Inside the July 2025 California Bar Exam: What Each Essay Really Tested
Mission Reminder:
At Brieflex.ai, we train law students and bar takers like athletes—through discipline, repetition, and analytics that turn study into performance.
Overview
The July 2025 California Bar Exam was one of the most balanced administrations in recent memory—classic subjects, predictable patterns, and subtle traps hidden in ordinary facts.
Below is a clean breakdown of what each essay and the performance test actually tested, written for law students and bar takers who want to understand the core issue architecture—not just memorize rule statements.
You can download the official questions here:
👉 July 2025 California Bar Exam Questions (PDF) — from the State Bar of California.
🧱 California Bar Exam Wills and Trusts Essay (Question 1)
Main Topics: Charitable trust validity, trust modification, termination, and fiduciary breach.
Issues Tested
- Charitable Purpose and Cy Pres (Farm Trust)
- Whether Grandma’s trust to the City created a valid charitable trust.
- The cy pres doctrine: whether loss of organic certification frustrated the purpose, and if the court should modify the use rather than terminate the trust.
- Trigger: “fail for any reason” gift-over clause → resulting trust analysis.
- Private Express Trust Termination (Ancestry Trust)
- Continuation after Tom’s death and absence of successor trustee.
- Distinction between administrative failure vs. failure of purpose.
- The test for court-ordered dissolution of a still-functional private trust.
- Trustee Breach and Remedies
- Tom’s personal withdrawal = clear breach of loyalty and self-dealing.
- Remedy: restitution from Tom’s estate for the misused trust funds.
Takeaway:
A strong test of charitable trust flexibility, modification under cy pres, and fiduciary duty enforcement.
⚖️ California Bar Exam Torts Essay (Question 2)
Main Topics: Negligence, premises liability, negligent supervision, intentional torts, and comparative fault.
Issues Tested
- Premises Liability (Ollie – Landowner)
- Duty of care to invitees and scope of reasonable inspection.
- Constructive notice of broken glass and failure to re-inspect.
- Public use and foreseeability as duty amplifiers.
- Negligent Supervision (Barry – Coach)
- Coach liability for encouraging reckless conduct by an aggressive player.
- Foreseeability and prior similar acts as proof of breach.
- Intentional Torts (Kate & Yvonne)
- Kate’s battery on Yvonne (punch) and lack of privilege.
- Yvonne’s push as possible self-defense or limited retaliatory force.
- Comparative Fault & Apportionment
- Allocation between Ollie (premises) and Barry (negligence) under comparative-negligence principles.
Takeaway:
A layered negligence question testing duty segmentation and actor-by-actor causation—a hallmark of modern tort essays.
🏢 California Bar Exam Business Associations Essay (Question 3)
Main Topics: Partnership formation, corporate liability, and agency authority.
Issues Tested
- Delta Bank Loan (Pre-Incorporation Partnership)
- Liability attached before incorporation.
- All partners jointly and severally liable.
- Corporation not liable absent novation.
- Echo Bank Loan (Corporate Act)
- Ann signed properly on behalf of ABC Inc.
- Valid corporate obligation due to actual authority and board consent.
- Big Shoe Co. Contract (Unauthorized Act)
- Ann lacked consent; raised agency authority and ratification analysis.
- Corporation only bound if it later ratified or knowingly benefited.
- Fred’s Accident (Tort Liability)
- Respondeat superior: employee tort within scope of employment.
- No shareholder liability absent veil piercing.
Takeaway:
A timing-heavy essay connecting partnership → incorporation → agency, emphasizing how liability shifts between entities.
🏛️ California Bar Exam Constitutional Law Essay (Question 4)
Main Topics: Due Process, Equal Protection, Privileges or Immunities, and Article IV Privileges and Immunities.
Issues Tested
- Due Process (Fourteenth Amendment)
- No fundamental right to medical-school admission.
- Rational-basis review—legitimate goal of increasing physicians in underserved areas.
