Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

All right, Committee, Senate Committee on the Judiciary will come to order. Good afternoon. We're holding this Committee hearing in room 2100 of the O Street Building. I'll ask that all Members of the Committee present themselves in room 2100 so we can establish a court and begin our hearing once again.

We have 50% of the Republican contingent here, and we have about 10% of the Democratic contingent. By the way, the Democrats are still in caucus, but I expect that they'll be finished here relatively soon. We will establish a quorum.

Once we have a quorum, let me note that today we're going to do things a little differently for file itemnumber one, SB47. That's my Bill with respect to an audit of the state bar. And we're going to begin with that, particularly focusing on the February bar exam.

We're going to first hear from four of those test takers who took the February bar. They'll share their experiences and the issues they encountered. And then we'll hear testimony from Dean Jessica Willenberg, the UC Davis School of Law, and Professor Merritt Basic. Merritt Basic from the UCI School of Law.

And then I see representatives of State Barr that are here, and I'm hopeful that they'll testify. Let me just announce the bills that are on the consent calendar for today. If you're here for one of those bills, it should be considered as part of the consent calendar. That's filed number three, SB237 by Senator Grayson with amendments filled.

File item number four, SB410 by Senator Grayson with amendments. File item number five, SB459 by Senator Grayson with amendments. File number six, SB846 by Senator McNerney. Filemn number eight, SB440 by Senator Ochoa Bogue. File item number 15, SB858 by the Local Government Committee. And finally, File item number 16, SB85 by Senator Umberg.

So the preliminary rules today are much like they have been for all year. So for each Bill, we have two primary witnesses in support and two primary witnesses in opposition. Each primary witness will be afforded two minutes to speak. After the primary support, I will invite other supporters to state their name, their affiliation, their position.

I will do the same for the opposition. After we hear from the support and opposition, we'll turn to comments from Committee Members. When you testify in support or opposition, if you're not one of the primary witnesses, then you come forward and state your name, your affiliation and your position. We call that MeToo testimony.

You're more than welcome.

Thank you.

We are going to begin with SB47. I'm going to ask Senator Niello to take over his chair. Thank you, Senator Niello. So I'm going to go ahead, I'm going to open, and then I'm going to come back up here and hang out up here with you, Senator Nielo.

Proceed.

You all don't know this, but this is the first time this year we've had witnesses actually come to the table. So why don't we start with Andrea lynch and go ahead and tell us what happened?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm pleased to present SB47, which is known as the State Bar Audit Bill. One of the focuses in this Bill is the February bar exam.

I think anyone who's been admitted to the bar or even those who haven't been admitted to the bar but taken the bar exam know that it is one of the most stressful things in life.

You prepare for three years to take three plus years to take the bar exam, and you expect that it will be administered in a way that is consistent with past bar exams. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case this past February. There are a number of different issues that have raised deeply, deeply troubling issues.

There were folks that were knocked offline. There were folks where the proctor didn't show in a timely fashion, where proctors had provided questions and answers to test takers. And the question is, how did we come to this place, and how do we make sure we never, ever come back to this place?

SB47 would require an audit of the February bar exam by the State Auditor. It's important that we dig deep into this issue. And I recognize it's going to take some time, but it's worthwhile taking some time.

As this committee knows, the California Supreme Court has plenary power over the state bar in terms of admissions, but we also have an obligation. We, as a Legislature, have an obligation both in terms of who is admitted and their level of competency.

But most importantly, and it's maybe a different perspective than even the state bar itself is that our job is to protect Californians, to make sure that those who are admitted to the bar, those who are admitted to the bar, who assist individuals in making some of the most important decisions of their life, represent them in court, make decisions in terms of their businesses, make decisions in terms of their families, are competent.

Today we're going to hear from four of the examinees in the February bar about their experience. Andrea Lynch, Amy Kassouni, Tonya Saheli, and Stephen Zendejas. So if they would go ahead and approach. We'd ask you to come to the microphone and provide your testimony.

Good afternoon, Senator Umberg and honorable Members of the Judiciary Committee. It's on? Okay. Good afternoon, Senator Umberg and honorable Members of the Judiciary Committee. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to testify. My name is Andrea Lynch, and I am here today in support of SB 47.

This bill is important because it will provide transparency to the flawed administration of the February 2025 bar exam. I come before you not only as a test taker but as a voice for the many aspiring attorneys whose professional futures were jeopardized by a deeply flawed and inequitable testing process. In February 2025, I took the California Bar Exam.

On the day of the exam, I encountered a series of events that can only be described as chaotic and frankly, unacceptable for an exam of this magnitude and consequence. From the outset, I faced constant disruptions. I was assigned at least five different proctors throughout the exam.

These proctors routinely entered my virtual exam room, took control of my mouse without consent, sent distracting messages in the chat, and even interrupted me audibly, all while the exam timer continued to run. This eroded both my concentration and confidence. During session three of the MBEs, I encountered a technical error where selected answers would not save.

I received this repeated error message on at least four questions. Then my exam crashed entirely, costing me approximately 20 minutes of testing time. In a desperate effort to preserve my responses, I tried to communicate my intended answers to the proctor via chat, but I had no way of knowing whether they were recorded properly.

After the crash, I was directed to complete my exam through an external website link, one outside the secure required Guardian Browser, raising significant security and integrity concerns. Even then, I endured two more interruptions from proctors. But the most devastating moment came next.

As I prepared to begin session four, the final 50 MBE questions, I was met with a message stating, "Congratulations, your exam has been submitted to the State Bar of California." My exam had been submitted on my behalf prematurely before I'd even seen the final session. I was stunned.

I sat there for 25 agonizing minutes, unable to document anything for fear of receiving a Chapter 6 violation. I cried alone, waiting for someone to help. Eventually, I received a message from a proctor, not through the Guardian or ProctorU chat features, but through the Google search bar, telling me to contact the State Bar, and they abruptly ended my session.

This was just not a technical failure. It was a systemic failure, a breakdown in the integrity, accessibility, and fairness of one of the most important professional milestones in the legal profession.

I urge this committee to consider what it means when a test intended to uphold justice fails to deliver it to its own applicants. The same institution that creates pathways for attorneys to zealously advocate for their clients offers no protections for test takers.

We cannot sue because of the bar's immunity, and we cannot recover any damages for the countless resources, time, and expenses expended while studying and in the aftermath. We only received a remedy that the court deemed appropriate, but that is not holistically reflective of the unique harms each test taker faced.

I am not an expert, psychometrician, nor a seasoned attorney, but it seems the only sensible and human remedy in all of this is through the Pathway to Licensure program. We deserved a process that was secure, transparent, and humane.

We deserve to be evaluated under conditions that reflected the seriousness of the profession we are entering, not conditions that left many traumatized. Thank you again for allowing me to testify, and I hope mine and others testimonies serve as a catalyst for meaningful change at the State Bar.

Your commitment to improving the California Bar Exam experience for all is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lynch. And this is not for the panelists, this is actually for the audience and those that are watching.

I know I just announced that we were going to basically allow two minutes for each witness to testify, but I've talked to the chair and the chair has decided that we're going to deviate a bit from that with respect to the state audit.

This is a bit of a different bill, and so each of you are going to be afforded a bit more than two minutes if you should desire. So, thank you. All right, next, Ms. Kassouni.

The February bar marked a significant departure from previous iterations. Importantly, Business and Professions Code 6046.6 requires the bar provide two years' notice to law schools when alteration to the examination substantially modify the training required for bar passage.

Kassouni. Chair Umberg, Vice Chair, Senator Niello, and esteemed members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to address the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the February 2025 California Bar Exam. My name is Amy Kassouni, an applicant who sat for the exam, and I appreciate the opportunity to share my experience, and I support SB47 wholly.

In the totality, new testing software, a new multiple choice developer, and new proctors substantially modified the training required for bar passage this time around. Speaking to my personal experience with technical issues, I'll just hit the main ones for purposes of time.

Upon first login, a support session was immediately necessary due to connection failure, while the situation was ultimately remedied 30 minutes later. The delayed start impaired concentration and lengthened the testing day. The essay platform lagged about every minute, causing pauses not unlike the save pauses. Similar to antiquated 1990s software, the cut and paste lacked in functionality.

Then came the disastrous performance test. There the test crashed nonstop for 30 minutes while a barrage of pop-up boxes flooded the screen. At the end of those 30 minutes, my face was in my hands. I was completely demoralized, drained, and I was left to wonder how it would be possible to pass the test I had studied for seven days a week for several months at the cost of time with family and income.

The disaster continued the following day. Some of the multiple-choice questions just didn't make sense. This was compounded when the proctor appeared to have meddled with the timer, somehow removing approximately 15 minutes from the time allotted.

These problems were catastrophic in that they plagued everyone who sat for the test and could have been remedied with appropriate beta testing, focus groups, and sufficient time for revisions or iterations.

It's important to note that I'm just one person before you today, but hundreds, hundreds of applicants have appeared before the bar meetings subsequent to the exam to make public comments describing even worse technical issues and experiences with the exam. The underlying and most troubling problem in this fiasco rests in the fact that the bar had notice.

Deans and applicants alike apprised the bar of issues well in advance. This included, but was not limited to, letters from law school deans and applicants' comments at the bar's Q and A session in January 2025. Yet the bar proceeded without addressing or remedying the issues brought to its attention.

It is under these circumstances I implore this committee to take action, ensuring future applicants need not endure these unfair testing conditions. Again. I fully support SB47. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Zendejas.

Thank you, Chairman Umberg, members of the committee, I thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. My level of gratitude is matched only by my sense of somberness as to why I sit before you all today. My name is Stephen Zendejas, and I was one of the 4,300 that sat for this examination.

I signed as a remote test taker on January 20th during the mandatory mock exam that was changed to in-person on January 30th. In between, I was originally told that I was going to be withdrawn, with the suggestion that I should repay fees for the mandatory mock exam.

