{"id":166912,"date":"2026-11-06T14:24:52","date_gmt":"2026-11-06T22:24:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/11\/06\/bar-exam-official-charged-with-65-felonies-accused-of-playing-robin-hood-with-test-scores\/"},"modified":"2026-11-06T14:24:52","modified_gmt":"2026-11-06T22:24:52","slug":"bar-exam-official-charged-with-65-felonies-accused-of-playing-robin-hood-with-test-scores","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/11\/06\/bar-exam-official-charged-with-65-felonies-accused-of-playing-robin-hood-with-test-scores\/","title":{"rendered":"Bar Exam Official Charged With 65 Felonies, Accused Of Playing Robin Hood With Test Scores"},"content":{"rendered":"

Every year, the guardians of the legal profession explain that the bar exam is a sacred, scientifically scaled instrument of public protection. Despite all the hype, we\u2019re obligated every year to point out that it\u2019s a two-day, generalist memory contest. If we asked lawyers to display passing familiarity with every practice area without consulting a book, we\u2019d call it malpractice. And yet, it\u2019s how self-interested bar examiners insist it must be done to \u201cprotect the public.\u201d<\/p>\n

In Arkansas, bar exam results may project even less of an accurate reflection of competence.<\/p>\n

Nancie Givens, the former executive director of the office that runs the bar exam was charged Thursday with 65 felony counts of tampering with a public record<\/a>. The investigation, carried out by the Arkansas State Police and the FBI<\/a>, covers bar exam administrations from July 2020 through July 2025. Despite the early stage of the case, the Arkansas Supreme Court\u2019s justices put out a statement<\/a> that doesn\u2019t leave much to the imagination:<\/p>\n

\n

Evidence exists that Givens harvested points from a number of examinees\u2019 scores and then added them to other examinees\u2019 scores within the same test administration. Thus, she unilaterally elevated some examinees\u2019 scores to the minimum passing score of 270 or greater.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

No new points were invented, they were just moved<\/em>. Every point handed to one examinee came out of someone else who sat in the same room. In at least one case, the justices suggest that this shuffling may have cost someone their license:<\/p>\n

\n

Brech also identified at least one instance in which score alterations may have reduced an examinee\u2019s score who otherwise would have passed \u2014 to a failing score.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Imagine having to sit through the Rule Against Perpetuities for a second time despite legitimately passing the bar exam. <\/p>\n

The state supreme court\u2019s statement also claims, in at least one administration, points were taken from the examinee who would have posted the highest score so that someone else would be identified as the top performer.<\/p>\n

Why? It\u2019s a pass-fail test, who cares? I\u2019ve never understood states that talk about high scores on a test that is designed to gauge minimum competency. It\u2019s like if Disneyworld credited Manute Bol for being so far above the minimum height for Space Mountain. Indeed, just as it\u2019d be more dangerous to put Manute on a roller coaster, anyone who scores big on a general legal memory test might not be the right lawyer for your specific matter.<\/p>\n

According to the court, about 11,400 files \u2014 including bar applications, applicant profiles, and score sheets required be kept for 25 years \u2014 were deleted or made unavailable in early January 2026, about a month before Givens left the job. Per the state police, Givens told investigators she deleted files while dealing with terminating an employee, then tried to put them back and apparently missed some. But she had all files on a thumb drive in her purse, which isn\u2019t a confidence booster for anyone worried about bar applicant security. <\/p>\n

The court is offering this reassurance:<\/p>\n

\n

The vast majority of examinees who were previously informed that they had passed the Arkansas Bar Examination by the Office of Professional Programs did, in fact, pass the exam.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Sure. But I\u2019d also put it to Arkansas\u2026 have any of the people who \u201cpassed\u201d without a 270 become a problem for the public? In other contexts, the data<\/a> never backs up the claim that the bar exam has much impact on disciplinary problems. Bad eggs pass all the time, and many good eggs fail. That\u2019s not a defense of an administrator playing Robin Hood with points \u2014 arbitrarily choosing who passes and fails is just as bad (and depending on how you feel about the NCBE\u2019s exam writing prowess\u2026 equally arbitrary) \u2014 but it\u2019s a data point. Part of the reason the bar exam is so embedded into the system is that almost everyone uses it and there\u2019s hardly any evidence to suggest that the world would keep spinning without it. <\/p>\n

Wisconsin\u2019s system \u2014 where state graduates get diploma privilege \u2014 tends to suggest the exam isn\u2019t essential, but it\u2019s a unique one-off. Arkansas might accidentally (or maybe \u201csordidly\u201d is more accurate) offer more insight if the individuals given an unearned leg up acquitted themselves as attorneys. <\/p>\n

It doesn\u2019t end the debate, but it does add a little bit more clarity to just how useful this test really is for the public.<\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Bar Exam Official Charged With 65 Felonies, Accused Of Playing Robin Hood With Test Scores<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n

Every year, the guardians of the legal profession explain that the bar exam is a sacred, scientifically scaled instrument of public protection. Despite all the hype, we\u2019re obligated every year to point out that it\u2019s a two-day, generalist memory contest. If we asked lawyers to display passing familiarity with every practice area without consulting a book, we\u2019d call it malpractice. And yet, it\u2019s how self-interested bar examiners insist it must be done to \u201cprotect the public.\u201d<\/p>\n

In Arkansas, bar exam results may project even less of an accurate reflection of competence.<\/p>\n

Nancie Givens, the former executive director of the office that runs the bar exam was charged Thursday with 65 felony counts of tampering with a public record<\/a>. The investigation, carried out by the Arkansas State Police and the FBI<\/a>, covers bar exam administrations from July 2020 through July 2025. Despite the early stage of the case, the Arkansas Supreme Court\u2019s justices put out a statement<\/a> that doesn\u2019t leave much to the imagination:<\/p>\n

\n

Evidence exists that Givens harvested points from a number of examinees\u2019 scores and then added them to other examinees\u2019 scores within the same test administration. Thus, she unilaterally elevated some examinees\u2019 scores to the minimum passing score of 270 or greater.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

No new points were invented, they were just moved<\/em>. Every point handed to one examinee came out of someone else who sat in the same room. In at least one case, the justices suggest that this shuffling may have cost someone their license:<\/p>\n

\n

Brech also identified at least one instance in which score alterations may have reduced an examinee\u2019s score who otherwise would have passed \u2014 to a failing score.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Imagine having to sit through the Rule Against Perpetuities for a second time despite legitimately passing the bar exam. <\/p>\n

The state supreme court\u2019s statement also claims, in at least one administration, points were taken from the examinee who would have posted the highest score so that someone else would be identified as the top performer.<\/p>\n

Why? It\u2019s a pass-fail test, who cares? I\u2019ve never understood states that talk about high scores on a test that is designed to gauge minimum competency. It\u2019s like if Disneyworld credited Manute Bol for being so far above the minimum height for Space Mountain. Indeed, just as it\u2019d be more dangerous to put Manute on a roller coaster, anyone who scores big on a general legal memory test might not be the right lawyer for your specific matter.<\/p>\n

According to the court, about 11,400 files \u2014 including bar applications, applicant profiles, and score sheets required be kept for 25 years \u2014 were deleted or made unavailable in early January 2026, about a month before Givens left the job. Per the state police, Givens told investigators she deleted files while dealing with terminating an employee, then tried to put them back and apparently missed some. But she had all files on a thumb drive in her purse, which isn\u2019t a confidence booster for anyone worried about bar applicant security. <\/p>\n

The court is offering this reassurance:<\/p>\n

\n

The vast majority of examinees who were previously informed that they had passed the Arkansas Bar Examination by the Office of Professional Programs did, in fact, pass the exam.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Sure. But I\u2019d also put it to Arkansas\u2026 have any of the people who \u201cpassed\u201d without a 270 become a problem for the public? In other contexts, the data<\/a> never backs up the claim that the bar exam has much impact on disciplinary problems. Bad eggs pass all the time, and many good eggs fail. That\u2019s not a defense of an administrator playing Robin Hood with points \u2014 arbitrarily choosing who passes and fails is just as bad (and depending on how you feel about the NCBE\u2019s exam writing prowess\u2026 equally arbitrary) \u2014 but it\u2019s a data point. Part of the reason the bar exam is so embedded into the system is that almost everyone uses it and there\u2019s hardly any evidence to suggest that the world would keep spinning without it. <\/p>\n

Wisconsin\u2019s system \u2014 where state graduates get diploma privilege \u2014 tends to suggest the exam isn\u2019t essential, but it\u2019s a unique one-off. Arkansas might accidentally (or maybe \u201csordidly\u201d is more accurate) offer more insight if the individuals given an unearned leg up acquitted themselves as attorneys. <\/p>\n

It doesn\u2019t end the debate, but it does add a little bit more clarity to just how useful this test really is for the public.<\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Every year, the guardians of the legal profession explain that the bar exam is a sacred, scientifically scaled instrument of public protection. Despite all the hype, we\u2019re obligated every year to point out that it\u2019s a two-day, generalist memory contest. If we asked lawyers to display passing familiarity with every practice area without consulting a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":166891,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-166912","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166912","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=166912"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166912\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/166891"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=166912"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=166912"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=166912"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}