Admission by Portfolio Evaluation: Core Competencies, Portfolio Requirements, and Next Steps

BY WSBA STAFF

In November 2020, the Washington Supreme Court created the Washington Bar Licensure Task Force (WBLTF) to assess the efficacy of licensing new attorneys through the bar exam and to explore alternative licensure methods. Based on its research and public input, the WBLTF issued a report in early 2024 recommending that the Washington Supreme Court create experiential-based methods of licensing that did not require applicants to sit for the bar exam. This recommendation was based on research indicating that the exam was at best a limited proxy for competence to practice law while disproportionately excluding historically marginalized individuals from the legal profession. 

In March 2024, the Washington Supreme Court adopted the WBLTF’s recommendations in concept and tasked the WSBA with convening a committee to implement the recommendations. The WSBA assembled a Licensure Pathways Implementation Steering Committee, made up of members from across Washington’s legal and law education communities. This steering committee and its subcommittees devoted significant energy to developing a proposal to implement an experiential-based pathway to licensure, referred to as the portfolio evaluation. The proposal for the portfolio evaluation, now under consideration by the Washington Supreme Court, is outlined in this article. 

A SHIFTING LANDSCAPE

Non-exam-based lawyer licensing is not a new concept. For many years, both Wisconsin and New Hampshire have provided law school graduates with a path to the legal profession that does not include the bar exam. More recently, states including Arizona, Utah, and South Dakota have adopted plans that allow prospective candidates to demonstrate competency to practice law with apprenticeship or portfolio-based programs. In November 2023, the Oregon Supreme Court approved its Supervised Practice Portfolio Examination, which is similar to Washington’s portfolio evaluation proposal. (Read more about Oregon’s SPPE here.) State supreme courts and bar associations in Minnesota, Connecticut, Delaware, and New Mexico are also considering alternative lawyer licensing.¹1 www.reuters.com/legal/government/more-us-states-weigh-bypassing-bar-exam-license-lawyers-2026-03-04/. 

The reasons for this shift to provide licensing options outside of the bar exam are varied. As many practicing lawyers would likely attest, the bar exam—with its multiple-choice questions, essay responses with provided case files, and emphasis on speed and memorization—bears little resemblance to the actual practice of law. In fact, multiple studies of the bar exam conclude that performance on the bar exam does not predict whether a person will later be an effective or ethical lawyer.²2 Jason M. Scott, et al., “Putting the Bar to the Test: An Examination of the Predictive Validity of Bar Exam Outcomes on Lawyering Effectiveness,” 1(2) J. of L. and Empirical Analysis 313 (2024). 

Rather, for many, financial means is a greater predictor of success on the exam than possession of legal skills or knowledge.³3 AccessLex, “Analyzing First-Time Bar Exam Passage on the UBE in New York State,” 11 (2021) (available at www.accesslex.org/NYBOLE) (“first-time candidates who reported larger household sizes and those who reported higher employment hours during bar exam preparation were less likely to pass.”). Unsurprisingly, test takers with the means to purchase expensive bar preparation courses and to take time away from work and family obligations perform better on the exam.⁴4 Michael B. Frisby, Sam C. Erman, and Victor D. Quintanilla, “Safeguard or Barrier: An Empirical Examination of Bar Exam Cut Scores,” 70:1 J. of Legal Educ. 125, 141 (2020). 

Compounding these concerns, racial disparities stubbornly persist in bar exam passage rates.⁵5 See Cecil J. Hunt, II, “Guests in Another’s House: An Analysis of Racially Disparate Bar Performance,” 23 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 721, 724 (1996). For example, in 2023, 84 percent of first-time test takers who were white passed the bar exam.⁶6 ABA Profile of the Legal Profession, www.americanbar.org/news/profile-legal-profession/legal-education/ (last visited Feb. 17, 2026). “By comparison, 74 percent of Asian first-time test-takers passed, 71 percent of Hispanics, 68 percent of Native Americans, and 58 percent of Black” test takers passed on their first try. These differences have changed little from year to year. Moreover, such disparities translate to disparities in the legal profession. In 2024, people of color made up just 23 percent of practicing attorneys in the U.S., as compared to 41.6 percent of the total national population.⁷7 ABA, Profile of the Legal Profession, Demographics, www.americanbar.org/news/profile-legal-profession/demographics/ (last visited Mar. 19, 2026).