I was told that this issue would resolve in three days, but it took 10 days, with less than a month before the exam. Finally, this issue was resolved. To take in person, I booked a hotel room. I used all my vacation hours at the time.

On the day of the test I went in person to the South San Francisco test center. Day one was delayed approximately 20 to 25 minutes. Day two was delayed over an hour. Despite being promised earlier, the performance tests' copy paste function did not work.

I tried to remedy it by writing the five-factor test laid out in the library on the whiteboard that was allowed, and clicking the answer tab, and retyping each factor. This reduced my time. The interface was confusing, and some of my essay answers were left in the notes portion.

As far as the multiple choice questions on day two, almost a dozen times during section three, the computer would randomly kick me off of the answers and the test taker to my right. I was unable to read some of the questions because as soon as I found my place, the disconnect would reoccur.

Several questions seemed oddly worded during the examination. I tried not to pay too much attention, but some were very absurd. So the revelation that ChatGPT was used was not surprising. What was surprising was the revelation that the State Bar psychometrician created questions we answered through ChatGPT.

What was also surprising was that this was done not only without informing test takers so that we could prepare, but was also done without informing our Supreme Court and many members of the State Bar itself. The State Bar petition to the Supreme Court that was approved on Friday, still lacks clarity.

It does not tell us even which version of ChatGPT was used. This is important as many AI programs have different hallucination rates even between updates. I attended the public comment section yesterday at yesterday's State Bar meeting of the Committee of Bar Examiners, and I found it very disheartening.

Many test takers with disabilities alleged possible ADA violations because they were not afforded the extra time that they were approved of. I was disturbed by these testimonials. As a childhood cancer survivor myself, those stories have and continue to strike a nerve.

I am hoping that you will hear us, as I fear the State Bar has elected to ignore many of us. I hope that you will support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Zendejas. Ms. Sahili?

Good afternoon Senator Umberg and Committee Members. My name is Tonya Saheli. I'm here to speak in support of Senate Bill 47. I'm going to start with a different background because on October 26th through 27th, I was paid to take the NCBE Prototype Exam for all states other than California. I sat for that exam in Honolulu, Hawaii.

It was electronic, and the tech person was in the room. As I sat in the Supreme Court building of Honolulu, Hawaii, for two days, I completed that exam with little to no issues. A few weeks later, I was chosen to take the California Bar Experimental Exam.

And I sat for this exam on November 8th, 2024, which was proctored by Measure Learning and ProctorU. That exam was a complete disaster; I was shocked. It took me several hours and about 20 frantic emails with pictorial evidence of the platform failures.

And I sent that to the bar before I was able to gain access to the exam. In fact, I did not gain access to the exam until the following day. There was only a fraction of individuals sitting for the experimental exam in November when compared to the February 2025 bar exam.

The next day, when I took the experimental exam, I was so frustrated and afraid that the platform would fail that I was sure my performance was inhibited. I, along with other experimental exam takers, loudly let the State Bar know that the platform they were using had a myriad of problems. Fast forward to February 2025.

I was ready to go to battle because of my experience with the experimental exam. I was well aware that if measure learning platform could fail with a few hundred test takers in November, they then it would be ill-equipped for the over 4,000 test takers that sat for the February bar exam. And I was right.

Just like my colleagues here who have explained all of the problems that they had, I too had those problems. But I do feel like I had an advantage because I was ready for those problems. These were not due only to the platform not being able to accommodate such a large amount of test takers, but also the proctors.

They were not familiar with how to proctor such a high-stakes exam. They would interrupt me on numerous occasions, not understanding or giving respect to the time that this was a timed exam. Again, I kept a level head and I took pictures.

I actually took pictures of the evidence that this platform was failing, and I sent several emails to the State Bar. I actually finished the exam and I passed, thank God. But I'm here today to advocate for those who didn't because I know firsthand all of the issues that they encountered.

I'm here to advocate for repeat takers, first-time takers, foreign attorneys who are licensed in other countries, and attorneys from other jurisdictions. I truly believe something more needs to be done. This exam administration was a farce and mockery of justice.

And of the legally educated who spent three plus years in Law school, only to have everything in writing on this exam. I truly believe that everyone who made it through all the hurdles, because there were so many hurdles of this exam, are the true warriors, and they need to be commended.

I totally Support Senate Bill 47, and I applaud you for jumping on this and pinning this bill for us, and I hope that more can be done for everyone in this situation. Thank you.

Well, thank you. Congratulations, number one. Number two, quite a bit of foresight. Taking photos, gathering evidence while you're in the midst. You're gonna be a good lawyer. So. All right, let's do this. We've reached an important moment here, and that's the moment of establishing a quorum. So, committee assistant, where'd you go?

I got it.

Oh, okay. Madam Chief Counsel, if you call the roll, for purposes of establishing a quorum.

For purposes of establishing a quorum. [Roll Call] You have established a quorum.

All righty, thank you. We'll take up the consent calendar later. All right, thank you very much for your testimony. If you wouldn't mind sticking around, there may be some questions by committee members. So thank you very much. All right, thank you.

We have two further witnesses, and I was asked earlier if we were going to afford those who might be responsive, the State Bar representatives, et cetera. They'll certainly be afforded the same amount of time as those who are testifying, sort of at the front end of this hearing.

So I know we have Dean Jessica Wilen Berg here, and we have Dean of the UC Davis Law School, and also Professor Mary Basick, if you would both approach. Thank you for being here. We'll start with Dean Wilen Berg and then Professor Basik.

Floor is yours.

Hi, Chair Umberg and Committee Members, thank you for inviting me here today. I'm Jessica Wilen Berg. I'm the dean at the University of California, Davis School of Law. Professions historically have been given significant leeway to regulate themselves based on the idea that they play a key role in society.

But this deference relies on both the development and adherence to ethical standards and the setting and administering of standards for professional competence. The February bar exam demonstrated a significant lack on at least part of this.

There are many factors that led to the problems we saw in February and the damages that include, as you heard from the students, financial and emotional harms to the test takers as well as significant financial and reputational harm to the state bar in the State of California. We owe it to ourselves to do better.

I think there are two key factors we ought to be focused on. We need time and we need transparency. The problems that we saw with the bar exam were absolutely predictable and they rest on two pieces of what was going on here. Problems with the substance of the exam and problems with the Administration of the Exam.

We need time to develop valid, reliable content and a secure and reliable format to administer the exam. We had time initially. The Blue Ribbon Commission that gave the recommendation that California seek to use a separate bar examination provided that recommendation to the Board of Trustees of the State Bar in April of 2023.

The announcement in August of 2024 that we would suddenly see a shift on the February bar exam came without any notice.

And even while the court at the time was still developing the group that would create the content for a future California bar exam, almost immediately the deans of the ABA accredited law schools and the California accredited law schools wrote, saying, please do not do this, especially do not do this for February and maybe not even do this for July of 2025.

Even the initial communication demonstrated the lack of any consultation or communication with the law schools themselves. First of all, the field tests they ran, they ran during final season.

And secondly, they actually scheduled the first effort at the Phase one experiment on the MPRE Administration date, which California still requires the students to take and many students were signed up to do.

Whether or not you support the use of the National Conference of Bar Examiners Exams or support the idea that there should be a separate exam in California, you might at least look to NCBE to determine how complicated it is to create a valid and reliable licensing exam.

As some of the students even pointed out, when the NCBE creates the multi state section of the bar exam, they take about three years to create A new exam. Just to give you another small example, they decided to add family law into the next gen bar exam.

They are field testing questions now that won't actually be used for at least two years. So even a small section of the exam takes them an enormous amount of time. All of the, pretty much all of the states that have used the MBE up to this point.

There's only two by the way that don't, Louisiana with civil law and Puerto Rico uses also their own exam which they only administer in Spanish. They are combined common and civil law state.

The rest of the states that have so far used the MBE have all decided to go the direction of using the uniform bar exam, the combined bar exam that will be the next gen bar exam. Two exceptions to that. One is California, the other is Nevada.

Nevada has one ABA accredited law school and about 500 students that sit for their bar exam. The options available to Nevada are far different from the options available in the State of California given the number of students- graduates that will take a bar exam.

Even Nevada realized that they should continue to use the MBE for a number of years while they had time to develop their own pathway. So one part of this is the concerns about complicated content. Another obviously was the test Administration. The bar exam is a high stakes exam for a few reasons.

It's also a high stakes event based exam. All of the other professions that are out there tend to use what's called a window testing model. So at some point in time you will take maybe all of an exam or maybe parts of an exam at different periods.

But that means there's no one single day or two days in a row where something going wrong can derail your entire career for a long period of time. And you will not have any solution except for another six months when that exam is offered. Again.

That's a big contrast between the law licensing exam and say licensing exams for medicine, nursing, accountancy, other areas where there are structured licensing exams.

What's really interesting and almost ironic here is that one of the driving reasons why the recommendation was to move away from NCBE's exam is because NCBE with all of their experience had actually said we don't think we can offer a remote exam now. The technology is not there, the security is not there.

We cannot have this many people on one or two subsequent days trying to use a technology. And yet the decision was okay then we'll use our own exam and somehow we will figure out how to do this. When a company that has been doing it for decades said it's not ready to do.

They also had evidence from the Administration during the pandemic. So all of the states did try this in different ways and saw some of the problems. And they used even a more manageable framework and format than was used during this examination and still saw problems.

The other piece of what I wanted to stress here, in addition to time, is the need for transparency. We need transparency not just in engagement with stakeholders, thinking about what the concerns are, what you're trying to accomplish in all of these areas.

There is a list of concerns that the Blue Ribbon Commission identified that might drive you towards changes in a bar exam. I've seen no evidence that anything that happened in this February Administration sought to address any of them with the small exception of potential cost. And as we know, they actually failed significantly on that side.

