SB 47 compels layered oversight of the State Bar. It requires the board to hire an independent accounting firm to audit annual financial statements, directs the California State Auditor to run recurring performance audits of the Bar’s operations, and orders a special audit into the February 2025 bar exam covering procurement, use of artificial intelligence in question creation, exam administration, and the costs and claimed savings of the format used.
The bill also prescribes reporting lines and deadlines, instructs who must pay for certain audits (notably preventing use of the State Audit Fund for the February 2025 review), and demands specific examinations — including whether mandatory license fees were used appropriately and how fee levels would have to change to cover existing and proposed Bar activities. For compliance officers, Bar managers, and vendors, SB 47 creates new documentation, procurement review, and cost-allocation scrutiny that can materially affect budgeting and contracting practices.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB 47 requires an annual financial statement audit by an independent accounting firm (with at least five years’ governmental-audit experience) and regular performance audits by the California State Auditor; it also mandates a targeted audit of the February 2025 bar exam examining procurement, AI use, exam administration, and an itemized cost analysis. Certain audits must be funded by the State Bar rather than the State Audit Fund.
Who It Affects
The State Bar (board, Office of Admissions, CFO), exam takers from February 2025, contracted vendors (Meazure Learning/ProctorU and Kaplan), the Conference of Delegates’ successor entity, and the Legislature and Supreme Court, which receive audit reports.
Why It Matters
The bill materially increases external scrutiny of how the Bar spends licensing fees, how it procures exam services, and whether it applied AI appropriately — outcomes that could drive fee recalculations, procurement reforms, vendor liability exposure, and tighter documentation and oversight requirements inside the Bar.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 47 layers three types of audits on the State Bar. First, it requires an annual financial statement audit performed by an independent national or regional public accounting firm with at least five years’ governmental auditing experience; the Bar’s chief financial officer must certify the financial statement under oath, and the audit and statement must be delivered each year to the board, the Chief Justice, and the Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees.
The financial review must specifically confirm that funds raised for the Conference of Delegates’ successor entity were transferred correctly, that the Bar recovered administrative costs related to that entity, and that mandatory license fees were not used to subsidize the successor’s activities.
Second, SB 47 revives and regularizes performance audits by the California State Auditor. It calls for a historic review of operations covering mid-2000, then establishes a biennial cadence for performance audits of fiscal-year operations going forward.
The State Auditor can hire third parties to assist, and the audits must evaluate resource allocation, program performance measures, the use of proceeds from any property sales, and whether proposed funding increases are truly necessary for the Bar’s public-protection function. One required output is a recalculation of how much each active and inactive licensee would need to be charged to fully fund existing tasks and any additional, auditor-validated needs.Third, the bill orders a focused, forensic audit of the February 2025 bar exam.
That review must probe the bidding and contracting that produced the Meazure Learning (ProctorU) contract and the Kaplan multiple-choice contract, assess whether the Bar followed laws and internal policies, and inspect evaluation criteria the Bar used to judge vendor capability. The audit must also examine why Kaplan supplied 100 multiple-choice items instead of 200, the decision-making and oversight around any redesigns to remote exam procedures (including permitted equipment such as whiteboards), and the timeline and justification for offering a makeup exam.
Critically, the auditor must investigate the events that led to the use of artificial intelligence to generate multiple-choice questions — who decided, when, the rationale, and what verification was used to confirm question accuracy — and must itemize all costs tied to administering the February 2025 exam and compare them to the Bar’s stated projected savings.SB 47 dictates reporting to the board, the Chief Justice, and the legislative Judiciary Committees and builds funding rules into the audits: the State Bar must furnish technical assistance and data, reimburse the State Auditor for the special 2023 audit, and provide the funding necessary for the February 2025 audit (the bill bars use of the State Audit Fund for that review). The bill also directs the board, when selecting the independent accounting firm, to weigh continuity against the independence risks that can arise from long-term engagements.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The State Bar’s chief financial officer must certify the audited financial statement under oath; the annual audit report is due to the board, Chief Justice, and legislative Judiciary Committees on or before May 31 each year.
The independent accounting firm the board hires must have at least five years of governmental auditing experience, and the board must balance continuity against the risk that prolonged engagements undermine auditor independence.
The performance-audit schedule includes a historic audit of mid-2000 operations and then biennial audits of fiscal years, with the Auditor allowed to subcontract third parties to conduct the work.
The February 2025 bar exam audit must analyze procurement decisions for Meazure Learning (ProctorU) and Kaplan, investigate the State Bar’s use of AI to generate multiple-choice questions, and explain why Kaplan provided 100 versus 200 questions.