On the other hand, experts in lawyer licensing posit that experiential assessments can exceed the bar exam as a way to protect the public and make the legal profession more inclusive.⁸8 Deborah Jones Merritt, Andrea Anne Curcio, & Eileen Kaufman, “Enhancing the Validity and Fairness of Lawyer Licensing: Empirical Evidence Supporting Innovative Pathways,” 73 Wash. Univ. J. Of L. & Pol’y 96, 105 (2024). Assessments in settings such as clinics or workplaces can be great measures of a candidate’s competence. 

In addition to providing more accurate assessments of competence than the bar exam, experiential-based pathways can better prepare candidates for the real-world practice of law.⁹9 See Merritt, et al., supra note 8 at 125. In one study of the Daniel Webster Scholars (DWS) program, New Hampshire’s experiential licensing pathway, “members of the [legal] profession and [DWS] alumni said they believe that students who graduate from the program are a step ahead of new law school graduates” and
“[w]hen evaluated based on standardized client interviews, students in the program outperformed lawyers who had been admitted to practice within the last two years.”¹⁰10 Alli Gerkman, Elena Harman, “Ahead of the Curve: Turning Law Students into Lawyers,” 1 (Jan. 2015) (available at https://iaals.du.edu/sites/default/files/documents/publications/ahead_of_the_curve_turning_law_students_into_lawyers.pdf.). 

Undoubtedly, the bar exam will continue to fit the needs of many prospective lawyers. Some individuals may be excellent test-takers and possess the resources to devote to full-time study before the exam. Others may prefer the exam because it offers greater certainty that they could later be admitted to practice in another state. But for some people, a non-exam-based option will be beneficial—for both individuals and the Washington legal community.

ABOUT THE PROCESS 

The Licensure Pathways Implementation Steering Committee and its Core Competencies Subcommittee and Program Evaluation Subcommittee gathered input on this proposal from a variety of sources at multiple points in the development process. Many experts were consulted, including law professors and several experts on lawyering competencies, the deans and LL.M. faculty from Washington’s three law schools, individuals who participated in other states’ experiential pathways as supervisors and supervisees, APR 6 law clerks and tutors, and foreign-trained legal practitioners seeking admission in Washington. Nine input-gathering sessions were held, with each session focusing on different interested parties, including Washington law school students and faculty, the WSBA Board of Bar Examiners, small town and rural practitioners, newly admitted lawyers, and others. 

The steering committee and its subcommittees were thoughtfully formed to ensure broad input and diverse perspectives. The Licensure Pathways Implementation Steering Committee was chaired by Seattle University School of Law Professor Zaida Rivera and included members of the WSBA Board of Governors, Washington Supreme Court Justice Raquel Montoya-Lewis, Gonzaga University School of Law Dean Jacob Rooksby, University of Washington School of Law Dean Tamara Lawson, Seattle University School of Law Dean Anthony E. Varona, individuals with access to justice and consumer law backgrounds, representatives from the WSBA Law Clerk Board and the WSBA Character and Fitness Board, law students and APR 6 law clerks, and others. 

The two subcommittees—Core Competencies and Program Evaluation—included volunteers with experience in legal education, large firms, small firms, solo practice, APR 6 tutoring, public interest law, and research and data analysis in the legal field. 

CORE COMPETENCIES DEFINED 

The first step in developing Washington’s portfolio evaluation program was to identify the core competencies—or baseline-level demonstratable skills, professional behaviors, and areas of knowledge—that a candidate for licensure should possess.¹¹11 See Merritt, et al., supra note 8 at 100. Although these areas of knowledge and skill may seem inherent, they are not explicitly incorporated into existing licensing pathways, including the bar exam. The Licensure Pathways Implementation Steering Committee, therefore, found it paramount to clearly define them at the start. These core competencies are the foundation for the portfolio evaluation program. The specific program requirements, rubrics, and grading tools will be specifically designed to elicit these core skills and areas of knowledge, and candidates who complete the portfolio evaluation program should have multiple opportunities to show that they possess these competencies. 