So in anything, everything they might have done, everything they have done so far looks like it may have cost enormous more amounts of money than less.

But all of the rest of the concerns that were identified about test validity, content and calibration, portability, access, discriminatory impact, maintaining professional standards, protecting the public, there's no evidence that any of that was part of the determination for this February exam. And I think that's a significant failure that we ought to be thinking about.

Even those issues as identified are complicated. So assume that cost was the driving factor. Cost for whom? Cost for the state bar. Cost for the State of California as a whole. Cost for those taking the bar exam.

Right now, it appears that the financial burden was shifted entirely to the test takers in terms of what they have to be dealing with.

I'm not sure if that's the cost we're looking at here, but whatever we're doing, we ought to be very clear on why we are trying to make changes and how the changes we're making actually address those problems we identified. Everything we do will have trade offs.

So if the idea is to create a California bar exam, not only will you need time, but I will guarantee you it will cost a lot of money. And it is not a one time deal. Bar exams are not static. You do not create one exam and everybody takes it in perpetuity.

You constantly have to create new questions, vet those questions, test those questions and incorporate them into the exam. So it is an ongoing cost. I don't think it is any coincidence that the majority of states looking at this, decided overall that cost is better borne by an expert entity than internally.

But again, even if you do pursue a California bar exam, you absolutely want to recognize that you need to take the time to do all of that work. I'm also, when I think about sort of where to go from here, we have an answer to how we're going to handle the July exam already.

It is worth noting that even the Blue Ribbon Commission noted we should continue to keep an eye on and think about what NCBE is doing in their next gen bar exam. So they didn't take that off the table.

They just said we're kind of both acting at the same time and we ought to be thinking about it. I think you ought to be talking to the different schools. The law schools have been very willing to engage. I came here most recently from Ohio where I was a Dean for about 11 years.

The Supreme Court in Ohio, the state bar and the law schools don't always agree, but we always talk. We met quarterly all the time to discuss what's going on. I was sort of flabbergasted that that was not in place here. And even more so that on something like a bar exam, there was no discussion.

There were reports I saw in a few places in the media sometimes that the Deans had been consulted. I don't know who those were. They may well have been Deans of the California accredited schools or unaccredited schools. And I absolutely think they should be part of the discussion too.

But I can tell you, when I reached out to my colleagues in the other ABA accredited schools, none of us could figure out who was being talked to about any of this. And we all continue to express concerns. We have ways we could help. We have information that could be valuable.

And something unique about the ABA accredited schools is we have our students take bar exams all over the country. And many of us were deans in other states, which means we are constantly looking at bar exams, how they are created, how they are administered and the options in front of you.

Dean, there's going to be questions for you, I am certain.

So if I'm basically at my end, I really just wanted to point out, in the end, I really think it's a matter of having sufficient time and being very transparent about what you're doing.

Thank you very much, Dean. Really appreciate you being here. Professor, good afternoon. You have to pull the microphone a little closer.

This one?

Yes.

Does that work better?

And Members of the Committee, as I said, my name is Mary Basick. I'm an assistant dean at UCI Law School. I want to give you a little background about myself so you can have some context for what I'm going to share with you. I have been working in legal education for over 20 years, primarily in bar preparation.

I've written multiple books on bar preparation, both the black letter law as well as essay performance test and multiple choice testing. I volunteer at the State Bar for a variety of projects and I want to be clear that I do not have any interest in commercial bar prep. I don't work for commercial bar prep companies.

So I am an academic. A lot has been said about the failures with the February bar exam. But I want to specifically talk to you about the validity of the content. So validity on a high stakes exam, what a valid question is going to do is it's measuring.

Does that question measure what you intend to measure with it? So for this exam that would be that the applicants who took that exam have the minimum competence to be entry level attorneys. That's what we were shooting for. I also want to give you a little background about the exam itself. So two day exam.

The questions I'm going to be talking about are the multiple choice questions that happened on the second day of the exam. There are 200 questions. The state Bar has been managing and producing the essay and performance test questions. That isn't in dispute here. It's just these 200 question multiple choice questions.

They used to be managed by the NCBE with the MBE questions and California was drafting them themselves. So just to have that clear.

So this has been mentioned, but the NCBE's drafting process, I think it's important to know they start with an academic, typically it could be a judge or a practitioner drafting a question that is reviewed by a Committee, then it is reviewed by another Committee, then it is revised, then it is reviewed by multiple choice question experts, then it is pre tested in multiple panels before it is approved.

That's why the process takes so long. After a question, one question has been deemed valid, then it is grouped with other like questions into a set. So that set of questions isn't too hard, isn't too easy, has a nice mix, some General rules, some that are exception rules. Right.

So that's what we were shooting for or should have been shooting for to develop our own questions. There was a lot of concern when the State Bar decided in August that they were going to contract with Kaplan to create questions for February.

And that zero, I'm so sorry, that is why I'm a hand talker is because how could that possibly be done? I had a lot of concern. I have worked with the State Bar in a variety of volunteer capacities. So I offered my expertise. I would be happy to help. I knew they had to vet those questions.

I originally was asked to help and, and then I was uninvited to help.

The State Bar informed me that for their initial question panels that were going to be reviewed that to have the questions reviewed, they had determined that anybody who had worked closely, just to paraphrase with the NCBE questions, they were going to consider that a potential conflict of interest. Well, that's all there was.

So anybody who was a law multiple choice question expert would be excluded. So essentially they excluded anybody who would know what they were looking at. They did have subject matter experts, but there's a lot of questions about that. The folks who they did use signed very expansive NDAs.

So it's going to be a little tricky to get information about what actually happened. But I have questions. Did those subject matter experts have qualifications in bar law? Right. You know, the bar tests the law of nowhere. It tests the common law.

If a criminal law practitioner is checking the questions, they're not going to be using the right law. So what was the law that they used? Were they allowed to use resources to double check the law that was being used? Who redrafted the questions? Did they double check those questions after they were redrafted?

Were the panelists told the source of the questions were AI drafted or first year law school exam questions? Because they would look at them a lot differently than thinking they were drafted by lawyer experts. Right. The first year law school exam is testing something entirely different than the bar exam. They are not interchangeable.

So those are the questions I have about that initial drafting process. There's concerns about the content that was on the exam as well. So, they in somewhere in November, released a content map which was supposed to instruct the students on what they were supposed to know for the examination. It was embarrassingly bad.

I reached out immediately and said, you guys have to pull this. It looks like you don't know what you're doing. The law is not accurate. There were 50 questions from Kaplan. They were also rife with errors. Academics were sending letters and letters telling them what were wrong with these questions.

So this was the, and this was the material they had vetted and put out for us to look at. Like they, they were proud. This was the good stuff. We didn't get to see what went on the actual exam. So that was very concerning.

When I looked at those content maps, which they have ultimately revised, they added 55 rules that had never been tested before. So they expanded, as one of the applicants mentioned, the Business and Professions Code requires a two year notice. There's added content, there's no practice questions for it.

It wouldn't have been covered in law school necessarily or in the bar prep companies. So that was very concerning. When Kaplan released their questions, as I said, they had a lot of problems. So they did a re release, a redline version which came out on February 6th.

If we can do math, that's about two and a half weeks before the exam. Right. They were still rife with errors. In fact, I did a review of those questions after they were released and I found about 25% of them still had problems. They were improperly drafted.

They had improper use of language such that that it was confusing and you might have thought two answers were correct. Some of them, the law was wrong. It's unacceptable. And a lot of them were on those 55 questions, 55 areas of law. So the regular bar exam, we have to memorize over 3,000 rules.

They added 55 more and 20% of their practice questions were on those 55 rules. So much more of a focus on that than it should be. Then the exam comes and what happens next is we're hearing from the applicants and you heard from some of them here. The questions, they weren't drafted. Right. There were grammatical errors.

People were saying they seemed like they were AI drafted, which I thought was nuts. They had problems with them. They saw that there were problems. And it wasn't until two months after the exam that finally we learned just recently, in fact, they had non lawyer psychometricians drafting some of the questions that appeared on the exam.

Some of the questions that appeared on the exam. They knew they were bad questions before they even went to the exam, but they said they couldn't pull them off because they were loaded on the software. So a lot of problems with the content. They had a post validation Committee.

Again, all of the people who have a lot of expertise and multiple choice questions were removed from the committees. Again, there seems to be in their mind a conflict of interest that I do not understand because the questions were already drafted and given having familiarity with multiple choice bar questions would be a benefit, not a hindrance.

I don't understand it. But they effectively removed all the people who would be able to tell them. I warned them. Many people warned them. They told me their General counsel was the person making the call. I said, I'll talk to the General counsel. I see that you guys are going to make a mistake here. Let me explain.

I never heard. So I'm a little passionate. Maybe you could tell. I work with these bar takers. They, they pour their life into it. Any of you who've taken the bar. You know that you do. I'm not sure that the bar exam is the best way to assess if somebody is minimally competent to be a lawyer.

Certainly not having memorized questions that you're doing over a couple of days. Multiple choice questions. No one practices law that way. We all know it. However, if we're going to have an exam, it darn well should be fair. And this was not.

Well, thank you very much. Each day I think I learn something new that I can't believe. Including today. Let me explain to the panel Members. I know this is very unusual. It's a great deviation from our normal course of conduct.

But I think in terms of Senate Judiciary Committee, this is maybe one of the very most important things we do. So I appreciate that. I'm sure there's going to be questions here in just a moment, but something I'd like you to think about.

Professor and Dean, but particularly Professor, you seem to be the numbers person here, by the way, the fact that you're using a yellow legal pad with handwritten notes, that really warms my heart.

I hand wrote the bar too, back in the day.

We used a chisel in concrete when I did. But any event, so yesterday's revelation was that 55.9% of the test takers pass the bar, which is a huge deviation from past February bar exams. So for example, we went back five years and the average was 32.61%.

