The State Bar of California has faced significant backlash after admitting to using artificial intelligence (AI) to develop some questions for the February 2025 bar exam, raising concerns about the integrity of the exam.

Critics, including Mary Basick from UC Irvine Law School and Katie Moran from the University of San Francisco, expressed disbelief and labeled the situation a major failure, questioning the evaluation process given that the same entity created and approved the questions.

Despite the State Bar's claim that ACS Ventures deemed the AI-generated questions valid, critics highlighted a clear conflict of interest in having the same entity draft and assess the questions.

Out of 171 scored multiple-choice questions, 23 were developed using AI, while 48 were recycled from a first-year law students' exam, raising further doubts about the exam's quality and relevance.

The Bar's response to public comments about the expansion of testable law was inconsistent, suggesting a lack of transparency and accountability in their processes.

The controversy intensified following technical difficulties during the February exam, including online platform crashes and confusing questions, which led to a federal lawsuit against the testing vendor, Meazure Learning.

The California Supreme Court was reportedly unaware of the AI's involvement in question development until the State Bar's announcement, raising serious questions about oversight and communication.

This incident has broader implications for the future of legal assessments in the United States, as it raises ethical questions about AI's role in critical tasks like legal examinations.

In light of the controversy, Basick and Moran have called for greater transparency, including the release of all exam questions, and suggested reverting to the NCBE's exam format to ensure fairness.

Alex Chan, chair of the State Bar's Committee of Bar Examiners, indicated that the California Supreme Court had encouraged the exploration of AI technologies to enhance the reliability of testing.

The article criticizes the Bar for making irresponsible changes without proper oversight or communication, deepening concerns about their competency and trustworthiness.