1. An understanding of legal processes and sources of law. An understanding of legal processes and sources of law includes an understanding of the appropriate application of state and local law, federal law, administrative rules, and local court rules and an understanding of the channels of legal practice, including alternative dispute resolution processes, negotiation skills, legislative processes, administrative and regulatory processes, and court processes.
2. An understanding of threshold concepts in many subjects. A threshold concept is an “insight that transforms understanding of a subject.”¹²12 Deborah Jones Merritt, Logan Cornett, Building a Better Bar: The Twelve Building Blocks of Minimum Competence (Dec. 2020), https://iaals.du.edu/sites/default/files/documents/publications/building_a_better_bar.pdf. This competency “focuses on understanding principles and policies that govern the law, rather than memorizing specific black-letter rules” and “allow[s] lawyers to identify issues, search for the appropriate rule, and see nuances in the rule.”¹³13 Id. Threshold concepts “distinguish individuals who have begun to master a subject from all others” and “allow new learners to understand the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of their field rather than simply the ‘what.’”¹⁴14 Id. 
3. The ability to act professionally and in accordance with the rules of professional conduct. This competency includes the demonstrated ability to conduct oneself with respect for and in accordance with the law, including compliance with the requirements of applicable state, local, and federal constitutions, laws, rules, and regulations, and any applicable court order. Components of this competency may include the ability to manage a law-related workload, cope with the stress of legal practice, pursue self-directed learning, understand the business of maintaining a legal practice, and appropriate use of technology in legal practice.
4. The ability to interpret legal materials. This competency emphasizes the ability to understand and interpret constitutional provisions, statutes, judicial opinions, and regulations, and the ability to evaluate how legal documents, such as contracts, should be construed.
5. The ability to identify issues. This competency emphasizes the ability to identify legal principles and legally significant facts relevant to a client matter, understand the “big picture” of client matters, identify goals and objectives in client matters, identify legal claims and remedies that might address a client’s needs, identify legal and practical obstacles to achieving any proposed resolution, and develop strategies to guide client matters.
6. The ability to conduct research. This competency includes the ability to research answers to specific legal questions, recognize relevant and dispositive legal sources applicable to a client matter, appreciate the authoritative weight of sources of law relevant to a client matter, utilize strategies to update sources of law or find additional sources of law that are relevant to a client matter, acquire facts and non-legal information for client matters, develop the factual record, and locate information about local rules or practices.
7. The ability to apply legal authority to the relevant facts in a client matter. This competency emphasizes the ability to make logically sound arguments based on precedent, analogy, and policy; assess the strengths and weaknesses in a client’s position and an opposing party’s position; and forecast potential outcomes of a client matter.
8. The ability to communicate as a lawyer. This competency includes the ability to choose a method of communication appropriate to the circumstances and audience; communicate the application of legal authority to the facts in a written or oral form that is appropriate for the audience, including the client, opposing counsel, the courts, and other interested parties; draft and edit legal documents and legal correspondence; work collaboratively with others, including opposing counsel, to address a client matter; and apply negotiation skills to advocate on behalf of a client.
9. The ability to interact effectively with clients. This competency emphasizes the ability to gain a client’s trust; recognize the importance of cross-cultural competence and seek available resources to understand the needs of their clients; gather relevant facts and identify client goals; communicate regularly with clients, convey information and options in terms that a client can understand, and help the client choose a strategy; manage client expectations, convey bad news, and cope with difficult clients.

PORTFOLIO EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS

The portfolio evaluation program is designed to provide flexibility to participants. The requirements, as outlined in this section, could feasibly be completed entirely during law school, allowing candidates to graduate with significant practical experience. Alternatively, others may choose to complete part of the requirements during school and part after graduation, or entirely after graduation. 

Portfolio evaluation candidates must be current law students or APR 6 law clerks (having completed one-half of a three-year J.D. program, five-eighths of a four-year J.D. program, or five-eighths of an APR 6 law clerkship), or have completed their legal education. Candidates must complete all required work under the supervision of an experienced lawyer. Supervisors must meet the requirements for a supervising lawyer under APR 9—they must be active Washington lawyers in good standing and have been actively engaged in the practice of law in any U.S. jurisdiction for at least three years preceding the date of application.

Under the portfolio evaluation program, candidates will complete specific lawyering activities, which will be observed and assessed by their supervisors using standardized rubrics, and then submit a portfolio containing those rubrics and required written work product to the WSBA Board of Bar Examiners. The bar examiners and supervisors will evaluate candidates’ performance and work product to determine whether they demonstrate the nine core competencies.

The proposed portfolio evaluation requirements are as follows: 

1. Successfully complete their legal education by graduating from law school, completing the APR 6 law clerk program, or meeting additional educational requirements for foreign-trained candidates by the time they are done with all portfolio evaluation requirements; 
2. If a candidate completed their legal education more than six years prior to applying to participate in the portfolio evaluation, complete the WSBA’s 15-credit Law and Practice Refresher CLE course; 
3. Complete 825 hours of supervised practice time (under a Rule 9 licensed legal intern license); 825 hours equates to about six months of case time, taking into account administrative duties, holidays, and sick/vacation leave, and candidates can accrue only up to 40 hours per week;
4. Complete all required pathway activities (described in the next section); 
5. Submit a portfolio of work (see next section) and supervisor rubrics and receive a passing score on all portfolio submissions; 
6. Demonstrate competence in professional responsibility (see details in the next section);
7. Pass the Washington Law Component open book exam; and 
8. Undergo the character and fitness review required of all applicants to the Washington Bar. 

Supervisors must provide compensation to candidates during the candidate’s supervised practice time, with a handful of exceptions. The amount of compensation is determined by the supervisor and candidate but must be no less than the equivalent amount provided by the supervisor to similarly qualified and experienced employees. In addition to providing payment for labor, the compensation requirement will also help to alleviate the financial burden that accompanies the bar exam and that prevents some people from joining the legal profession. 

REQUIRED ACTIVITIES AND SUBMISSIONS

Required Pathway Activities

Candidates will be required to complete the following activities during their supervised practice:

• Lead two client interviews or counselling sessions;
• Lead one negotiation;
• Demonstrate the use of research tools to develop the facts of a client matter;
• Demonstrate the ability to manage a law-related workload; and
• Demonstrate competence in professional responsibility by

EITHER:

• Achieving a passing score on the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam, or
• Engaging in two discussions with their supervisor of real-life ethics issues that arise during their supervised practice and submit as part of their portfolio a reflection documenting each discussion. The candidate must also submit one written response to a prompt provided by the Bar posing issues related to legal ethics in law office operations, such as handling billing, trust accounts, and client payments.

AND completing the following activities:

• Complete WSBA-provided training covering:
• Common stressors in legal practice and strategies and resources available to manage them;
• Strategies for managing a law-related workload;
• Resources for answering ethics questions during practice; and
• The intersection of technology tools, client privacy, and data security.
• Spend 10 of their supervised practice hours on client-facing activities; and
• Keep detailed, contemporaneous timekeeping records.

The required activities—and the written portfolio materials described next—are intended to be adaptable to a variety of practice settings and provide opportunities for candidates to demonstrate and be evaluated on all nine core competencies.

Required Portfolio Submissions

Candidates will be required to submit a midpoint portfolio with half of their required materials and a final portfolio containing all required materials. Candidates will submit their own work for evaluation by the WSBA Board of Bar Examiners and will also include their supervisors’ rubrics assessing their performance on the required activities. In all, candidates must submit the following materials: 

Candidates’ work product:

• Two written client counselling communications;
• Two persuasive legal documents;
• Two objective legal memoranda; and
• If electing not to take MPRE, two reflections on discussions with their supervisor of professional responsibility matters and one response to a prompt on professional responsibility issues.

Supervisor rubrics assessing the candidate’s performance on their:

• Client interview/counselling sessions;
• Negotiation;
• Use of research tools to develop the facts of a client matter; and
• Ability to manage a law-related workload, such as by spending their time appropriately, planning for and meeting deadlines, managing client files and multistep projects, and, if applicable, working with support staff.

APPLICATION PROCESS 

Candidates must find a Washington lawyer willing to supervise their work in the portfolio pathway prior to applying to participate in the program. The candidate must complete online application materials with the WSBA to determine eligibility of the candidate and their supervisor, and to provide information necessary to obtain a Rule 9 limited legal intern license. If all requirements are met, the WSBA will approve the application to participate in the program and issue a Rule 9 license. 

Once approved, the candidate has 24 months to complete all requirements. Candidates may complete the requirements under different supervisors, if desired (but must inform the WSBA if they change practice settings or supervisors). 

Details about how supervisors will be expected to assess each of the core competencies, guidance around AI use and ensuring client confidentiality in submitted portfolio materials, and the grading process can be found at www.wsba.org/for-legal-
professionals/join-the-legal-profession-in-wa/lawyers/pathways. 

NEXT STEPS

The Report and Recommendations for Admission by Portfolio Evaluation was submitted to the Washington Supreme Court for approval on April 8. Those interested can view the report at www.wsba.org/for-legal-professionals/join-the-legal-
profession-in-wa/lawyers/pathways. 

If the Washington Supreme Court approves the admission by portfolio evaluation proposal, the WSBA will begin developing the practical and logistical elements of this pathway to licensure. These elements include the online application and portfolio submission platform, the supervisor rubrics and bar examiner grading tools, any required trainings for pathway participants, and any other materials to be used by participants such as the portfolio attestation sheets. Additional outreach will also be conducted, with the specific goal of encouraging WSBA members to become supervisors. 

In addition, the Licensure Pathways Implementation Steering Committee has convened a Program Evaluation Subcommittee to identify measures of success for the portfolio evaluation and to recommend methods for evaluating whether the portfolio evaluation has met those measures of success. The goal is to begin accepting applications in early 2027. 

NOTES

1. www.reuters.com/legal/government/more-us-states-weigh-bypassing-bar-exam-license-lawyers-2026-03-04/. 

2. Jason M. Scott, et al., “Putting the Bar to the Test: An Examination of the Predictive Validity of Bar Exam Outcomes on Lawyering Effectiveness,” 1(2) J. of L. and Empirical Analysis 313 (2024). 

3. AccessLex, “Analyzing First-Time Bar Exam Passage on the UBE in New York State,” 11 (2021) (available at www.accesslex.org/NYBOLE) (“first-time candidates who reported larger household sizes and those who reported higher employment hours during bar exam preparation were less likely to pass.”). 

4. Michael B. Frisby, Sam C. Erman, and Victor D. Quintanilla, “Safeguard or Barrier: An Empirical Examination of Bar Exam Cut Scores,” 70:1 J. of Legal Educ. 125, 141 (2020). 

5. See Cecil J. Hunt, II, “Guests in Another’s House: An Analysis of Racially Disparate Bar Performance,” 23 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 721, 724 (1996). 

6. ABA Profile of the Legal Profession, www.americanbar.org/news/profile-legal-profession/legal-education/ (last visited Feb. 17, 2026). 

7. ABA, Profile of the Legal Profession, Demographics, www.americanbar.org/news/profile-legal-profession/demographics/ (last visited Mar. 19, 2026).

8. Deborah Jones Merritt, Andrea Anne Curcio, & Eileen Kaufman, “Enhancing the Validity and Fairness of Lawyer Licensing: Empirical Evidence Supporting Innovative Pathways,” 73 Wash. Univ. J. Of L. & Pol’y 96, 105 (2024). 

9. See Merritt, et al., supra note 8 at 125.

10. Alli Gerkman, Elena Harman, “Ahead of the Curve: Turning Law Students into Lawyers,” 1 (Jan. 2015) (available at https://iaals.du.edu/sites/default/files/documents/publications/ahead_of_the_curve_turning_law_students_into_lawyers.pdf.). 

11. See Merritt, et al., supra note 8 at 100.

12. Deborah Jones Merritt, Logan Cornett, Building a Better Bar: The Twelve Building Blocks of Minimum Competence (Dec. 2020), https://iaals.du.edu/sites/default/files/documents/publications/building_a_better_bar.pdf. 

13. Id. 

14. Id. 

---