Performance test (bar exam)
Section of the bar exam that simulates a real-life legal task
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The performance test or "PT" is a section of bar examinations in the United States that is intended to mimic a real-life legal task that future lawyers may face. Of the three parts of most states' bar exams -- MBE, essay, and performance test—the performance test is supposed to be the most reflective of how well a candidate will perform outside of an academic setting.[citation needed]
A performance test may include tasks such as writing a legal memorandum, drafting an affidavit, or drafting a settlement offer letter to opposing counsel.
One problem with performance tests is that if they actually tested the current law of a state as it relates to a specific subject, bar applicants who attended law school in that state and took a course focused on that state's law on that subject might have an unfair advantage over applicants who did not. In other words, the performance test would be testing applicants' understanding of current state law, as opposed to their lawyering skills. To mitigate that advantage, performance tests normally use the law of a fictional state, and its law as provided in the test materials usually has subtle differences from the law in the real world in order to reduce the advantage of having already studied that subject matter in law school. This forces applicants to demonstrate their ability to interpret and apply the law as they find it, rather than the law they already know.
California Bar Examination performance tests
Until 1983, the California Bar Examination was only two days long and had no performance test. During that era, it was criticized as too abstract and failing to test too few skills relevant to the actual practice of law, and was also criticized for disproportionate impact on persons of color.[1]
In July 1980, the State Bar of California conducted an experiment with 485 bar applicants who volunteered to participate in performance tests in addition to taking the regular bar exam. To give applicants an incentive to participate, the experimental performance tests could only increase but not decrease their chances of passing the bar exam. The experiment was led by UCLA School of Law professor Paul Bergman and RAND Corporation psychometrician Stephen P. Klein. Based on their results, the State Bar added a three-hour-long performance test to the July 1983 bar exam administration.[1] California performance tests are usually situated in the fictional state of Columbia.
Through February 2017, the California bar exam spanned three days, and included two performance test sections, one the first day (Tuesday) and one the last day (Thursday). Each PT lasted three hours—for a total of six—and the two PTs were worth 26% of the total score. The types of tasks presented are:
- Legal memorandum
- Persuasive brief
- Declaration or affidavit
- Closing argument
- Opening statement
- Jury instructions
- Witness cross or direct examination
- Discovery/investigation plan
- Client letter
- Client or witness interview
- Negotiation, settlement proposal or agreement
- Analysis of a contract, will, trust or statute
- Legislation
- Alternative dispute resolution task
Each PT has a file and a library. The file contains factual materials about the case while the library contains the legal authorities needed. The candidates can either hand write or type using a laptop.
Effective July 2017, the California bar exam was reduced to two days, with a single 90-minute performance test administered on the first afternoon (Tuesday).[2]
| Exam | PT Name | Task / Assignment |
|---|---|---|
| July 2025 | Tate v. Tate | Opinion Letter |
| Feb 2025 Retest | In re Dawes Family Partnership | Objective Memorandum |
| Feb 2025 | Jamison v. Sunrise Ladder Co., Inc. | Opinion Letter |
| July 2024 | State v. Dalton | Draft Closing Argument |
| Feb 2024 | Panko v. Dahir | Persuasive Brief |
| July 2023 | In re Marriage of Burke | Opinion "Recommendation" Letter |
| Feb 2023 | State v. Hughes | Draft Oral Argument |
| July 2022 | Niesi v. Gosling and Hardy | Objective Memorandum |
| Feb 2022 | In re Price | Objective Memorandum |
| July 2021 | Industrial Sandblasting, Inc. v. Morgan | Draft Closing Argument |
| Feb 2021 | Matter of I.B.T. | Objective Memorandum |
| Oct 2020 | In Re Potential Wright Litigation | Objective Memorandum |
| Feb 2020 | Western Insurance Company v. SecureTrade, Inc. | Persuasive Letter |
| July 2019 | State v. Martin | Objective Memorandum |
| Feb 2019 | People v. Raymond | Persuasive Brief |
| July 2018 | In the Matter of Abigail Watkins | Persuasive Brief |
| Feb 2018 | Meaney v. Trustees of the University of Columbia | Objective Memorandum |
| July 2017 | United States v. Blake C. Davis | Persuasive Letter |
| Feb 2017 (PT-A) | In re Columbia Nurses Association | Persuasive Letter |
| Feb 2017 (PT-B) | Claim by Blanchard Engineering, Inc. Against City of Corson | Objective Memorandum |
| July 2016 (PT-A) | In re Potential Wildomar Property Litigation | Persuasive Letter |
