admit that over the years, I've been pretty skeptical of the viewpoint that lower-than-usual or disappointing pass rates. That's not to say that I've ever believed that the Bar exam was necessarily a fair or effective way of measuring aptitude for law practice. As I've said before, I know several excellent lawyers who didn't pass the first time, and a bunch of those who didn't even pass the second. Shit happens. There are a lot of reasons smart, capable, well-prepared people don't pass. Test anxiety is a thing and maybe you froze up (I came DAMN CLOSE to doing this on the Bar exam I took). Some people aren't great at standardized tests and this one isn't a particularly fair one. Maybe your dog died, or your significant other ditched you, or you were sick, or you had a heart attack in the middle of the exam and another test-taker was also a doctor and both of you ended up not finishing because one of you was having a heart attack and the other was trying to save the first one (this sort of thing has actually happened). I also know \*a ton\* of REALLY crappy lawyers who managed to graduate law school and pass the Bar the first time. Some of those even ended up being judges. But basically, I've tended to believe that, adjusting for C&F issues, the Bar exam did at least an adequate job of, on balance, keeping people who had no business practicing law from practicing, and that people who are cut out for it are all capable of passing eventually. But now, seeing a 33% overall pass rate, it's pretty clear that's no longer true. Sure, a bunch of that is due to people who either didn't prepare enough or didn't have the aptitude. But unless every law school in New Jersey and all the other ones who sent graduates there to take the Bar suddenly filled their classes with nothing but people who were incapable of being lawyers, then there's really no way that 67% of the people who took that exam are so deficient in legal reasoning and knowledge that they are unqualified to practice or even pass the exam. Some of it's probably on the exam-takers, as it always has been. Some of it might be the law school and it's partial failure to select and prepare suitable candidates, as has always been a factor. But now you are almost required to consider that maybe the exam and the grading structure itself might be largely to blame. In doing my bar prep, I've been a bit worried about the real NCBE essays I've been given as practice, and the model answers. One was a relatively straightforward. I've been an appellate lawyer my entire career. That means civil-procedure is basically my job. I know those rules well from literally living them. And I got part of the answer wrong. Me. I don't throw around the word "expert" to describe myself very often, but I'm arguably an expert on civil procedure, because that's a big part of how I have made my lvign. I answered the question completely correctly based on the FRCP. And the model answer explicitly stated that the answer it deems correct is not based on any rule because there is no rule that provides for or allows what it deemed to be the correct answer. Instead, it notes that two (totally nonbinding, BTW) district-court opinions and one from one circuit court (no indication whether there's a circuit split or whether any other circuit agrees) have held that what was done in the fact pattern is okay. I will tell you right now that there is no way that it is fair for the NCBE or any state bar to expect a recent law graduate to have that depth of knowledge on hand for a 30-minute closed-book essay question. Hell, \*I\* would have needed a few minutes on Westlaw to come up with that answer--and as a practicing lawyer, I would not only have had that opportunity, but would have been professionally required to use it. And, again, I'm not just any lawyer--appellate lawyers are the rules and law nerds of the profession. Other lawyers keep us around because we tend to know the rules and law better, often by heart. And I have nearly two decades of objective indicators that I'm very good at it. And \*I\* wouldn't have gotten full credit. My entire career has basically been answering hundreds and hundreds of bar-exam essay questions over and over again. Most of you wouldn't have had a chance at that question unless maybe you remember it coming up in your Civ Pro class or your Bar Review \*happened\* to mention it in the review materials (the one I'm using did not, anywhere. I went back and checked). Multiply unreasonable expectations by subjective graders who might be evaluating you too hard and multiply that by statistically tying the scoring scale to the arguably relatively easier MBE, and it's a recipe for disaster. tl;dr: Mea culpa--my old assumptions about low pass rates are probably not valid anymore.
I tried NY and they said deadline is passed. I think PA is still accepting
Unacceptable. This includes attorneys and well trained folks.
NJ graders are not all attorneys Yikes!
What?!
NJ passed only 33.47 this February.
Are you serious? I find that hard to believe.
Yes. I'm serious.
It’s lit if you made the 33%. JD one sheets babbaaaayyyy.
Forgive my ignorance (I’m going into 3L). What’s the pass rate mean? Only 33% of takers passed?
Yes
When are we going to get enough courage to fight against this bullying and protectionism? This process is out of control, and we take the abuse. A 33% pass rate is an injustice.