So I actually asked our local mathematician and for those who don't know, that's Senator McNerney who has a PhD in math, to tell me basically what does this mean in terms of normal variance and what he told me, he texted me that this is, I think it's six standard deviations from the norm, which means that this result could only happen 1 in 666,000 tests.

So zero by the way, those who passed the bar who are listening, I have no interest. I don't think anyone here has any interest in going back and revisiting this issue for those who have passed the bar.

But what it tells me is that there are issues with respect to grading and I'll ask others as to why we think was just simply that we use a different standard for passage or why we think there was such a tremendous deviation from the norm.

Makes me concerned that maybe the way we graded the exam was similar the way we administered the exam. But any event. So I'm going to thank you all. I'm going to I'll turn to the panel here for questions and then I've got some questions, then we're going to turn to the folks who are responsive.

So questions by panel Members. I've got quite a few. Eventually may touch upon some of the subjects you're interested in. But if there are no questions by panel Members, then I'm going to thank you, and if you wouldn't mind just sticking around for a little while. So I'd invite representatives from the bar to approach the table.

oh, okay. Senator Durazo

I missed a portion of, I missed a portion not of this presentation of the other. So I'm not sure where this all fits. Was there a Member of the bar associate? Was there?

That's the next panel. Okay. Okay. I'm sorry. I'll wait for the other. Okay, thank you. Okay, so the Chief Counsel just reminded me that since this is my Bill, I can't be chairing the Committee. So, Senator Niello, we're going to turn over the chairmanship to you, because this is actually my Bill.

That's coming up next.

So notwithstanding the fact I'm sitting up here, thank you.

I thought I could go on Autopilot.

Anyone on Me Too?

Is there anybody else in the audience here that is in support of this Bill that wants to provide Me Too testimony?

Benjamin Cohn of Mountain View is applying Me Too, on this Bill. But I'll supply detailed public comment on SB253 if you'll indulge me, then. Thank you.

Okay, so proceed.

All right. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and to the Committee. Thank you.

Hit the button there so it turns red, and then we'll be able to hear you.

All right, red means on. Got it. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today before this Committee. My name is Brandon Stallings, Chair of the State Bar Board of Trustees. I'm joined by Chair of the Committee of Bar Examiners to my right, Mr. Alex Chan, and then Leah Wilson, the State Bar Executive Director.

Also in the audience, we have the newest Board of Trustees Member, Ryan Harrison. So hopefully, after today, will have a taste of what accountability looks like and how this process goes. We know that Members of this body have many questions and are hearing from constituents.

And our goal today is to provide clarity and transparency on what happened with the February bar exam and what the State Bar plans are moving forward. First, let me begin by acknowledging that major missteps related to to the February bar exam, and these major missteps severely impacted many applicants and your constituents.

And we were taking steps to make that right. We know that this caused undue concern and put pressure on you and for that, we sincerely apologize not only to applicants, but to the to this Committee as well. To Ms. Lynch, Ms. Cassini, Mr. Zendejas and Ms. Sahili

Recognize many of you from the public comment period at our State Bar meetings. And we thank you for engaging with us as board, as board Members and as we deliberate on these important next steps forward. To you and to the affected test takers we did fall short of our commitment.

The combination of a new testing platform and method for developing multiple choice questions contributed to a poor experience for many test takers. Simply put, applicants did deserve better. As a board, we recognize the hardship experienced by the February applicants.

We took several unprecedented steps to reduce their financial burden, including reimbursing fees and travel costs, enabling free retakes and offering flexibility to cancel in advance of the test.

In order to learn and to grow from this disaster and to maintain proper oversight, the Board moved swiftly to retain an independent investigator, Matt Jenkins, who you may know as a former chief, a USA out of the Los Angeles area.

However, we are not waiting on the results of this investigation and have made substantial changes in the Office of Admissions to ensure as smooth an exam as possible in July. The Bar has also initiated a lawsuit against Measure Learning and have retained Hueston Hennigan to hold Measure accountable for their failures and the resulting unacceptable experience of applicants.

With the Supreme Court's recent ruling accepting scoring adjustments made by the Committee of Bar Examiners and the release this week of exam results, we will continue to incorporate the lessons we have learned to ensure applicants have access moving forward to a fair, just, affordable and accessible bar exam experience. Thank you.

Next witness.

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. As Chair of the Committee of Bar Examiners and also a Member of the Blue Ribbon Commission, which Professor Basick mentioned earlier. I want to begin by acknowledging the frustration, the confusion, and the hardship that many applicants experienced during the February 2025 bar exam.

What occurred was unacceptable. The delivery of the exam did not meet the standards that the applicants and the public deserve, and even by our own standards. And for that, we must do better. The Committee's guiding mission is to protect the public by ensuring that every licensed attorney in California has demonstrated minimum competence.

Equally, we have a duty to ensure that the path to licensure is fair, just and grounded, integrity and reliability. And when circumstances arise such as those we have seen in February that compromise the fairness of that process, it is our responsibility to act.

Last week, the Supreme Court adopted the Committee's scoring adjustment recommendations, as you're aware, and that decision reflects a principal solution, one that acknowledges the seriousness of testing failures while preserving the public's trust in the licensure process.

The adjustments are psychometrically sound, narrowly tailored, and ensure that no one is admitted to practice unless they have met the minimum threshold or cut score set by the Supreme Court. Now, the Committee recognizes that mistakes were made. And we know that earning back the confidence of the public and future applicants will require more than promises.

It will require action. And the Committee is confident in its ability to work in partnership with Mr. Stallings, the board of Trustees, the State Bar, and the Supreme Court to ensure that future exam administrations are secure, equitable, and reliable. And we're committed that the work...

And we're committed to that work and to making sure that the licensure process reflects above the high standards of his profession and the fairness that every applicant deserves. Thank you.

I don't have a statement. I'm here to respond to questions.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. What I propose is I've got quite a number of questions to ask. So let me ask three questions, and then I'd ask you, Mr. Chair, to turn it over to Committee Members so that they have a chance, then come back to me.

Well, first of all, I haven't asked if there's any opposition to the Bill.

Well, you're doing a better job than I did. So.

All right. So is there anybody in the audience that is opposed to this Bill?

Good afternoon. Hey, Paymon Roshan. I am a California attorney. I'm appearing in person because comments made through the portal by myself and other attorneys were not recognized. Copies of two of the letters have been submitted for the Committee. Those were timely submitted earlier. The testimony today is just another example of the malfeasance of the State Bar.

However, merely going backward in an audit is not appropriate and the Bill should be tabled or amended. The testimony of the two deans shows the problems with the State Bar are management.

The individuals who were appointed to handle this matter were completely unfit for the job and refused to follow the guidance of educators and other attorney licensing organization. This points to the fact that the entire organization and method for appointments of the State Bar are defective. But there is an even bigger issue.

In February of this year, the United States Supreme Court published a decision, Williams v. Reed, that rendered the State Bar's attorney discipline system unconstitutional. I will be discussing it in greater detail on the bar fees Bill. But suffice it to say that an audit is not adequate given the wholesome unconstitutionality of the State Bar Act.

While all of the points made by the witnesses are valid, a mere audit is not sufficient to address the defects of the State Bar which are not merely incompetence, but complete unconstitutionality.

Thank you. Are there any others in the audience opposed to the Bill? Seeing none come forward now, we'll raise it back to the Committee, Chair Umberg.

Thank you. And thank you to the panelists. I've talked to each of you. I know that each of you is embarrassed because of the way the February Bar actually turned out. And I appreciate your commitment to make sure that this doesn't happen again. Ms. Wilson, I appreciate your number of years to the profession. Thank you very much.

First question is, can you tell us specifically what's going to happen on the July Bar that's going to ensure that this doesn't happen again?

Well, the July bar exam will be held in person. It will be administered using the old software examsoft that you heard a little bit about from some of the presenters. And we will be delivering the MBE, the National Conferences multiple choice product. So we're essentially going back to the way that things were for July.

So that involves securing sites, the approach that's been undertaken for nearly 40 years.

And you're confident we'll be able to do that?

Yes, we've been able to do it for 40 years prior to. So I believe we'll be able to do it in July.

Second question is, you heard me ask, I think it was Professor Basick about the deviation in the results, what was done differently in the grading?

I understand that the scores have been in essence lowered, but how do you account for this huge disparity between what happened in the February Bar in terms of passage rate and what's happened historically, I think the historic passage rate again is 32.61% over the last seven or eight years. How do you account for that disparity?

So grading calibration procedures for the bar exam did not deviate from established procedures. I want to make that very clear. Despite the technical challenges surrounding the bar exam Administration, the grading process remained rigorous and consistent with all prior administrations. Nothing was changed.

Essay and performance tests were scored using the same calibrated rubric, double read protocols and examiner training methods. The Committee ensured that all grading was carried out with the same level of integrity, consistency and fairness expected in any California Bar exam. Now with that, I wanted to quickly address the pass rate that you mentioned, Senator Umberg.

The CBE shares your commitment to public protection. That has always been the core of every decision that the Committee makes. The scoring adjustments that we implemented were probably the reasons why we saw the pass rate as being so high at this time.

Now the scoring adjustments were not designed to be lenient in any way, shape or form. They were designed to be fair and measured in light of the circumstances and the unprecedented and well documented technical failures. The scoring adjustments recommended by this Committee of Bar Examiners and now approved by the Supreme Court were grounded in established psychometric principles.

And I think earlier you mentioned, or one of the witnesses mentioned a standard error of measurement. We call it SEMs. And we proposed two SEMs for the scoring adjustment. And this is actually a widely accepted approach and high stakes exam when the integrity of the testing procedures have been disrupted or compromised.

Now over the last several weeks, the Committee of Bar examiners actually had reviewed, have called several special meetings to review and analyze all these statistics, the data points and literally the entire test procedures to ensure that we have considered all the moving parts and variables in making and deciding on the appropriate adjustments, which again, which were in my opinion were narrowly tailored.

