RM How the Bar Exam Failed Kim Kardashian

By Max Raskin, Fellow and Adjunct Professor of Law at New York University School of Law, and Co-founder of Uris Acquisitions

It’s easy to mock Kim Kardashian for failing the California bar exam, joining other high-profile figures like Kamala Harris and Jerry Brown in this challenging rite of passage. But Kardashian’s failure isn’t a personal failure—it’s a critique of the bar exam system itself, a powerful institution that has long held control over the legal profession. And with the rise of technology, particularly artificial intelligence, we may finally be on the brink of breaking this monopolistic hold.

The bar exam, along with the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) and law school itself, is essentially the price you pay to join a government-backed legal guild. It’s no different from a taxi medallion or a liquor license—a state-granted privilege. In California, for instance, passing the bar is mandatory to practice law. It’s essentially illegal to represent others in court without it. The bar exam’s strict gatekeeping isn’t about ensuring competence, but about controlling access to the profession. In fact, nearly half of the 7,362 applicants who sat for California’s July bar exam failed this year alone, illustrating just how hard it is to break through this barrier. What’s more, the passing score is not a fixed standard but is subject to the fluctuating decisions of the California Supreme Court.

The primary argument in defense of this system is that while a lawyer doesn’t need to memorize outdated rules, such as the rule against perpetuities (a concept many have never heard of outside law school), the process of studying for the exam and demonstrating perseverance reveals qualities that make an effective lawyer. It is assumed that only someone with the stamina and discipline to slog through this rigorous process is temperamentally suited to practice law.

Kim Kardashian’s struggles with this system are frequently used as evidence that she isn’t “cut out” to be a lawyer. She failed the “baby bar” exam three times before finally passing on her fourth attempt. Critics argue that this failure proves she lacks the intellectual or emotional resilience needed for the profession. But many empirical studies suggest that the bar exam does not accurately predict a lawyer’s competence in practice.

In fact, the legal profession would be better served by a more market-driven approach. There’s no reason why a person needs to attend three years of law school, especially when we don’t impose similar requirements on professions like auto mechanics or electricians—fields that can involve much higher physical risk. In those industries, credentials, customer reviews, and word-of-mouth play a large role in determining who gets hired. A similar approach could work in law.

Moreover, this argument is increasingly relevant in the age of artificial intelligence. AI systems are already capable of performing tasks traditionally done by junior lawyers—drafting wills, creating contracts, writing regulatory memos—at a high level of accuracy. While there are certainly occasional stories of lawyers using AI poorly, these are the exceptions. Most lawyers use AI tools to enhance their work, much like doctors consult Google for a quick reference. But there’s a reluctance to admit how often these tools are being employed, leading to a situation where mistakes made by judges or lawyers who don’t use AI get more attention than the routine use of it.

In conclusion, Kim Kardashian’s bar exam failure is more than a celebrity misstep. It highlights the flaws in a legal system that has long been resistant to change, despite the growing capabilities of technology. The legal profession doesn’t need to be guarded by an antiquated, monopolistic system—it needs more flexibility, innovation, and, above all, accountability to its clients.