Transforming Legal Licensure: The NextGen Uniform Bar Exam

By Kelly Koepke

Introduction

The significance of the bar exam in legal licensure cannot be overstated. As one of the final steps for aspiring attorneys on the path to practice, it ensures candidates meet a minimum standard of abilities, skills, and knowledge necessary for entry-level practice. The exam assesses a candidate’s capacity to analyze facts, identify legal issues, apply standards, and communicate effectively. This safeguards the public, providing assurance that new lawyers can competently advise and represent clients, and draft legal documents in an ethical manner. Such an exam enjoys broad support: a 2020 survey found that 80 percent of Americans support a bar exam requirement for law graduates seeking licensure.1

In July 2026, the NextGen Uniform Bar Exam will be administered for the first time. The new, evolved exam will continue to evaluate the knowledge, skills, and abilities essential for modern legal practice, incorporating state-of-the-art testing technology while maintaining NCBE’s commitment to excellence, fairness, and service to the legal community and the public.

Early Days of NCBE and the Bar Exam

Founded in 1931, the National Conference of Bar Examiners has served as a hub for sharing information, discussing issues, and establishing best practices among bar examiners nationwide. In fact, this very magazine began as a monthly publication that same year. NCBE has evolved over more than nine decades to promote fairness, integrity, and best practices in bar admissions, benefiting the public and maintaining a competent, ethical, and diverse legal profession. To support this mission, it provides training, resources, and educational programs for the bar admissions and legal education communities.2

Some early examples of resources include a 1940 collaboration with the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar and the Association of American Law Schools to create the Manual for Bar Examiners. NCBE produced the initial Code of Recommended Standards for Bar Examiners in 1958, followed by publication of a Bar Examiners’ Handbook a decade later.3

This highlights the benefits bar examiners get from sharing ideas and practices to improve and strengthen overall bar examination and admission standards. But until 1972, each state bar created its own essay and multiple-choice exam questions. Often drafted by local attorneys or law faculty, these questions focused heavily on doctrinal knowledge specific to each jurisdiction, with little validation of their fairness or accuracy. Until then, NCBE mainly served as a question repository and forum for broader discussion; there was no standardized or scientifically validated exam.

As a clearinghouse where US jurisdictions could talk about issues, NCBE recognized a growing demand for a reliable, valid instrument “that could test a fair amount of content in a more condensed period of time,” says Judith A. Gundersen, NCBE President and CEO in an interview. “That’s when the NCBE developed the Multistate Bar Exam [MBE] that basically gained acceptance from just about every [jurisdiction]. Before that, bar examiners around the country were kind of like little islands.”

The MBE, first administered in 19 jurisdictions in 1972, assessed a general body of knowledge and analytical skills expected of new lawyers. It was followed by the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination in 1980, the Multistate Essay Examination (MEE) in 1988, and the Multistate Performance Test (MPT) in 1997. These exams, developed through rigorous testing principles and widely adopted across US jurisdictions, established a baseline of competence for new lawyers.

Despite these advances, no formal mechanism existed for recognizing or transferring valid bar exam scores across jurisdictions. A lawyer passing the exam in one jurisdiction often had to retake it if they wished to practice elsewhere, even if that new jurisdiction had administered the same exam on the same day as the original—a costly and time-consuming proposition for those affected. As cross- and multijurisdictional practice increased, discussions about score portability, and its effect on lawyer mobility, gained momentum in the early 2000s.

Focusing jurisdictions’ attention on score portability was challenging and came with criticism. Jurisdictions “thought they were so much better than an outsider could be in understanding the culture of practice in their [jurisdiction], and what subjects were important,” says Hon. Rebecca White Berch, former NCBE Board of Trustees chair (2017–2018).

The 2008 recession further fueled the push for score portability, as lawyers faced scarcer job opportunities and the need for greater mobility. By then, many jurisdictions administered NCBE exams—the MEE, MBE, and MPT—under uniform procedures, so the concept of a shared, portable exam was not as far-fetched as it once was.