Again, the whole goal here is to one, protect the public, but also to ensure that those applicants who were impacted adversely were given a fair chance to take and pass this bar exam. And so the fact that the pass rate is historically high is actually is a reflection of the adjustment made to that process.

So it isn't that we somehow decided that we want to minimize, reduce the level of competence, but it's really a process making sure we provide just relief to those applicants who are impacted.

So. Oh, sorry, go ahead.

If I could just provide some of those data points that Mr. Chan mentioned the Committee reviewed because I think they're really important and somewhat surprising. So what the Committee saw was some comparative performance of the February 2025 test takers vis a vis the 2024 and 2023 cohorts in the area of the exam most ripe for comparison.

That's the written section. No change from prior years. And what the Committee saw was that the February 2025 test takers had a higher average raw score on the written section of the bar exam than their 2024 or 2023 cohorts. This is without any psychometric adjustment. So looking apples to apples, these 2025 test takers performed better.

This is counter to what we might expect, but this is a fact, and the Committee saw that data. Similarly, they were able to see a word count analysis to look, again, comparative performance. 2023, 2024, 2025. How many words were people able to type in in response to each one of the prompts?

And they saw no statistically significant variance in word count in the aggregate or looking at repeaters who had taken the exam. 23, 24, 25.

And so I think that this bolstered the Committee's confidence in the notion that the adjustments that were being recommended psychometrically were in fact protecting the public, because they were able to see relatively strong performance from this cohort, which should be applauded and commended given the challenges that they all faced.

So I take it from that they're just smarter, that this deviation was because they were smarter. Let me just ask, what would the passage rate had been if the score wasn't lowered?

I don't have that number. I don't know if... Leah, do you have that number?

No, I don't. I don't have that number. There were several different models that the Committee considered, and I think one of them would have had it at around 30%. I think another model would have had it even lower. So the Committee did consider multiple options based on various psychometric adjustments.

Just looking at the bar exam passage rate of the February bar, if you go back to the 50s, it's called the spring bar. This is. You'll agree with me that this is anomalous, right? I mean, the last time it was even close to this was 1965.

So it just tells me that when the average over the last six years is 32.61% and then you have a test that's at nearly 56%, there's something very different.

And if you're telling me it's just that people were smarter or people were better test takers, I'll be curious as to what happens next year when we use the old format in any event again to assure those who pass, we're not going to go back and look at anybody who's passed the exam.

So let me turn it back over to the Chair and I'll let others ask questions and then I'll come back with some follow-ons.

Other questions from the Committee?

Senator Durazo.

Thank you. So as I understand it, the students are going to be offered to retake the exam. Did I understand that right? And there are several dates that you will assign or they will- you'll propose or maybe you could explain that process.

And I'm sorry, just to sort of give context where I'm coming from because I've gotten calls from constituents and one in particular who took the exam from Boyle Heights talked to us, talked to my, talked to me in our office and shared her experience and she shared how she went to law school out of state.

And her barriers now are the kind of travel costs that she incurred and other challenges like that. So looking at what in addition to, okay, they're being offered another exam, take the exam again.

But there are many things that get in the way of someone trying to, you know, have the resources, put the resources together to take the exam again. So I guess I want to know what's the plan for them. And I really hope there's not a cookie cutter approach to this because each individual student has different personal circumstances.

So that's my question.

So I would just say that staff really has taken a lot of leadership in this area to develop protocols in order to help applicants in that situation.

If there's travel costs associated with, you know, with the changing of the exam, you know, that's something that I think the board has been pretty clear on that we're going to take a very liberal approach to looking at those issues. And so certainly we can't go back in time and make this exam any less onerous.

But we have tried to take those steps to help applicants.

What I would say concretely is folks who took the February exam and weren't able to fully complete it, and what that meant was 4 of 6 written responses or less than 4 of 6 written responses and less than 3 of 4 sections of the multiple choice questions completed were offered an immediate retake. It wasn't quite immediate.

I think it was within about two weeks of the February exam. So we did offer that as a true retake. In addition, anyone who did not pass the February exam or withdrew was offered or has been offered to take the July bar exam for free.

The Board, at its meeting on Friday, will hear a recommendation coming from the Committee of Bar Examiners to expand that free exam through the 2026 administrations. In addition to that, which is still a bar exam based remedy. I don't know if, Mr. Chan, you want to talk about what the Committee voted on yesterday,

Which is a non-bar exam based remedy which might benefit your constituent.

Thank you, Leah. Yesterday, the Committee of Bar Examiners called a special meeting and decided to recommend to the Supreme Court of California two non-scoring remedies. And the first remedy is to provide applicants, including those who have withdrawn from the 2025 February bar exam, a provisional license without a pathway to full licensure.

What that means is applicants would still need to take the bar exam after obtaining the provisional license.

But now they'll be given some time to take the bar exam, but at the same time they can still work in the legal forces under the supervision of an attorney so that they can continue to make their living and to prepare for the bar exam.

The second remedy that the Committee of Bar Examiners has approved and will recommend to the Supreme Court is to provide out of state attorneys the ability to be admitted on motion to practice here in California without needing to pass the bar exam. Now, both remedies will be forwarded to the Board of Trustees.

Afterwards they will be forwarded to the Supreme Court for consideration and approval.

Great. Thank you. And I just want to share that I, many years ago took the first year baby bar, passed it, then took the big bar once and I didn't pass that one yet. Keep hope alive. But maybe this will be a good time for me to go back. No, I'm just kidding.

I think you might, in terms of the high passage rate, but in any event.

Other questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none do.

Yes, I'm sure you'd pass at this point. Yes.

Senator Ashby, you go first.

Yeah. Like Senator Durazo, I've had varying experiences with the bar too. Actually chose not to practice. But I did take it one time and didn't pass out of law school. But...

I did have the opportunity to do what you're talking about, about being bar certified under another lawyer because I worked in the public defender's office here in Sacramento, which is the exact process that you have just described, which does allow you to work, which was important for me because I was a single mom in law school.

And I have several letters in front of me that only my colleague Dr. Weber can see. But I had several constituents too, who sent letters who were really upset. And, you know, the bar is traumatic in general to take. It's particularly difficult for populations that for whom it was, it was not really developed.

And I always describe the bar as a test of your ability to be a sheep. If you are good at being a sheep, you can pass the bar. If you're not and you don't look like a sheep and you don't act like a sheep, you're going to have a hard time.

You'll need to do some of the courses, which I so deeply appreciate. The previous panel that explained that one of the failures is in the prep of getting people ready for, for the bar and then, you know, not having things available to them. I appreciate the broken out components, for example, the ethics components.

It's a lot easier to just take that piece and be done with it, which is something I did. And that simplifies the process because then you're done with that piece. I think there are so many things that need to be done to make the bar simpler.

I know over time, moving it to two days instead of three, that was a good, I think a good and resolute thing to do.

But still, this bar should be more about people's ability to practice law and less about their memorization skills and whether or not they can sound like a, you know, a Supreme Court justice from the 1950s, which is basically what it tests right now. So my constituents' letters are not about so much being frustrated with the system crashing.

This generation is pretty accustomed to that.

What they're frustrated with is that your set of solutions are, have been thus far not helpful to them with the real predicament that they have of the day, which is, okay, I can take it for free in July and then wait till November for my results, which means I can't work until December.

And that's if I pass it. And if I am going to struggle because I am in a historic category of people who struggle to take this test and have to take it more times. I've just missed an entire year of opportunity now set out.

And I know I'm asking you to solve for the issue of time, which is extremely difficult to do. I'm sure that Chair Umberg has thoughts and feelings about the idea of being able to work under somebody else's bar card. But I think that is a good component to put into the mix for people who...

There are many, many people who are working in law while taking the bar and then they can continue to do that. As you know, though, the salary difference between a person who's working in that range and an entry level attorney is a lot.

That's not a small gap for single moms or people who have affordability issues, which is most of California. The practice of law, the understanding of law, going to law school. There are many lawyers in the California State Senate who have chosen variety of paths.

Some who practice law, some who do policy work, some who do environmental work, some who work in the business world, and some who've spent their life, like Senator Caballero, defending people who don't have the means to pay for an attorney. And all of those things are great and important.

And people can go to law school and do all of those things. Senator Durazo spent her life fighting for working people too. And I think her law school experience helped her deeply with that. Certainly why we're all sitting on this, on this Committee.

I think you, you owe it to those students to not just fix what happened this time, but to fix the test moving forward. And I don't mean go back to a different system. That's fine for now. I mean fix the test.

Having people like Mr. Harrison, who I happen to know and is a great step in the right direction. Talk to people like Justin Ward. Talk to people who, talk to the people who historically would not pass this test because the test is not written for the people that are in California today. Talk to them.

Fix it. Like we don't need, the MBA does not need to be that many questions. Really work on it. Make sure people are prepared. What is wrong with letting folks know what is going to be on the test? What is wrong with that? Let them study for it and prepare for it.

They already did three or four years of academia. Make the test accessible to the people who have already paid an extraordinary debt by first achieving undergrad and then going to law school and managing whatever else they had on their plate while they were doing that too. I think that's the role of this Committee.

And moving forward for as long as I'm involved in the discussions around judiciary and who gets to practice law in any form, whether they're doing what Senator Allen does or what I've done or what Senator Durazo is doing, we are all using a legal education that has invalued our lives.

Make it easier for them to use that very expensive degree that sits in all of our offices. Tell them what's going to be on the test. Create a system that works. You've done it with portions and you've made it better over time, too.

With the exception of February in reducing the amount of information that people have to try to get out of their brain in a 24 to 72 hour period. Do more of that. Let's work on that moving forward.

But do you have another comment or question? I am looking for a motion, by the way.

