The Dangerous Contradiction of “Privileged” and “Independent” Investigations

After two hours of public comment detailing the severe issues bar exam applicants faced in February 2025, the State Bar of California responded—not with transparency, not with accountability, but by authorizing a privileged and independent investigation.

These two words—privileged and independent—are not signs of reform; they are serious red flags. They are in direct conflict with any serious commitment to transparency.

Privilege means the findings can be hidden from public scrutiny.

Independence, when controlled by the very institution under fire, is an illusion.

This is not an attempt to correct wrongdoing but a move to contain liability.

The timing of this is even more troubling. The State Bar is overseeing a year of unprecedented disruption: staff reductions, an unstable bar exam rollout, and a failure to regulate what it has termed “predatory” unaccredited law schools. Instead of expanding oversight to restore trust, they are contracting it—reducing Board meetings and consolidating decision-making behind closed doors.

If the State Bar were truly concerned with justice, they would conduct an investigation that was transparent, binding, and accountable to the public—not one shielded by privilege.

Accountability does not begin with, nor is it demonstrated by, a press release. It begins with exposing, not concealing, the truth.

If the public does not demand that this investigation be fully public, with unredacted findings and real consequences, then history tells us exactly what will happen: NOTHING.