The Uniform Bar Exam and Score Portability

The Uniform Bar Exam (UBE) arrived in 2011. Composed of the MBE, MEE, and MPT, it is uniformly administered, graded, and scored and results in a portable score that can be transferred to other UBE jurisdictions. Adoption was initially slow, but by 2024 41 jurisdictions had signed onto the compact. As of January 1, 2025, 65,849 UBE scores had been transferred, or approximately 20 percent of total UBE scores earned—a clear sign of the importance of portability.4

“A core principle for any high-stakes testing organization is continual assessment and improvement of its products.”

Getting jurisdictions to accept scores from other jurisdictions “took a leap of faith,” says Hon. Cynthia L. Martin, former chair of the NCBE Board of Trustees (2019–2020). “We all share the common goal of securing a sense of minimum competence in bestowing a law license in terms of public protection. It took NCBE creating a national conversation to get over the UBE hurdle.”

Berch credits Erica Moeser, NCBE president from 1994 until 2017, as a force behind the portability push. “Erica worked … for years getting people’s buy in, holding listening sessions, defining the problem, and [explaining] why it was important.” Moeser and NCBE advocated to chief justices, law schools, and bar officials, emphasizing the strict testing standards that underpinned the UBE’s validity. The move toward score portability transformed lawyer mobility. This progress reflects the ongoing evolution of the licensing process, driven by NCBE’s commitment to fairness, consistency, and public protection.

The purpose of the UBE, like high-stakes licensure exams for other professions, is to protect the public by ensuring that candidates can demonstrate essential knowledge, skills, and abilities. When the UBE was introduced in 2011, the legal environment was very different from today’s. When the UBE debuted, multi- and crossjurisdictional practice was growing but not yet widespread. The profession was also still recovering from the 2008 recession, which led to lower employment rates for new graduates and a shift away from the traditional large law firm model toward solo practices and smaller firms.

The COVID-19 pandemic may have changed how and where lawyers worked, but legal practice was not previously static. Business and legal questions increasingly crossed state borders. Technological advances and intersections of work and the internet created new legal challenges, including data privacy and cybersecurity issues that defy traditional jurisdictional boundaries.

Although the ABA does not track lawyers’ licensure in more than one state or territory, anecdotal data points to more lawyers practicing in multiple jurisdictions. “Used to be you got a job in the state you wanted and you stayed there. There wasn’t much mobility or even global work in practice,” says Darin B. Scheer, current NCBE Board of Trustees chair. “Then national law firms started popping up in multiple cities, and lawyers more and more needed to be able to practice across jurisdictions.”

The Road to the NextGen UBE: Conceptualization and Early Initiatives

A core principle for any high-stakes testing organization is continual assessment and improvement of its products. NCBE has a long history of analyzing candidate experiences, reviewing exam scores, and evaluating whether its assessments accurately measure the intended skills and knowledge. The current UBE test structure—a three-­component, paper-and-pencil examination administered over two days—has repeatedly demonstrated its effectiveness in testing fundamental legal principles, reasoning, and communication skills across jurisdictions and over time. It has addressed the challenges of earlier nonstandard exams and facilitated score portability for candidates. Yet the question remains: Could it be better?

Darin Scheer was a new NCBE board member in 2017 when discussions turned to best practices and innovation regarding the current exam. “NCBE had a great product with the UBE. The majority of jurisdictions used it and there was nothing fundamentally wrong with it. The conversation was around the NCBE’s ethos of doing the right things for the right reasons, including assessing our tools on a regular basis,” he says.

Deciding whether rethinking the bar examination would involve a relatively minor tweak—­moving to computer-based testing, for example—­­or a fundamental alteration would require data. NCBE formed the Testing Task Force (TTF) with this in mind. Chaired by board member Hon. Cynthia L. Martin, its charge was to undertake a comprehensive, three-year study starting in 2018 to identify the core legal knowledge and skills new lawyers need in their first three years of practice and to determine how, when, and whether those competencies should be assessed on the bar exam.

“We had no [set] framework. We decided to do as complete an unencumbered research project as possible to determine what should be tested and how. We wanted to look at the future without feeling tethered to the current exam,” Martin explains.“NCBE had a great product with the UBE. The majority of jurisdictions used it and there was nothing fundamentally wrong with it. The conversation was around the NCBE’s ethos of doing the right things for the right reasons, including assessing our tools on a regular basis.” — Darin Scheer

The TTF began its efforts with a blank-slate question: “What should the bar exam of the future look like?” The first phase launched in January 2018 with nationwide listening sessions. More than 400 stakeholders—bar admissions staff, law school faculty, practicing lawyers, and judges—offered their perspectives on the current exam and gave suggestions for improvement. These conversations were unconstrained, encouraging innovative ideas. The second phase involved a survey of nearly 15,000 practicing lawyers across the country. This practice analysis provided detailed insights into the daily work of newly licensed attorneys and the core skills necessary to perform effectively. It clarified which competencies should be prioritized if an updated exam was produced. Two independent research firms, ACS Ventures LLC and the American Institutes for Research, facilitated these focus groups and analyzed the resulting data.5

In the third phase, two committees composed of bar examiners, educators, and practitioners reviewed the findings. They determined what content should be tested, when, and how. Their recommendations were compiled into quarterly and final reports, presented to the NCBE board, and published in The Bar Examiner for stakeholder comment.6

The TTF’s final conclusions addressed multiple areas: exam structure, content, scoring, timing, and delivery mode. Key recommendations included moving to a fully computer-based exam that would integrate legal knowledge and practical skills, focusing on eight core legal concepts and seven foundational skills. The Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination would remain a separate, standalone test.7

The concept of delivering a remote testing experience was brought into stark relief during the COVID-19 pandemic. NCBE offered remote administration options as an emergency measure in 2020–2021. However, the task force’s final report emphasized that fairness and consistent testing conditions are best maintained through in-person exams.8

“COVID became an interesting incubator of sorts,” says Martin. “It made clear how [difficult] remote testing could be for security and fairness because of the struggles with remote administration. It became an unexpected source of additional scientific info about what could work and what shouldn’t be recommended.”

Development of the NextGen UBE

The TTF reached another important conclusion: it recommended a development timeline of four to five years before a new, redesigned exam could be first administered. To keep stakeholders informed through this lengthy process, NCBE established a dedicated website to serve as a central hub for updates, feedback, and other information, ensuring transparency and engagement with jurisdictions, law schools, and candidates.

In early 2021, the NCBE Board of Trustees approved the TTF’s recommendations, appointing an Implementation Steering Committee to coordinate the development and rollout of the new exam, targeting a debut administration in 2026. Alongside the ISC, specialized staff workgroups undertook wide-ranging research to begin the process of realizing the vision of a next-­generation bar exam that meets the needs of a changing legal landscape.

Starting that year, these workgroups, in collaboration with external stakeholders including law schools, practicing lawyers, judges, and bar admission agencies, developed detailed content scope outlines. To support this effort, NCBE hired additional personnel with expertise in test development, psychometrics, information technology, user experience, project management, communications, and operations. Their collective goal was to facilitate a seamless transition from the current UBE, ensuring that jurisdictions could adopt and administer the new exam smoothly.

Then came the painstaking process of drafting and pretesting questions aligned with the new format. Dozens of volunteers—law school faculty, practitioners, judges, and justices—contributed by creating and reviewing new exam items. Volunteer graders gathered as well to gain experience with updated processes. Stakeholders also provided insights regarding score portability and feedback on digital platforms designed for jurisdictions and candidates. In 2022, NCBE’s Content Scope Committee published draft outlines for public comment. After incorporating community feedback, the committee finalized the content outlines in 2023, laying the foundation for the new exam’s content and structure.9

Designed to reflect the actual work of newly licensed attorneys, the new exam would test eight areas of legal doctrine (civil procedure, contract law, evidence, torts, business associations, constitutional law, criminal law, and real property). Based on stakeholder feedback, a ninth, family law, will be added in 2028. In addition, seven foundational lawyering skills would be evaluated: legal research; legal writing; issue spotting and analysis; investigation and evaluation; client counseling and advising; negotiation and dispute resolution; and client relationship and management. Ethical principles and professional conduct would be integrated throughout the exam, emphasizing the need for entry-level lawyers to demonstrate integrity and professionalism.

