Jeffrey Parness (Northern Illinois; Google Scholar), State Law Tests and Apprenticeships with the New Uniform Bar Exam?, 58 Creighton L. Rev. 1 (2024):
A new approach to the Uniform Bar Exam (UBE), propounded by the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE), will be available in July 2026. The current approach to UBE testing will no longer be available from the NCBE in a few years. Over one third of the states have already signed on to be the new UBE.
All indications are that the revised UBE will reflect a seismic shift in how bar applicants are assessed. It will likely also prompt at least some changes in how and what students are taught in law schools. The stated goal of the NCBE in pursuing a revised UBE is for the “next generation of the bar exam” to focus on “topics and tasks . . . that are most essential for newly licensed lawyers.”
In undertaking assessments of bar applicants differently, the new UBE will not have, as it has now, separate essay, performance, and multiple-choice components. Further, it is scheduled to run a day and a half, not two days.
This allows states to test local subjects more easily. The new exam will contain, unlike now, “integrated” exam questions that use “scenarios that are representative of real-world types of legal problems” that newly-licensed lawyers encounter.
To date, there are no indications that state and local bar associations, the judiciaries, interested private groups or individuals in the states committed to, or interested in, the new UBE have examined significantly the possibility of a half day state law testing component that would supplement the UBE. Alternative methods of examining state law subjects, as is often done with separate testing of professional responsibility issues, have also not been significantly explored. Explorations are needed. 2026 is fast approaching. The experience in New York with its New York Law Examination, that supplements the MPRE and the UBE, should be helpful in the explorations.
There are also no indications that apprenticeship requirements have been considered when pondering the adoption of the UBE. Yet several states have pursued apprenticeships and the like as alternatives to UBE testing. Where apprenticeships are deemed useful even with UBE testing, apprenticeships could also be required of bar applicants, with opportunities for pre or post law school satisfaction made easily available. When mandated, public/community service could be a component.
The time is ripe for dialogue on state law tests and apprenticeships that would supplement the use of the new UBE.
Editor’s Note: If you would like to receive a daily email with links to legal education posts on TaxProf Blog, email me here.
The bar exam is changing, and soon. The National Conference of Bar Examiners (“NCBE”), the entity that supplies the bar exam for a majority of U.S. jurisdictions, is in the later stages of development of the NextGen Bar Exam, a new bar exam that is scheduled to be implemented gradually beginning in July 2026, with full implementation by July 2028. Twenty-six U.S. jurisdictions have signed on to adopt the NextGen Bar Exam thus far, with seven of them (Connecticut, Guam, Maryland, Missouri, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, and Washington) announcing adoption at the earliest date of July 2026. This means that there are students currently enrolled in law school who will take the NextGen Bar Exam—for example, full-time students who began their studies in the fall of 2023 or 2024, and who plan to take the bar exam in one of those four jurisdictions. Other jurisdictions may follow. The race is on to prepare our students for an exam that appears, in many ways, to be unconventional. 
The war between Washington and our nation’s elite universities continues to heat up. From 
ABA Journal, 
The ABA Council has 
Legal Education:
This article focuses on the neglected relationship between market valuation and international economic law by comparing valuation practices in four subfields: international investment law, the law of the European Convention of Human Rights, international tax law, and World Trade Organization law. The operation of each of these hinges, in some crucial respect, on how the worth of a certain thing is determined by the market (calculating damages awarded to investors, identifying a breach of the right to property due to insufficient compensation, allocating taxable income among sovereigns under transfer pricing rules, and identifying the existence and extent of an actionable subsidy). 
Darien Shanske (UC-Davis; 
We offer three ways to have TaxProf Blog content automatically delivered to your computer, tablet, or smart phone:
