[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-322177-105":59,"doc-detail-322177-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","bar-exam-demand-letter-to-state-bar-of-california-final","Bar Exam - Demand Letter to State Bar of California - Final","","A demand letter from the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law to California bar exam leadership argues against using facial recognition technology (FRT) to administer the February 2021 bar examination. It cites expert findings that FRT is disproportionately inaccurate for women and people of color, creating unlawful disparate impact. The letter warns that failure to discontinue FRT will lead to legal action and points to alternatives used by other jurisdictions. A written response is requested by February 16, 2021.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":20,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/exam/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/bar-exam-demand-letter-to-state-bar-of-california-final/322177/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/bar-exam-demand-letter-to-state-bar-of-california-final/322177.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Aurelia","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-23","2026-09-21",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":39},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"Who sent the demand letter and who is it addressed to?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The letter is sent by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and addressed to California State Bar officials and ExamSoft’s CEO, including Sean M. SeLegue, Vanessa Holton, Esther P. Lin, and Sebastian Vos.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What is the main objection to facial recognition technology in the bar exam?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The letter objects to planned use of FRT because experts have established it is disproportionately inaccurate for women and people of color, which would cause unlawful disparate impact on examinees.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What action does the letter demand and by when?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"It demands immediate steps to discontinue FRT use for the February 2021 exam and any future exams. It requests a response by February 16, 2021 and states legal action will be taken if FRT is not discontinued.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},322177,1790733759,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":19,"category_name":20,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":39,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":14,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":24,"preview_page_count":4},1099514068365,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/10000253d8d9f28188e?_k=1776742907772140068","February 10, 2021  \nSean M. SeLegue Chair, Board of Trustees State Bar of California [barcomm@calbar.ca.gov](barcomm@calbar.ca.gov)[ ](barcomm@calbar.ca.gov)[180 Howard St.](180 Howard St.)[ ](180 Howard St.)San Francisco, CA 94015  \nVanessa Holton General Counsel State Bar of California [GC@calbar.ca.gov](GC@calbar.ca.gov)  \n[180 Howard St.](180 Howard St.)  \nSan Francisco, CA 94015  \nEsther P. Lin  \nChair, Committee of Bar Examiners State Bar of California [admissions@calbar.ca.gov](admissions@calbar.ca.gov)  \n[845 Figueroa St.](845 Figueroa St.)  \nLos Angeles, CA 90017  \nSebastian Vos  \nCEO, ExamSoft Worldwide, Inc. [HR@examsoft.com](HR@examsoft.com)  \n5001 LBJ Fwy  \nDallas, TX 75244  \nDear Mr. SeLeague, Ms. Lin, Ms. Holton, and Mr. Vos,  \nWe, the Lawyers’Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, write to you on behalf of our clients Mr. Ian To, an applicant for admission to the State Bar of California, and the National Association for Equity in the Legal Profession to object to the planned use of facial recognition technology (“FRT”) in your administration of the February 2021 bar examination. It is by now well-established by experts in that field that FRT is disproportionately inaccurate in identifying women and people of color.1 As a result, its use will have an unlawful disparate impact on examinees of color and women examinees. This is a concern of which you are well aware, as U.S. Senators and non-profit groups have written to you to object to the use of FRT on this basis.2  \n1 Joy Buolamwini & Timnit Gebru, Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification, 81 Proceedings of Machine Learning Research 1–15 (2018) . ACLU of Northern California, Facial Recognition Technology Falsely Identifies 26 California Legislators with Mugshots (Aug, 13, 2019), [https://www.aclunc.org/news/facial-recognition-technology-falsely-identifies-26-california-legislatorsmugshots](https://www.aclunc.org/news/facial-recognition-technology-falsely-identifies-26-california-legislatorsmugshots). Patrick Grother, Mei Ngan & Kayee Hanaoka, Face Recognition Vendor Test (FRVT), Part 3: Demographic Effects, National Institute of Standards and Technology (Dec. 2019) [https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2019/NIST.IR.8280.pd](https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2019/NIST.IR.8280.pdf. Sarah)[f. Sarah](https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2019/NIST.IR.8280.pdf. Sarah) Rahal & Christine Ferretti, Metro Detroiter battling 'flawed' facial recognition software, The Detroit News (June 24 , 2020) [https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2020/06/25/wrongfully-accused-detroit-facial](https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2020/06/25/wrongfully-accused-detroit-facial)recognition-software-michigan-aclu/3214958001/; David K. Li, Black man in New Jersey misidentified by facial recognition tech and falsely jailed, lawsuit claims, NBC News (Dec. 29, 2020), [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us)news/black-man-new-jersey-misidentified-facial-recognition-tech-falsely-jailed-n1252489 .  \n2 Sara Merken, ACLU renews bias, privacy warnings over looming California bar exam , Reuters (Oct. 2, 2020), [https://www.reuters.com/article/californiabar-remoteproctoring/aclu-renews-bias-privacy-warnings-over](https://www.reuters.com/article/californiabar-remoteproctoring/aclu-renews-bias-privacy-warnings-over)looming-california-bar-exam-idUSL1N2GT262 ; Jason Kelley et al., EFF Tells California Supreme Court Not to Require ExamSoft for Bar Exam, Electronic Frontier Foundation (Sept. 10, 2020), [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/09/eff-tells-california-supreme-court-not-require-examsoft-bar-exam](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/09/eff-tells-california-supreme-court-not-require-examsoft-bar-exam); Joyce E. Cutler, California Law Deans Ask for State to Make Bar Exam ‘Open Book’, Bloomberg Law (Sept. 14, 2020),  \n1  \nWe now write to advise that if you do not take immediate steps to disco","cbCaiqZWwf1b32E8","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiqZWwf1b32E8","pdf",241741,"English","# Letter to State Bar of California Leadership\n## Objection to FRT Use in February 2021 Bar Examination\n## Notice of Potential Legal Action\n## Requested Alternatives and Jurisdiction Examples\n## Response Request and Closing","[{\"question\":\"Who sent the demand letter and who is it addressed to?\",\"answer\":\"The letter is sent by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and addressed to California State Bar officials and ExamSoft’s CEO, including Sean M. SeLegue, Vanessa Holton, Esther P. Lin, and Sebastian Vos.\"},{\"question\":\"What is the main objection to facial recognition technology in the bar exam?\",\"answer\":\"The letter objects to planned use of FRT because experts have established it is disproportionately inaccurate for women and people of color, which would cause unlawful disparate impact on examinees.\"},{\"question\":\"What action does the letter demand and by when?\",\"answer\":\"It demands immediate steps to discontinue FRT use for the February 2021 exam and any future exams. It requests a response by February 16, 2021 and states legal action will be taken if FRT is not discontinued.\"}]","Bar Exam - Demand Letter to State Bar of California - Final | PDF",1789961970]