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’re obligated every year to point out that it’s a two-day, generalist memory contest. If we asked lawyers to display passing familiarity with every practice area without consulting a book, we’d call it malpractice. And yet, it’s how self-interested bar examiners insist it must be done to “protect the public.”
In Arkansas, bar exam results may project even less of an accurate reflection of competence.
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. The investigation, carried out by the Arkansas State Police and the FBI, covers bar exam administrations from July 2020 through July 2025. Despite the early stage of the case, the Arkansas Supreme Court’s justices put out a statement that doesn’t leave much to the imagination:
Evidence exists that Givens harvested points from a number of examinees’ scores and then added them to other examinees’ scores within the same test administration. Thus, she unilaterally elevated some examinees’ scores to the minimum passing score of 270 or greater.
No new points were invented, they were just moved. 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:
Brech also identified at least one instance in which score alterations may have reduced an examinee’s score who otherwise would have passed — to a failing score.
Imagine having to sit through the Rule Against Perpetuities for a second time despite legitimately passing the bar exam.
The state supreme court’s 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.
Why? It’s a pass-fail test, who cares? I’ve never understood states that talk about high scores on a test that is designed to gauge minimum competency. It’s like if Disneyworld credited Manute Bol for being so far above the minimum height for Space Mountain. Indeed, just as it’d 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.
According to the court, about 11,400 files — including bar applications, applicant profiles, and score sheets required be kept for 25 years — 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’t a confidence booster for anyone worried about bar applicant security.
The court is offering this reassurance:
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.
Sure. But I’d also put it to Arkansas… have any of the people who “passed” without a 270 become a problem for the public? In other contexts, the data 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’s not a defense of an administrator playing Robin Hood with points — arbitrarily choosing who passes and fails is just as bad (and depending on how you feel about the NCBE’s exam writing prowess… equally arbitrary) — but it’s a data point. Part of the reason the bar exam is so embedded into the system is that almost everyone uses it and there’s hardly any evidence to suggest that the world would keep spinning without it.
Wisconsin’s system — where state graduates get diploma privilege — tends to suggest the exam isn’t essential, but it’s a unique one-off. Arkansas might accidentally (or maybe “sordidly” is more accurate) offer more insight if the individuals given an unearned leg up acquitted themselves as attorneys.
It doesn’t end the debate, but it does add a little bit more clarity to just how useful this test really is for the public.
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.
The post Bar Exam Official Charged With 65 Felonies, Accused Of Playing Robin Hood With Test Scores appeared first on Above the Law.
Recent Comments