- Equal Protection
- Dual classifications: residency (rational basis) and race (strict scrutiny).
- Residency restriction upheld; racial preference likely struck down.
- Privileges or Immunities (Fourteenth Amendment)
- Protects national citizenship rights only—minimal relevance here.
- Privileges and Immunities (Article IV)
- Economic discrimination against nonresidents analyzed under the substantial-justification test.
- State’s interest in retaining doctors upheld as substantial and narrowly tailored.
Takeaway:
A precise multi-clause constitutional comparison, testing whether examinees could isolate each clause and apply the correct level of scrutiny.
⚖️ California Bar Exam Professional Responsibility Essay (Question 5)
Main Topics: Duties of loyalty, communication, disclosure, and judicial propriety.
Issues Tested
- Defense Counsel (Linda)
- Violated client autonomy by overruling plea decision.
- Sought continuance against client’s wishes; improper withdrawal attempt.
- Failure to consult and communicate breached both ABA and California duties.
- Prosecutor (Pat)
- Withheld exculpatory evidence → Brady violation.
- Misled court at sentencing → candor to tribunal violation.
- Breaches under both ABA & CA professional rules.
- Judge
- Failed to ensure plea was knowing and voluntary.
- Improperly sentenced beyond plea terms; violated duty of fairness and integrity.
Takeaway:
A comprehensive ethics crossover testing coordination of defense, prosecution, and judicial duties within one narrative.
🏠 California Bar Exam Performance Test — Tate v. Tate
Task: Write a client letter analyzing partition of inherited property among cotenants.
Skills Tested: Statutory interpretation, equitable reasoning, and clear client communication.
Issues Tested
- Partition by Sale vs. Division
- Presumption favors physical division unless impracticable or a sale yields significantly higher value.
- Emotional attachment recognized but economic utility controls.
- Joan’s case for sale stronger: $600 k as one parcel vs. $450 k divided.
- Contribution & Reimbursement
- Crystal entitled to reimbursement for taxes and maintenance (equitable contribution).
- No reimbursement for improvements (garage) beyond share of added value.
- Credit limited to co-tenants’ share, not full repayment.
- Organization & Client Explanation
- Two sections:
- Can Joan force a sale or must property be divided?
- Must she repay Crystal for contributions?
- Tone: plain-English, professional, client-friendly explanation—no citations, no advocacy.
- Two sections:
Takeaway:
The PT rewarded clarity, structure, and client communication—not dense legal argument.
🧩 Final Analysis
The July 2025 exam rewarded methodical, structured thinkers—those who could identify hierarchy, stay within scope, and apply law with precision.
It wasn’t about how much law you memorized; it was about knowing which rule to use, when, and why.
❓ FAQ — July 2025 California Bar Exam
Q: Which essay was the hardest?
Most takers cited Question 2 (Torts) because it merged negligence, premises liability, and intentional torts—requiring clear actor separation under time pressure.
Q: What surprised students most?
The Trusts essay (Q 1) appeared straightforward but combined charitable trust rules, cy pres, resulting trust, and fiduciary breach—demanding layered issue spotting.
Q: Which question felt most predictable?
Question 4 (Con Law) followed the standard pattern—Due Process, Equal Protection, Privileges or Immunities, and Article IV analysis—in perfect bar-outline order.
Q: What skill did the PT emphasize?
Communication. It tested clarity and tone more than advocacy—graders rewarded letters that were readable, structured, and balanced.
Q: How should students use this analysis?
Drill by issue structure, not rote rule recall. For each subject, map the core issue tree (duty → breach → causation → defense) until it’s instinctive. The bar rewards structure, not volume.
Closing Reminder
Every essay is a mental triathlon: endurance, pattern recognition, and discipline.
You can’t fake structure—you have to train it.
That’s what we build every day at Brieflex.ai: repetition systems that turn legal study into measurable performance.
