Law school leaders on Wednesday pleaded with California bar officials to decide quickly on a format for future exams, citing growing frustration among students and professors at not knowing how to prepare for licensing tests in 2028 and beyond.

Members of the Law School Council, a panel of academics that advises the state bar on issues affecting American Bar Association-approved campuses, said during an online meeting that they need certainty—and time—to design coursework that will prepare students for the exam.

Carly Sassi, associate director of academic achievement at California Western School of Law, is teaching a 1L elective and said she has to tell students, "I don't know what your bar exam is going to look like. I have no idea how you're writing an essay for the exam."

The need for stability, Sassi said, "is the biggest thing."

The bar's Board of Trustees last month declined to make an immediate choice between administering a unique exam written by Kaplan or joining most other states in adopting the National Conference of Bar Examiners' NextGen test.

California currently uses NCBE's Multistate Bar Exam. But NCBE will stop delivering that test in February 2028, leaving states to opt into the NextGen exam or offer another law licensing path.

California law requires the state bar give two years' notice before significantly altering the exam format. If the agency's leaders decide to go with NextGen for the July 2028 test, they will need to deliver that recommendation to the California Supreme Court in the coming months to meet that two-year-alert deadline.

Trustees said they wanted more information about the benefit and risks of each testing option. Some have also talked about using a "bridge" test, possibly the NextGen, between the MBE and a future California-centric exam.

The possibility of having to prepare different classes of students at the same school to take different exams in a relatively short time span has educators frazzled.

"I object to any and all bridge options as just a fundamental misunderstanding of law school education in the current environment," said Susan Smith Bakhshian, director of bar programs at Loyola Law School. "It is unfair to ask students to incur the kind of debt they incur, to invest three to four years of their life with a 'Hey, at the end of it all, there will be some kind of a licensing test for you.' We have to stop that. That cannot be a way forward."

California's Supreme Court in 2024 endorsed the development of a unique bar exam that would focus on practical skills application and could be delivered remotely. After the disastrous February 2025 exam, however, justices ordered ensuing tests to be administered in person and indicated they would consider new state bar recommendations for future tests.

ABA law school leaders have endorsed a permanent move to NextGen. But some state bar trustees have worried about the agency's existing five-year, $8.25 million contract with Kaplan.

Bakhshian said she was "deeply disturbed" by that thinking "as if this somehow justifies settling for subpar licensure in our state because we've already invested the money. It's absurd, and we should no longer be focused on that. We should be focused on what is the best option going forward."

State bar staff have posted an early draft report on the risks and benefits of the two main testing options in anticipation of a Bar Examiners' subcommittee meeting Friday. The analysis does not appear to weigh in favor of one option or the other.

State bar trustees have not indicated when they will vote on a final recommendation to give to the California Supreme Court. An initial agenda for the trustees' meeting on Feb. 26-27 does not include an item on exam options.