| July 2016 (PT-B) | Wong v. Pavlik Foods, Inc. | Objective Memorandum |
| Feb 2016 (PT-A) | In the Matter of Milly Nolan Fleck | Objective Memorandum |
| Feb 2016 (PT-B) | Jay Minor v. Lucinda Minor | Persuasive Memorandum of Points & Authorities |
| July 2015 (PT-A) | Wilson v. Belton Company, Inc. | Persuasive Memorandum of Points & Authorities |
| July 2015 (PT-B) | Barker v. Columbia Department of Administrative Hearings | Opinion Memorandum |
| Feb 2015 (PT-A) | In re Virta and Burnsen | Objective Memorandum |
| Feb 2015 (PT-B) | State v. Daniel | Persuasive Memorandum of Points & Authorities |
| July 2014 (PT-A) | Tehama County v. Tepee Campground | Objective Memorandum |
| July 2014 (PT-B) | Riley Instruments, Inc. v. LRI, Inc. | Persuasive Brief |
| Feb 2014 (PT-A) | Adams v. Kustom Spas, Inc. | Persuasive Brief |
| Feb 2014 (PT-B) | Rock v. Davis | Objective Memorandum |
| July 2013 (PT-A) | In re SIA | Objective Memorandum |
| July 2013 (PT-B) | People v. Draper | Objective Memorandum |
| Feb 2013 (PT-A) | Doral Digestive Medical Clinic v. Dr. Kyle Harris | Opinion Letter |
| Feb 2013 (PT-B) | In re Yamata Logging, Inc. | Persuasive Letter |
| July 2012 (PT-A) | In re CLEF, Inc. | Objective Memorandum |
| July 2012 (PT-B) | Flores v. Falk | Persuasive Memorandum of Points & Authorities |
| Feb 2012 (PT-A) | In re Swayne | Objective Memorandum |
| Feb 2012 (PT-B) | State v. Dolan | Draft Closing Argument |
| July 2011 (PT-A) | In re Brent Quillen | Objective Memorandum |
| July 2011 (PT-B) | David v. Sovereign Auto Store, Inc. | Persuasive Memorandum of Points & Authorities |
| Feb 2011 (PT-A) | Enviroscan, Inc. v. Structural Environmental Safety Agency | Objective Memorandum |
| Feb 2011 (PT-B) | In re Santos | Persuasive Memorandum of Points & Authorities |
| July 2010 (PT-A) | Vasquez v. Speakeasy, Inc. and Northern Center of Worship | Persuasive Brief |
| July 2010 (PT-B) | In re Black | Opinion Letter |
| Feb 2010 (PT-A) | Ochoa v. CMH | Alternative Dispute Resolution Opinion |
| Feb 2010 (PT-B) | Rettick v. Floyd Industries, LLC, et al. | Persuasive Memorandum of Points & Authorities |
| July 2009 (PT-A) | Farley v. Dunn | Statement of Uncontested Facts + Persuasive Brief |
| July 2009 (PT-B) | Williams v. Golub | Objective Memorandum |
| Feb 2009 (PT-A) | Pannine v. Dreslin, et al. | Persuasive Memorandum of Points & Authorities |
| Feb 2009 (PT-B) | Phoenix Towers v. Porter | Counseling Memorandum |
| July 2008 (PT-A) | Pearson v. Savings Galore | Objective Memorandum |
| July 2008 (PT-B) | People v. Duncan | Persuasive Memorandum of Points & Authorities |
| Feb 2008 (PT-A) | One-Stop Equipment Leasing v. Frank Reeves | Persuasive Memorandum of Points & Authorities |
| Feb 2008 (PT-B) | Snyder v. Regents of the University of Columbia | Objective Memorandum |
| July 2007 (PT-A) | Carter v. Reston Health | Objective Memorandum |
| July 2007 (PT-B) | Tanya and Mark Gross v. Baker | Persuasive Letter |
| Feb 2007 (PT-A) | Phenom Networks v. Jasmine Semiconductor | Persuasive Memorandum of Points & Authorities |
| Feb 2007 (PT-B) | In re Ergometriz, Inc. | Objective Memorandum |
| July 2006 (PT-A) | Savall Drugstores, Inc. v. Phister Pharmaceuticals Corp. | Persuasive Brief |
| July 2006 (PT-B) | Breene and Frost | Opinion Letter |
| Feb 2006 (PT-A) | Hensen v. Build a Burger | Persuasive Memorandum of Points & Authorities |
| Feb 2006 (PT-B) | Estate of Small | Persuasive Brief |
| July 2005 (PT-A) | In re Winstons | Persuasive Letter |
| July 2005 (PT-B) | Property Clerk v. Grinnell | Persuasive Brief / Memorandum of Points & Authorities |
| Feb 2005 (PT-A) | Sandra Castro v. Tom Miller | Persuasive Letter |
| Feb 2005 (PT-B) | Marriage of Eiffel | Persuasive Brief |
| July 2004 (PT-A) | Donovan v. Bargain Mart, Inc. | Objective Memorandum |
| July 2004 (PT-B) | Jaynes v. Palm Gardens Group | Persuasive Memorandum of Points & Authorities |
| Feb 2004 (PT-A) | In re Snow King Mountain Resort | Persuasive Letter + Objective Memorandum |
| Feb 2004 (PT-B) | In re Progressive Builders, Inc. | Opinion Letter |
| July 2003 (PT-A) | In re Marriage of Nittardi | Opinion Letter |
| July 2003 (PT-B) | In re Ryan Cox | Objective Memorandum |
| Feb 2003 (PT-A) | Morales et al. v. Parsons | Persuasive Memorandum |
| Feb 2003 (PT-B) | Reese v. Kennel Kare, Inc. | Objective Memorandum |
| July 2002 (PT-A) | In re Thomas Outdoor Advertising | Objective Memorandum |
| July 2002 (PT-B) | U.S. v. Alejandro Cruz | Objective Memorandum |
| Feb 2002 (PT-A) | Estate of Keefe | Draft Declaration + Statement of Disputed Facts + Persuasive Memorandum |
| Feb 2002 (PT-B) | Adair v. Oldfield | Objective Memorandum |
Multistate Performance Test
This is a test drafted by the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE), modeled after the California test and intended as a supplement to NCBE's Multistate Essay Examination. NCBE currently offers three different performance tests, each 90 minutes long (as opposed to three hours in California). As of July 2007, 33 jurisdictions use the MPT. The MPT is usually situated in the fictional state of Franklin.