I think Senator Allen's moved it. Yes, yes. So following on, could we get the information as to what the passage rate would have been had the station standard not been changed? Would you provide that to the Committee?

I'm moving.

Certainly Senator Umberg, we'll go back to the drawing board and get you those statistics.

All right. Thank you. Appreciate that. I also understand that that certain test takers received bonus points for taking an exam earlier last year, actually in November last year. Is that right?

That's right. It's an experimental study that they participated. And the Supreme Court has given the Committee some guidance as far as how to feel about those points.

So did that factor in. Can we tell if that factored into the higher bar passage rate?

We can, and I should have mentioned that. And I believe in our press release announcing the results, we did provide a table that showed pass rate with and without the November special session adjustment.

And I want to clarify, those points were awarded not just for participation, but you had to demonstrate a certain level of performance on the November exam in order to qualify for the points. And the Committee set those points at 20. And so I think we did show it. If we didn't, we'll be happy to provide that.

What was that? Indulge my ignorance for a second. Do you know what that passage rate would have been?

Oh, I think it was. And Donna is here. Maybe about 2 percentage points difference.

So 54%.

Something like that. We can get that for you.

While it's not negligible, it's a small percentage.

Small percentage. And are you going to do that for the July bar? Are folks going to be awarded additional points for taking an earlier exam for the July bar?

Yesterday the Committee of Bar examiners approved a resolution whereby those participants who didn't take the February bar exam could still get those points when they first make their attempt, whether it's going to be this July or next February.

So they get points from last November, but will the July test takers get points from some other pre test or such thing?

Not unless the Supreme Court provides us with additional guidance.

And explain to me, you know, my concern, as I said at the outset of my testimony, was that our job, in my view our primary job is to protect Californians, to make sure that those who provide information, advice, representation for the most important decisions a person can make are competent.

How does provisionally admitting folks to 2027, how does that further protect Californians?

That's certainly a policy question, but essentially just allowing them to be in the workforce under the supervision, under the supervision of an attorney is what we believe to be safeguard to ensure that the public is protected. Obviously, you can't just go and open your law office and practice on your own solo. That is not permitted.

And Senator, this has certainly been something at the forefront of the board's attention. One of the things we directed staff to do is to look at discipline rates or whether there were complaints made against those who are provisionally licensed. And if you recall, we have a cohort of individuals who have been provisionally licensed since 2020.

And we found that there's really no statistical difference between fully barred lawyers and those provisionally licensed. So something we've done definitely monitored to ensure public protection.

No difference in terms of discipline.

Complaint rate. Okay. I'm not sure that's an accurate assessment of competency, but in any event, maybe the only one we have other than looking at malpractice cases. Okay, so what did the bar do in terms of verifying that Measure Learning was able to deliver on its assertions that it could administer the February bar exam?

So there were a series of interactions with Measure and other possible vendors to starting well over a year before the February bar exam was administered. That was part of the solicitation and procurement selection of that vendor that was based on a set of performance criteria that Measure asserted that it could meet.

And then, as you've heard from some, we launched the November special session in part to test that platform. And contrary to what you heard today, There were nearly 4,000 people that took that participated in that special session. So it was very comparable in size to February.

And while there were a number of issues, they were not to the level that would have predicted the complete meltdown that we experienced in February. However, they did occur. And so what my team did is went back to Measure and working with our Office of General Counsel as well to negotiate additional terms into the agreement.

Measure made assertions both privately and in public to the Committee of Bar Examiners at a meeting that it would have no problem administering this test. It was able to meet all the requirements that adjustments would be made pursuant to the lessons learned from the November special session.

So do I think we could have done and should have done more? Absolutely, hindsight is truly 2020. But we did attempt to learn from that November special session, ratchet up the requirements for measure and they indicated that they would be able to competently administer the exam.

And as you mentioned, I think you're suing them.

Yes, we are.

All right. We're not using them again.

No.

Okay. What was the issue with the scheduling? We heard testimony about the sort of the chaotic scheduling. It's in person, it's remote, it's this location, it's that location. How did that all evolve?

I'm unfortunately probably not the best person to answer, but I want to be transparent and provide the information that I know.

We all believed that one of the benefits of using Measure was not just the ability to take the exam remotely, which is an incredible accessibility benefit to many, but also that you would be able to take the exam at many different pop up centers both in California and across the country.

And the benefit of that is you don't have to travel so far to take the test. Somewhere along the way it became clear that the pop-up centers, in Measure's view, were going to be reserved for accommodated applicants. So that's obviously very problematic because it means the majority of your applicants are going to have to go to,

at that time, it was identified four large pop up sites in the state. So the whole process for designating somebody as a tested accommodated applicant, having them self select their test center site and then having non accommodated applicants choose their locations and having sites free up and fill up, it was fumbled to say the least.

Measures sent out notices to applicants saying their registration had been canceled in the middle of the process. So it's something, some mix of accommodated, non accommodated applicants, which sites were reserved for which kinds of test takers, and a really unfortunate set of communications by the vendor around those issues.

That wasn't Measure though, was it? What vendor was it?

That was Measure.

That was Measure. Okay. And I recognize that this is going to cost the bar lots more than ever anticipated, but were there any savings by using the modified exam or at least as anticipated, were there any savings?

Yes, as anticipated, this new modality would have saved the bar about $3.8 million a year. And it was a modality remote and test center that applicants have repeatedly expressed a preference for. So yes, it should have resulted in quite significant savings.

And what's your estimate as to what it's going to ultimately cost the bar?

Well, we put that together. I think in lost revenue we're looking at about $3 million. That's because of the free tests that are being offered as we, as we articulated earlier, an additional 2 million, about, in costs for in person locations for July. So that right there is about 5 million.

And then with the recent directive to return to the MBE, you're looking at another net about $620,000 cost. So we're, we're at about 5.6 million depending on how things play out with registration for the exam.

Are we still paying on the Kaplan contract? We're still paying.

Yes. We don't have the ability to exit that contract for several years.

How much is that going to be?

I believe it's around 6 million before we can exit the contract. I don't have those numbers in front of me. It's a multi year contract, obviously.

Do we have some additional information?

I just wanted to answer a couple of the questions that Senator Umberg had raised with regard to the if the adjustment from the November exam were not applied. I've got some numbers here that look at first time takers. The first time taker pass rate was 62.1% as adjusted.

If that adjustment from the November exam did not get applied, it would be 60.9%. Similarly, for all repeat takers it was 53.2% and would have been 51.7% if that November adjustment had not been applied. The press release that Leah mentioned indicates some additional cohorts that, you know, may be worth looking at.

First time takers and repeat takers from ABA accredited law schools, unaccredited law schools, California accredited law schools, and what the differences are there. But overall it was roughly that 2 percentage point difference. The second piece of information that you asked about was what if the pass rate had not been,

the minimum raw passing score, was not set at that 534 level which then converted to that 1390 passing score. The psychometrician had initially recommended to the Committee of Bar examiners that they select a pass rate at a minimum raw passing score at 560 points.

That was the score that the Committee of Bar examiners reduced to 534 to take into account the collective effects of the Administration of the exam. If the minimum raw passing score remained at 560 instead of 534, the overall pass rate would have been 46.9% as opposed to 55.9%.

So it still would have been incredibly high as compared to others.

Yes, exactly.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Ms. Hershkowitz, could you identify yourself for the record please?

Sorry. Donna Hershkowitz, I am the Chief of Admissions and the Legislative Director at The State Bar.

Thank you. All right, a few other questions concerning the use of artificial intelligence. How many questions did ACS venture create for the exam?

29.

29. In what subject areas?

I don't have that. Maybe Donna can look that up on her phone and come back up and let us know. I don't have it off the top of my head.

Is it correct they use ChatGPT to generate the questions?

Yes.

Is it true that no lawyer actually assisted in that?

No lawyer assisted in the initial drafting. All of those questions were made subject to the content validation process, akin to all the other questions. And those processes involved review by multiple sets of lawyers.

How did. Okay, so I understand there are typos. I understand some questions didn't make sense. Which if I were taking the exam and I saw a question didn't make sense, I would think it's me. I would think, obviously I'm not reading this correctly. So how did that happen? That there are typos, there are grammatical errors.

There were questions that didn't make sense. And how did that happen?

Well, one, it happened because, unfortunately, there was not a professional copy edit done of the questions. That's something that, when we're talking about lessons learned, it seems rather obvious. It's in fact, the case that we have never employed a professional copy editor for the written section of the exam that we deliver as well.

So that's one how we ended up with typos. We did run these questions through professional copy editing after those complaints came in, and we did identify some typos. Not to the extent that you have heard, but certainly that's kind of an obvious one. Typos and grammatical errors. Copy editing is good for that.

And unfortunately it was not engaged in.

You understand how incredulous that is for us to realize?

It's incredulous to me as well, yes.

So if this should happen. Well, I don't even anticipate that. But. But who's in charge of making sure the July exam works like it did for the five or six years previous to this? Who's in charge of that?

Well, I would say it's the Committee of Bar examiners working through staff. And you did have Donna introduce herself. You all know her. Donna is the first chief of admissions. That's one of the lessons learned from this experience is we did not have appropriate Executive level sponsorship of this effort. So that's our equivalent of a C suite.

But it is the Committee's role as invested in them by the Supreme Court, working through, I think, an enhanced staffing team.

But to the extent there's, apparently it's a Committee, there's not one person who has overall responsibility. Is that accurate?

I don't know that that's accurate. I think obviously as the Executive Director, I'm ultimately responsible for what happens in the organization below me. Now we have a chief of admissions. So if you're looking for staff accountability, I think that is the chain of command that you would look to.

And so back to Kaplan. Why didn't they produce all the questions?

Because there was not sufficient time for them to produce all of the questions. And that was contemplated in the agreement with Kaplan, which did talk about providing first year law students exam questions as source material. What was not understood is that there would not be a further...