The NextGen exam’s structure emphasizes integration and realism. Unlike the current UBE, which separates multiple-choice questions, essays, and performance tasks, the new exam will feature practice-style fact patterns followed by a series of multiple-choice and constructed-response questions. Such an integrated approach gives examinees the opportunity to demonstrate both their knowledge and skills when presented with a realistic practice scenario on the exam.

The second major innovation would be the move to a fully computer-­based exam: candidates will view test items, consult provided legal resources, and enter responses on their own laptops. This transition will streamline administration, improve security, and create a consistent testing environment (see article for an overview of security implications of the shift away from paper-based test materials).

The proof in the pudding, of course, would be whether the new exam would be fair and valid like the UBE. In the summer 2022 issue of The Bar Examiner, former NCBE Director of Assessment and Research Rosemary Reshetar, EdD, wrote:

Although the term “validity” means different things within different contexts, in the context of high-stakes testing, validity means the degree to which a test measures what it claims to measure. This definition is established in the work of the American Educational Research Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education, which jointly publish the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. The Standards address the foundational concepts of validity, reliability, and fairness, along with test operations and testing applications and are widely recognized as the basis for evaluating the quality of testing practices.10

To evaluate the validity of the new exam, NCBE conducted extensive field and pilot testing. More than 2,500 law students and recently licensed lawyers participated in four such administrations between August 2022 and April 2023. Participants answered draft integrated questions and provided feedback on content and testing experience. This iterative process helped identify issues and refine the exam’s focus. In January 2024, field testing took place at law schools nationwide, followed in October 2024 by a full-length prototype exam. NCBE issued research briefs summarizing findings of these testing phases. This data informed necessary adjustments to questions, formats, and focus areas. One important shift is the new exam’s timing: the NextGen UBE will be administered over 9 hours across 1.5 days, compared to the current UBE’s 12 hours over 2 days, balancing thorough assessment with candidate well-being.

Launching this complex exam has been a massive operational undertaking, with the NCBE staff count growing quickly across the organization to meet the challenge. Kara Smith, PhD, NCBE’s Chief Product Officer, describes the work involved:

Our role is to make it possible for jurisdictions to administer the NextGen UBE securely and reliably while preserving their autonomy. That means ensuring candidates can test successfully on their own devices, that the exam content remains secure, and that jurisdictions aren’t asked to carry unnecessary operational burdens. As NCBE builds NextGen infrastructure, we are doing so in close partnership with the jurisdictions by getting their input early and regularly asking for feedback to continue to improve and meet their needs.

“Our role is to make it possible for jurisdictions to administer the NextGen UBE securely and reliably while preserving their autonomy.” — Kara Smith

Accessibility for candidates with disabilities is also a priority, something designed into the NextGen platform from the start, not added later as an afterthought. Many features that historically required individual accommodation requests are now part of the standard testing experience. Accommodations will always remain available when needed, but NCBE expects the platform itself to reduce barriers for many candidates by default.

This will reduce the need for candidates to request accommodations from their jurisdictions, which oversee that process.

Implementation and Transition

As the new exam’s development proceeded, NCBE solidified its larger rollout plan, which included the retirement of the legacy UBE after the February 2028 administration, and communicated this to all stakeholders. Officially named the NextGen Uniform Bar Exam, the first administration was set for July 2026 in ten jurisdictions. By January 2026, 48 jurisdictions had announced plans to adopt it by February 2028. Considering it took a decade for the original UBE to reach 40 jurisdiction adoptions, this rapid and widespread embrace reflects strong confidence in NCBE’s methodology and the effectiveness of the new exam design. Gundersen agrees:

There was already so much alignment among jurisdictions as a result of the process to encourage adoption of the UBE starting back in 2011. To be at 48 jurisdictions already that have adopted the NextGen UBE is a testament to them being enthusiastic and embracing the notion of more skills testing in foundational doctrinal areas. They also coalesced around uniformity in the grading model—everyone using the same platform, rubrics, scales, and double grading. That recognizes a maturation in the environment to a more robust, fair, valid and reliable exam for everybody, and greater confidence in uniformity across jurisdictions.

