LOS ANGELES — The State Bar of California is suing the vendor that administered its February bar exam, a disastrous rollout of a new testing platform that shook confidence in the organization's leadership, prompted lawmakers to call for an audit and the state Supreme Court to order the agency to revert to the traditional exam format in July.

The complaint, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on Monday, alleges Meazure Learning committed fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract by claiming it could administer a remote and in-person exam in a two-day window.

"Over months, Meazure made representation after representation to convince the State Bar that it would offer a seamless remote and in-person exam experience worthy of the California Bar Exam," the complaint said. "But it is now clear that Meazure could not deliver."

For many aspiring attorneys, the rollout of the new exam in February was a debacle. Test takers seeking to practice law in California complained of a litany of technical glitches and irregularities. Online testing platforms repeatedly crashed before some even started the exam. Others experienced screen lags and error messages, struggled to finish and save essays, and could not copy and paste text from test questions into the exam's response field.

But Meazure Learning pushed back Tuesday on the idea that it was responsible for the fiasco. In a statement responding to the suit, Meazure said it was proud of its "track record of reliably administering over 4 million exams annually" and supporting more than 1,000 organizations over two decades. It suggested the State Bar was trying to pass the buck for its own failures.

"We recognize the importance of a smooth exam experience, and we regret that some test takers had issues during the February 2025 California Bar Exam," a spokesman for Meazure Learning said. "This lawsuit is an attempt by the State Bar to shift the blame for its flawed development process for the February exam. We will defend ourselves vigorously in court."

When Meazure was being tapped to administer February's exam, the lawsuit claims, the company reassured the State Bar that it had experience in administering 25,000 exams over a two-day period and had "no concerns" about meeting the State Bar's remote testing needs. It also promoted its experience with 2,200 customers over two decades, described itself as the "most secure and accessible" in the "techenabled assessment solutions" industry and touted its short chat and phone support wait times of a minute or less.

"Meazure promised that it had no remote exam capacity limits concerning administration of the Bar Exam, knowing full well that it did," the lawsuit states. "The State Bar, reasonably and in good faith, relied on Meazure's continuing statements and conduct indicating that it could scale up as needed to handle the volume for remote exams."

But since the exam, the lawsuit said, Meazure has impeded the State Bar's attempts to investigate its failures and "employed delay and deny tactics to prevent the State Bar from obtaining full and critical information."

"In light of the significant hardships endured by the February 2025 applicants and breach of specific contractual obligations outlined in our agreement, the State Bar has taken decisive action to hold Meazure Learning accountable for its failures," Brandon Stallings, the chair of the State Bar Board of Trustees, said in a statement.

The State Bar, represented by attorneys from Hueston Hennigan, seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the "unacceptable February Bar Exam experience," and is also seeking an independent audit of the company.

Prior to February's test, the State Bar promoted the new exam as a cost-cutting initiative that would offer test takers the choice of remote testing. After deciding to break away from the national tests it had used for more than 50 years, the agency signed a $4.1-million deal last year with Meazure Learning to administer a new exam. It also announced an additional $8.25-million five-year deal authorizing test prep company Kaplan Exam Services to create multiple-choice, essays and performance test questions.

In the months leading up to the exams, the deans of many of California's top law schools flagged concerns to the State Bar.

During a November exam study, some test takers had problems logging in to Meazure's exam platform, the complaint said, and in a January mock exam, technical glitches prevented test takers from entering the exam, submitting responses and using basic word processing functions.

"Meazure again assured the State Bar and prospective test takers that it would [and did] fix these issues before the February exam," the complaint said. "But it did not."

News of the lawsuit came just hours after the State Bar released exam results for the February exam. The agency reported that 55.9% of test takers passed — the highest spring pass rate since 1965.

The California Supreme Court, which oversees the State Bar, delivered a ruling Friday that allowed the agency to lower scoring for the February exam because of the debacle. The State Bar's IT and admission staff then worked through the weekend to adjust scoring so they could inform test takers if they passed or failed.

The state's highest court also ordered the State Bar to abandon its new system of multiple-choice questions and revert to the traditional Multistate Bar Examination for multiple-choice questions for its July bar exam.

Leah T. Wilson, the embattled executive director of the State Bar who announced she plans to step down in July, congratulated test takers.

"Given the technical and other issues this cohort faced, the perseverance applicants showed is commendable and impressive," Wilson said in a statement.

Test takers who did not pass the exam will receive letters later this week detailing their results. They can retake the exam in July.

Some February test takers have urged the State Bar to provide equitable remediation after the debacle, such as immediately adopting a provisional licensing program and granting full law licenses in California without requiring additional examination.

©2025 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.