There would be a further need for questions that would cause some staff to ask the psychometrician to then draft 29 of the 200 questions.

So Kaplan's need to be provided with other source material or the idea that there would be first year law students exam questions on the exam was something that was understood early on because of the time involved in getting those questions developed.

So in terms of the baby bar, there were baby bar questions that were used on the so called big bar, is that right? Did anyone who took the baby bar see those exact same questions on the big bar?

No. These were questions that had never been deployed.

I see.

Or delivered.

I see. How much more do we owe Kaplan?

I don't know, Donna, if you were able to look that up. I believe our contract with Kaplan is about 1.65 million a year, something to that effect. And we have, as I said, a multi-year commitment. I do want to take this opportunity to say Kaplan has been an excellent partner.

And I think there have been numerous process challenges here, as you've heard, failures, a lack of transparency. Absolutely. But I think it's important that we recognize that the questions, all of them did actually perform well psychometrically. We were transparent in providing that data.

And there's no basis for any concern about the quality of the questions that Kaplan themselves drafted. So I don't know if Donna is getting those numbers again.

I believe it's looks like she's got an answer.

Okay. All right, Great.

It's about 6.1 million before we would be able to terminate the contract. I believe this year's contract price was 1.875. It goes down year two and year three.

After year three, per the terms of the contract, we would be able to, with sufficient notice, terminate the contract and there is a termination penalty significantly less, than obviously the amount that we would otherwise have paid for year four and year five of the contract. But it is a five-year contract.

Thank you. When did the leadership of the bar know that AI was used in generating the 29 questions or so?

After the exam, and I don't have a specific date. This is something that I've been exploring for myself in terms of leadership. You're asking me. I'm not sure if either of you remember when that was shared with you, but it was certainly after the exam.

Okay. When did you know that there were typos and incomprehensible questions and that kind of thing?

After the exam, when I saw it on Reddit and I did initiate that professional copy edit that I mentioned earlier.

All right, and when did the Supreme Court know that there were AI questions on the exam, as far as you know? I guess you can't tell me when somebody knew something. When did. When did the bar inform the Supreme Court is a better question.

When we informed the public. So the same time. So several weeks ago. Two weeks. Time is moving perhaps very slowly, but yes. Yes.

Okay. Looks like we might have some additional information on that, too.

I apologize.

The, Senator you had asked earlier about the breakdown of the 29 questions, what subjects they were in. So six, it looks like six of the subject areas that are tested on the multiple choice were included within those 29 questions.

Couple of contracts questions, couple of real property, couple of evidence, couple of civil procedure, and then more heavily torts and criminal procedure. Criminal law. Criminal procedure questions.

Alrighty, thank you. I'm gonna. I've got some more of the questions, but I'm gonna. Basically, I'm gonna provide some questions in writing, so thank you. All right, Mr. Chair.

So we have a motion by Senator Allen. Let's take a vote.

He needs to close.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Let me. Let me look at. We all bear responsibility for this. I think we as a Legislature, we as a Senate Judiciary Committee, bear some responsibility for the debacle that happened in February. And it's our responsibility as well as leadership of the Bar Supreme Court to make sure that this doesn't happen again.

You've heard me say that I think our responsibilities are ensuring that Californians have competent attorneys and also fairness to those who take the test. So with that, I urge an aye vote.

Now we can take the roll.

This is file item 1, SB47. The motion is due pass. [Roll Call] Six to zero.

Will hold that open. Senator Umberg, you now have File item number two SB 253.

We're gonna be here till 2 O'clock in the morning.

Supposedly he has a 5:30 flight.

I don't know.

I mean, I actually booked a 5:30 flight, but he told me he had a 5:30 flight.

Sie konnen fortfahren. Senator Umberg.

Danke schon.

Bitte.

We're gonna start using Italian in a second, so. Alright. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I have SB 253 before you and that's the authorization for the fee with which the State Bar can assess attorneys concerning the practice of law. Now, we've just been through quite a hearing on the bar and the- the previous exam in February.

Again, we share responsibility with the Supreme Court in terms of ensuring that we have a functioning Bar. We've had some major challenges over the last few years. The Tom Girardi debacle exposed some issues that I think the Bar has taken steps to correct.

But I think there's still a way to go in terms of making sure that- that attorneys who are not performing as expected, who are actually violating the law, are appropriately disciplined and also given a fair opportunity to present their case. So we- At- At this point, I don't anticipate- I don't anticipate raising the fees assessed on attorneys for the coming year.

But I would ask that we pass SB 253 and with that I'll urge an aye vote.

You have no witnesses in support?

Just little old me, so.

Well, I think we do have some comments on opposition that was introduced to us during the previous bill. So we'll take that as the. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. I'll get this down eventually. I'll be here another six years or so.

Do we have Me Too testimony in support of the bill? Seeing no- oh, we do. Me Too testimony?

I was just here for opposition beforehand, so I was just getting ready.

No support.

Okay. So in opposition.

Thank you, Senator Niello.

We'll- We'll give you two minutes.

Okay. Thank you. Peyman Roshan, appearing as promised regarding this bill. As mentioned, Williams v. Reed, renders the State Bar act unconstitutional for tho- for those members of the committee that are not civil lights- rights lawyers. The Civil Rights Act of 1871, usually known as 42 U.S.C. section 1983, is the mechanism for suing state actors for violation of civil rights.

Under a case called Ex parte Young, one can obtain injunctions against the state by suing state officials. For decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that if a state allows its courts of general jurisdiction to hear 1983 lawsuits, then it cannot create barriers that immunize certain classes of defendants or classes of claims who would not be immune in federal court.

For example, in Heywood v. Drown, which is in the letter that I've distributed analyzed, the State of New York passed a law requiring 1983 lawsuits against prison personnel to be filed in a special court which immunized the personnel and instead required a lawsuit against the State of New York. This was held to be unconstitutional.

Prior to this year, it was not clear whether states could strip the jurisdiction of their trial courts where there was no obvious intention to immunize the officials.

This was a significant issue because California's attorney discipline system under the State Bar act strips the superior courts of jurisdiction to hear civil rights claims against officials of the State Bar or the California Supreme Court for violations of constitutional rights.

In Williams, a 5-4 decision, the three liberal members plus Justice Roberts and Kavanaugh ruled that any laws or rules stripping the regular state trial courts of jurisdiction to hear 1983 claims violates the supremacy clause, rendering the law and all judgments thereunder void.

Even where the state laws were not intended to immunize anyone, all that matters is the result. California attorney disciplines-

Come to your conclusion.

Yes. In light of the new authority, this committee should not proceed with either bill. California attorneys cannot be required to fund an unconstitutional attorney discipline process.

This bill should not advance and this committee should begin studying a new State Bar act that complies with Williams. It has plenty of time to consider fees in the next session.

Thank you. Next witness in opposition?

Yes, Benjamin Kohn and the I'm in opposition not because I don't think there should be a fee bill, but because this is a skeleton and I wanted to give comment on the amendments that should be added to it to regulate the Bar exam.

And as we've discovered needs to happen. The- last year I requested certain procedural reforms to testing accommodations and I brought up how they- there were applicants hospitalized due to disparate treatment against disability by being made to test in an open barn at Cow Palace. In addition what swarmed by bees.

In addition to the other issues that were going on at Cow Palace, this exam cycle measures proctoring conditions in disparate treatment have caused several applicants to be hospitalized and one actually had a miscarriage. There was public comment given to the State Bar about that.

In light of these growing public safety issues with the way in person testing has been handled, particularly for those with disabilities, I want to address the the idea that the previous Bar exams without this debacle with measure were a panacea. This is the worst, most egregious, highest scale thing.

But I have records from the State Bar as far back as 2017, not earlier, showing that failures to implement testing accommodations that were approved by the State Bar is probably 20 to 30% of those applicants approved for testing accommodations. It's a recurring issue. Every exam cycle, it happened to me.

It happened to many of my clients and they often lead to safety issues. They led to serious safety issues with this exam needs to be regulated. I also wanted to address that the failure to implement the timeline reforms of requiring testing accommodation.

If you could do that in about 10 seconds.

Yes. Wholly excluded many individuals with disabilities, including one of Senator Umberg's constituents from the Bar exam experience experiment and its plus factor in admissions, which necessitates changing those timeline reforms in this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any MeToo testimony in opposition? Seeing nobody come forward. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Does anybody have questions or comments? Senator Allen.

I just wanted to ask the author. I don't see any allusions to this Williams decision in either of the analyses for this of the previous Bill. Do you want to speak to the new case? I haven't familiar. I got to familiarize myself with the Bill. So the decision.

Do you want to speak to some of the arguments from the gentleman who spoke first on the opposition side as it relates to this new disagreement.

We're not going to abolish the State Bar.

So- but is it that that's presumably that's not what this case.

I don't know. But I'm certain that we're not going to abolish the State Bar.

Yeah, I would assume that as well. And I can't imagine that that's what the court was ruling. So can I just get a better sense from the gentleman about what exactly is your argument about what the court has said as it relates to this Bill?

Are you mentioning the Williams court? Yeah. Yes. So the court didn't make any statements as it relates to this Bill.

What they stated is that when a state, as California does, provides a forum for people to bring 1983 actions against individuals in the state, then they cannot jurisdiction strip subpart of those state actors, which is exactly what has happened in California in relation to the State Bar.

There is no jurisdiction in which those that are aggrieved and want to make 1983 claims, which is actually one of the testimonies by one of the test takers. There's immunity that's been provided. The U.S. Supreme Court was presented the issue and in February they decided such immunities are unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause.

That's the situation we're in here in California, and that needs to be addressed.

Okay. But that doesn't mean we don't have a bar.

The current Bar.

You're just talking about- about the right for people to bring in action against the Bar.

Yes. This structure, as is designed by the California Supreme Court and the State Bar aAct, is in direct contravention of the Supremacy Clause because it does not provide a forum for bringing 1983 actions, as was testified by some of the aggrieved today.