The State Bar must fund certain audit costs itself: it must reimburse the State Auditor for the 2023 audit and provide funding for the February 2025 exam audit; use of the State Audit Fund for the February 2025 audit is explicitly prohibited.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Annual independent financial audit and CFO oath
This provision forces an annual, external financial review by a national or regional public accounting firm with a minimum of five years’ governmental-audit experience. Practically, the Bar must maintain polished, auditable records and a procurement process for selecting the auditor that weighs institutional knowledge against the independence concerns that long engagements create. The CFO’s sworn certification and the May 31 delivery deadline create hard reporting milestones to the board, the Chief Justice, and legislative oversight committees, and the audit must verify transfer and cost-recovery practices relating to the Conference of Delegates’ successor entity and confirm no mandatory fees subsidized that entity.
Biennial performance audits by the California State Auditor
This section resurrects a historic review (mid-2000) and sets up recurring performance audits every two years thereafter, covering the Bar’s fiscal-year operations. The State Auditor can use contractors to perform the work, but the Bar must furnish technical assistance and data. Reports are timed to legislative oversight cycles (the first historic audit had a May 1 deadline; later audits must be submitted within 120 days of the fiscal year’s close), which pressures the Bar to tighten internal performance metrics and documentation that auditors will test, including cost-allocation plans and program performance measures.
2023 performance audit focus and fee-recalculation mandate
The 2023 audit is given special, detailed scope: it must evaluate each program supported by license fees, quantify budgeted versus expended staff and resources, review program performance measures, audit the use of any real property proceeds, and evaluate the Bar’s cost-allocation plan. Auditors must also assess whether proposed additional funding is necessary for the Bar’s public-protection responsibilities, and produce a calculation of licensee fee levels that would fully fund current tasks plus any auditor-validated additions. The Bar is required to help the Auditor and to use its existing funds to reimburse the Auditor for this specific audit.
Forensic audit of the February 2025 bar exam: procurement, AI, administration, and costs
This long subsection prescribes a granular investigation into the February 2025 exam. The Auditor must review the competitive processes and contracts that led to hiring Meazure Learning for exam delivery and Kaplan for multiple-choice question development, test whether procurement complied with laws and policies, probe conflicts of interest safeguards, and ask why Kaplan supplied only 100 multiple-choice items. The review also covers operational decisions (remote-exam differences from the COVID era, allowed test equipment, makeup exam timing) and a forensic look at the Bar’s use of AI for question generation — when the choice occurred, who authorized it, the test-accuracy checks applied, and any leadership oversight failures. Finally, the Auditor must itemize all related costs, compare them to projected savings, and the Bar must fund the work (the State Audit Fund cannot be used).
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- February 2025 exam takers — they gain an independent, documented review of procurement, AI use, and exam administration that can support remedies, transparency, and reforms to prevent repeat failures.
- The Chief Justice and legislative Judiciary Committees — they receive formal audit reports and empirically grounded recommendations to oversee licensing and public-protection functions.
- The Conference of Delegates’ successor entity — the financial audit must confirm whether funds designated for the successor were appropriately transferred and whether administrative costs were reimbursed, protecting the successor’s financial stake.
Who Bears the Cost
- The State Bar — required to pay for specified audits (notably the 2023 and February 2025 reviews), to support data requests, to tighten procurement oversight, and potentially to absorb follow-up reforms or litigation costs.
- Active and inactive licensees — the performance audit must include a calculation of how much fee revenue per licensee would be needed to fully fund current and auditor-validated additional functions, potentially leading to higher fees.
- Contracted vendors (Meazure Learning/ProctorU, Kaplan) — they face intense scrutiny of their bids, contracts, performance, and intellectual-property or confidentiality claims, and may incur reputational or financial consequences if the audit finds contract or performance failures.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is accountability versus operational and confidentiality costs: the Legislature demands deep, public inspection of the Bar’s finances, procurement, and use of AI to protect licensees and the public, but those same inspections impose administrative costs, risk disclosure of privileged or proprietary information, and can discourage vendors and staff from experimenting with operational changes that might ultimately improve processes.
SB 47 will force the Bar and its contractors to open detailed operational and procurement records, but the statute gives auditors broad, sometimes open-ended mandates that collide with confidentiality and privilege concerns. The bill does not resolve how auditors will treat attorney-client privileged materials or proprietary vendor processes — auditors may demand information vendors assert as trade secrets, raising legal and practical disputes that can delay reports.
Funding rules create another tension. Forcing the State Bar to pay for the February 2025 audit preserves the State Audit Fund but ties the auditor’s costs to the very entity under review; while the Auditor’s statutory independence is unchanged, practical pressure and collection logistics could complicate the process.
The statutory deadlines and phrases like "as soon as possible" create room for litigation over timeliness and scope. Finally, the requirement that the board weigh continuity against independence when selecting the accounting firm identifies a real trade-off: rotating auditors can protect independence but increases transition costs and learning curves, while long engagements risk familiarity that undermines aggressive scrutiny.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.