The Supreme Court of California has rejected a proposal to create an alternative pathway for law graduates to become licensed attorneys without taking the traditional bar exam. The court denies the introduction of the Portfolio Bar Exam, which would have allowed law graduates to work under the supervision of experienced attorneys for four to six months and submit a portfolio of legal work for review.
In its ruling, the Court highlighted concerns that the Portfolio Bar Exam could lead to “ethical and practical problems” and undermine the fairness and reliability of the attorney licensure process. It expressed that candidates paired with more skilled supervisors might submit stronger portfolios, creating an uneven playing field. The program, according to the Court, could compromise the integrity of attorney competence assessments.
The State Bar of California’s board of trustees had endorsed the alternative pathway in November, despite public injections that it could weaken the licensing process and reduce public protections. The Court’s decision maintains that the bar exam will continue to serve as the only method for attorney licensure in California. Susan Smith Bakhshian, a Loyola Law School professor and advocate of the Portfolio Bar Exam, expressed disappointment in the decision, stating that the Court missed an opportunity to improve the licencing process and better serve the public.
Proponents of alternative licencing argue that such programs could address disparities in bar exam pass rates, lower costs for law graduates, and offer a more practical assessment of real-world skills. Other states, including Oregon and Washington, have adopted similar programs, and several others, such as Minnesota and Utah, are considering alternative licensing pathways. Despite this growing trend, California remains committed to its bar exam as the standard measure for legal competence. The state admitted 5,315 new attorneys in 2023.