And the Williams Case and the cases that it relies upon broadly result in the fact that the State Bar Act, by virtue, is unconstitutional.

Okay. I mean, I hear you. I'm sure that's going to be litigated, it seems.

Yeah. If the Committee is going to proceed in requiring, you know, attorneys to fund an unconstitutional institution, then of course the ultimate result.

The whole institution isn't unconstitutional. You're just arguing that.

Well, the disciplinary proceedings. I mean, if someone in the admission proceedings has issues, where are they going to bring the action? If someone in discipline proceedings have issues, where do they bring 1983 actions? It doesn't exist. And that's what Williams addressed.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, sir. I'll ask Senator Umberg, what- I mean, do you- do you feel as though there's an adequate mechanism for people to bring- to bring grievances, to bring actions against the bar in cases similar to this? And is that something we want to address?

Yeah, I don't know the answer to your question, but it is something we'll look at.

Okay.

All right.

I mean, you know, I think it. I don't. I think that the. I think we need to spend some time looking at it. I don't think that it means that we shouldn't pass this particular Bill right now.

Senator Caballero.

Thank you very much, Mr. Vice Chair. I. I thank the opposition for giving us this information. This is a February 25 decision by the US Supreme Court.

So it's one of those situations where we probably have to look at it to figure out how the State Bar can comply with a decision that just came down from the Supreme Court. But I want to agree with my colleague.

I don't see this as something that's going to keep us from or that's going to force us to abolish the State Bar Association. Let me just say that I'm really disappointed in. I'm very disappointed in the State Bar and actions or inactions that they've taken over the past couple. It's not even a couple of years, it's a number of years.

As an attorney, it's embarrassing and it's mortifying. And I want to second what you said, Mr. Chair, that this- this is a situation with us trying to fix an airplane when it's flying. And I think we got to continue to do that. I'm going to support your Bill today.

I think it's the right thing to do. But I also think that we've got to give them some direction and some real specific direction about where they have to go, because I'm not sure that the integrity of the testing is such that we can rely on it.

But I also don't feel like it's fair to go back and tell people that took the exam and thought they passed it that it's now invalid. Have to agree with some of the comments that were made. One of the most stressful times in my life was when I had to take the Bar Exam and pass it.

And I would not want to go through that again if my life depended on it. And I've been an attorney for many, many years. So appreciate what you're doing here. I think we need to. I think we need to take a look at this decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. I took the time to read it-

While we were sitting here. And it's hard to read legal work when people are talking and you're trying to pay attention to that as well. But I appreciate the information. Thank the opposition for being here. And if we don't have a motion, I'm prepared to make a motion when the time is appropriate. Thank you.

Other questions or comments? I don't understand all the stress. I took the CPA exam, and it was not at all stressful, and it was a breeze. You just picked the wrong profession.

Just means you're smarter than us, Mr. Chair.

Just kidding. You may close.

Thank you very much. I invite the State Bar to respond to the Supreme Court decision. And we'll take a look, and if we need to make adjustments, we'll do so. I urge and aye vote.

We may call the roll.

This is File item number two, SB 253. The motion is do pass. Umberg.? Umberg, aye. Niello? Niello, aye. Allen? Allen, aye. Arreguin? Ashby? Caballero? Caballero, aye. Durazo? Durazo, aye. Laird? Laird, aye. Stern?Valladares? Wahab? Weber Pierson? Weber Pierson, aye. Wiener? Seven to zero.

We will keep that open. And moving on, we now have our normal chair as opposed to the abnormal chair.

Thank you for that vote of confidence. So we have a number of matters. Let's take the vote on the consent calendar to start with. So Senator Laird has moved the consent calendar Committee. Assistant Porter, will you call the roll, please?

[Roll Call]

All right, we'll put that on call. So we have Senator Allen is at the podium. So I'll call upon Senator Allen in normal. In regular course, we would go with Senator Menjivar after Senator Allen, then Senator Menjivar, then Senator Ochoa Bogh

Oh, here she is. All right, we'll let her. Why don't you come up?

Senator Menjivar? Self SB709 File item number seven.

You're here all day.

All right, we are moving on to File item number 7, SB 709 by Senator Menjivar. Floor is yours, ma'am.

Thank you so much, Senator. First off, I will be accepting the amendments as stated in the analysis on page 15.

Colleagues, one out of five people depend on self storage facilities, usually due to an unfortunate circumstances as forces them to attempt to store their entire life in a 10 by 10 space.

Self storage offers a temporary place to keep belongings safe and secure during life events like repairing property damage after a natural disaster, death in a family, moving, renovations or housing instability.

The analysis noted that the second most common use reason a person uses rental storage is because they are moving, moving back in with their parents, forced to downsize or housing unstable, again mentioned.

When I was younger there were various times that I used a self storage one because of the military, the instability there, and also when me and my family got evicted from our home.

Most recently I've had to use a personal self storage really close by because well, it sucks paying for rent when you're here during the when you're not here during the interim. So you want to move out of your apartment when you're not here and put yourself into self storage.

And that's what I did last August and I signed up with the contract and I paid $108 per month. Well, I thought I was going to pay $108 per month and in three short months that jumped to $260. A 38.3% raise in my rental unit.

And I was only there for approximately 6-7 months until I moved back out in February. These are the examples of what we're seeing across California where I got hooked in because there was a really great promotional rate, not knowing that in the short three months it was going to jump almost 40%.

A Slate article revealed that at an industry conference, self storage owners boasted about how they lure unsuspecting customers with deceptively low rates before raising the fees by 30 to 40% and then another 10 to 15% ongoing.

The practice, as the analysis notes of existing customer rate increase is a common occurrence and clearly demonstrates the urgent need for this Bill. Self storage units are widely unregulated and these massive rental increases will continue to harm the most vulnerable. Now not working on a cap in this Bill, we wanted to start the first step of disclosures.

People should know when they're signing a contract that what they're signing in the rental rate is going to drastically more often than not jump throughout the year.

And I want to know, if you look at the analysis and all the ones that we read, there's always a section on related legislation and a long list of previous legislation that works on a certain topic. If you look at this analysis, you'll see the short list of what we've done and haven't done in this space.

And two of the four bills that are in the analysis were actually in favor of the owners of the self storage units.

I would say if the opposition comes up and says that we are doing too much to regulate this industry, we are going to impact it, that there has been a lack of work done in this space.

Opposition will turn to the flexibility a customer currently has to leave if they are unhappy with their rent, they'll talk about their high customer satisfaction. But do you know how expensive it is to just move your stuff into a storage unit? Back to the example that I gave of me moving my stuff in. When I moved the stuff out, it cost me $600.

It is really difficult once you are in a self storage unit to move because the rent increases 30, 40, 50%. Because you're going to have to consider the cost of hiring individuals, the cost of labor, having your friends and family be upset at you because you are having them move your stuff once again to a different unit.

There are a lot of different variables that play a part into an individual saying, you know what, I'm just going to stay here because it's going to cost me just too much to move.

Current contractor agreements are not transparent because customers, again, have no idea that the rent amount that pull them in is not the rent that they're going to have for a minimum of a couple of months. So here to speak to the data, Mr. Chair and I'd like to turn over to two witnesses.

All right, thank you very much. First witness, please. If you're in support of SB 709, please cue up.

We're going to revert to the former practice of folks coming to the microphone.

Am I coming here or am I going?

Yes, right there.

All right, Members of the Committee, thank you to Senator Menjivar for asking me to come to speak to you today. My name is Dr. Margaret Handley.

I'm a Professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Medicine at UC San Francisco, where I am a faculty Member of the Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative. I'm here to discuss the critical role that self storage facilities play for people who experience homelessness in our state.

BHHI's statewide study about homelessness taught us a lot about the key role that self storage plays for people experiencing homelessness and how its high costs threaten their sense of safety and possibility for the future.

We learned that people often become homeless in just a few days, not enough time to plan, and as a result, many turn to storage facilities. These facilities were lifelines to to store people's precious belongings and important documents as well.

Because most shelters restrict what people can bring in with them, storage facilities can be essential to people in shelters and for people who are unsheltered, they can protect belongings from threats, from the elements, from robbery, and from sweeps.

In fact, 36% of all people experience homelessness in our study noted that they had lost all of their belongings in a homelessness sweep in the prior six months. In our statewide studies in depth interviews, participants told us how their self storage facilities protected their belongings and their hopes for the future.

As one participant told us, I have a big storage I keep collecting for when I get a house. People come in and steal your stuff. That's why I got a storage and I keep everything in that storage.

We also heard from participants over and over again about the high cost of storage and how they spent what little money they had to keep them. For me, this issue is also personal, so I will tell you about my dad's storage locker.

My dad's prized possession was a rare mandolin which he kept in a storage locker in San Jose and we would visit it with him when we were kids. He would play the mandolin for us and sing songs from the time of his youth when he was in a bluegrass band. The locker was my dad's only permanent address.

He couch surfed, rented rooms and sometimes lived out of his car. When I was in my early 20's, he disappeared. I remember how natural it seemed to spend time at his locker and how unimportant it was to me that he didn't always have an address. This experience.

Thank you very much.

It helps me see the belongings in storage lockers protect people's lives.

Thank you. All right, others in support of SB 709.

Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and Members. I'm Robert Herrell, Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California, speaking in support. As you heard from the author, the self storage industry is a large industry. 56 billion in the U.S. there's more than 3,500 facilities in California. One in five people use them.

I myself had reason to use over the past year as my sisters and I dealt with the illness and then death of our 96 year old mother down in Orange County.

The author mentioned an article in Slate that came out in January of this year, and I'd like to quote a little bit more extensively from it to make the case for the Bill. The biggest problem facing consumers when interacting with this industry is essentially what I refer to as a bait and switch problem.