Even after NextGen adoption, jurisdictions still have key decisions to make regarding their passing score and score portability. NCBE has worked diligently to provide resources and assistance no matter where a jurisdiction is in its decision-­making process.

“Improving the bar exam remains a core part of NCBE’s process, a process that continuously asks, ‘How can we make this better?”

“From the beginning of this project, we’ve worked hard to keep our constituencies up to date on developments,” says Gundersen. “There has been a lot of public awareness effort to inform bar examiners and admissions offices, courts, law schools, and law students via webinars and meetings, presentations at law school conferences, one-on-one sessions with courts and examiners, and reports, studies, articles, and newsletters to keep the public apprised.”

One major resource was published in June 2025: the NextGen UBE Blueprint. Covering the first two NextGen administrations, it outlines the exam’s structure, question types, software components, and content, which include standalone multiple-­choice questions, integrated question sets, and performance tasks.11 The Blueprint is expected to be updated annually through 2028. In August, the Official Examinees’ Guide to the NextGen UBE covering the same period was released, helping candidates understand what to expect, how they will be tested, how scores are transferred, and how to prepare.12 Any changes to future NextGen UBE exams will continue to be communicated well in advance of upcoming test administration dates.

Test fairness, standardization, and security are top of mind as well.

Hon. Cynthia L. Martin says,

From my standpoint as a volunteer who worked on these policies, there has been [a strong] commitment to developing the ability for examinees to access the digital test platform well in advance, and to ensure they can manipulate and maneuver sample questions so they’ll walk into the exam with a [high] comfort level. …[E]ach applicant can take the exam on the computer they know because of the steps taken in advance. The same for security—we have confidence the system will lock out any access to materials except what is applicable to the exam. It has been impressive to see the work staff and the test platform vendor have done to ensure a fair and secure experience.

NCBE is actively working to ensure the new exam is fair for all groups, as well. By the time the NextGen UBE rolls out in July 2026, more than 10,000 individuals representing all demographics will have participated in partial or full research administrations.

The NextGen exam is being built intentionally to serve the needs of all candidates. That starts with who is at the table: a representative team, diverse drafting and review committees, and broad jurisdiction participation throughout development. It continues through deliberate sampling of examinees in pilots, prototypes, and the Beta exam, ensuring meaningful representation in psychometric analyses and usability and user-­experience research. This approach allows NCBE to identify issues early and make informed adjustments so the exam measures competence fairly and consistently for everyone. “Representation matters at every stage,” says Kara Smith. Such emphasis shows that improving the bar exam remains a core part of NCBE’s process, a process that continuously asks, “How can we make this better?”

Anticipated Impact and Future Directions

The NextGen UBE does constitute a change for examinees, given the focus on applying their knowledge to real-world scenarios. This approach aligns more closely with experiences in law school, clinics, and internships, emphasizing practical application.

Darin Scheer is excited about this shift, noting it more closely mirrors actual, daily legal practice. “NextGen presents the opportunity to not just memorize buzzwords, but instead identify issues of the case and what advice you’re giving [a client]. Not only does it resemble the practice better, it forces people to get out of” a mentality focused on rote memorization.

He’s also heartened by the response from NextGen field test and pilot test takers.

We had feedback that the new exam feels easier [to comprehend]. When we dug down, the examinees thought it was just as rigorous—which the data supports—­just more accessible in that it was easier to understand what’s being asked, and easier to work through the concepts. It was an interesting epiphany for me that the idea of applying learned material made the test more accessible and was a better opportunity for students [to demonstrate what they knew]. Both exams are tough, of course, but to give candidates more accessibility in the application of material means we’re doing our jobs.

Law schools adapting their curricula is a crucial part of this exam evolution. Gundersen highlights that many faculty see the new exam as an opportunity to incorporate more practical skills into their teaching. Their job, after all, is twofold: prepare students to pass the bar exam and, ultimately, become practice-ready lawyers.

“We’ve heard from law schools that they are excited about this, as it underscores some of the skills testing and courses they do now in term of clinical placements and simulations. Faculty are viewing [the new exam] as an opportunity to infuse more skills awareness in doctrinal classes, underscoring and integrating this awareness across doctrinal areas to give students more holistic experience,” Gundersen says.

NCBE has released free study materials to help schools and students align with the new exam format. They’re also releasing law sourcebooks with West Academic, a leading publisher of casebooks and study guides, tailored to each tested area. Such resources seek to assist legal educators by accelerating the move toward more application-­based learning, especially in clinical settings, and break down doctrinal area silos.

Scheer points out that the new exam promotes applying facts and knowledge in practical contexts. “It gives professors an opportunity to do that in innovative way[s]. NextGen might also encourage students to do more clinic work.”

In the long term, the benefits for the legal profession are promising. Expected outcomes include improved lawyer competence and better reflection of the varied work that makes up modern practice. Additionally, the new format’s increased accessibility is expected to help shape a lawyer population that better reflects the society it serves.

Smith notes,

The real impact of NextGen will unfold over time. As candidates are assessed on skills that more closely reflect legal practice, we expect to see newly licensed lawyers who are better prepared to serve clients from day one. That matters everywhere, but especially for solo and rural practitioners who often have less institutional support. Confidence comes from competence, and this exam is designed to help candidates demonstrate both.

Martin believes the development of the NextGen UBE could serve as a model for future professional licensure examinations. “There is such a difference between law and other professions, but the framework for the project and the exam design that integrates assessment principles are best practices in high-stakes licensure. Certainly, organizations do content validity studies, but wholesale rethinking and reevaluation of an exam is not something you would expect,” she says.

Conclusion

The journey from early, nonstandardized bar exams to the development and adoption of the NextGen UBE has been a long one. The NextGen UBE is the next evolution in the bar exam and, although it may look different than the exams administered 60 years ago, 30 years ago, and for many examinees, even 10 years ago, the work of improvement remains central. Scheer praises the collaboration between volunteers and staff as what makes both NCBE and the NextGen UBE so special. “I want students to have [the] best day of their life when they take the bar. I believe the NextGen gives them the opportunity to have their best day.”

Gundersen agrees, pointing to the significance of the integration of knowledge and skills that weren’t tested before in safeguarding legal professionalism. “We truly want all law school graduate candidates to show proficiency. The bar exam is something they have to study for and pass, which provides an important public protection function. With this new exam, with more skills testing and potential changes to law school curricula, new lawyers will be better prepared to serve [the] public and clients.”

Finally, Rebecca Berch reflects on the importance of the exam’s evolution to better meet societal needs. “The practice of law changes, has changed, [and] will continue to change. Lawyers need to change with it. Because [if] that’s the case, we can’t test applicants the same way we used to. We need to ensure that they know what they need to know to help and protect their clients and the public. Bar exams must evolve, as difficult as it is to reconceive a major life-changing test. It simply needs to be done to protect everyone: applicants, the bar, the courts, and the public.”  

NextGen vs. Legacy UBE: What’s Changing, What Remains the Same?

Notes

Kelly Koepke is a Santa Fe, New Mexico–based freelance writer. She received her bachelor’s degree in liberal arts from St. John’s College in Santa Fe and her MBA from the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis. Kelly uses her business background and more than 25 years of writing experience to bring creativity and vitality to projects. She knows a lot of words and asks a lot of questions.

This article originally appeared in The Bar Examiner print edition, Winter 2025-2026 (Vol. 94, No. 4), pp. 8–18.

Contact us to request a pdf file of the original article as it appeared in the print edition.