UCLA professor is not entitled to State Bar data, appeals court says

A UCLA School of Law professor is not entitled to State Bar admissions data he has long sought to more closely examine the impact of racial preferences in law school admissions, a state appeals court ruled.

In a unanimous opinion published Thursday, the 1st District Court of Appeal agreed with a lower court that the information Richard H. Sander requested about bar applicants -- including race/ethnicity, undergraduate GPA and LSAT scores -- is not subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act. Sander v. State Bar of California, A150061 and A150625, (Cal. App. 1st Dist., Aug. 23, 2018).

Sander has petitioned for the data to test his "mismatch hypothesis" that giving law school applicants' admissions preferences, such as for race, results in poorer performance on the bar exam.

The First Amendment Coalition joined the professor in seeking the data covering bar applicants from 1972 to 2008. David Snyder, the coalition's executive director, said he was disappointed with the appeals court's opinion and disagreed with its conclusions and reasoning.

"We have always believed, and continue to believe, the State Bar's records ought to be open to the public to show how it goes about its business," Snyder said. "Unfortunately, this decision does not help much in that pursuit."

The plaintiffs have not decided whether to seek state Supreme Court review, Snyder said. Sander did not respond to a request for comment.

"The State Bar has maintained that it has a duty to protect the privacy and anonymity of bar applicants and their personal information, including their race, ethnicity, law school, grade point average, LSAT scores, and bar exam scores," the bar said in a statement.

In 2013, the California Supreme Court ruled the bar should disclose the information requested by Sander if it could be provided in a way that protected individual applicants' privacy.

At a subsequent 2016 trial before San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Mary E. Wiss, the bar prevailed on multiple grounds. Sander v. State Bar of California, CPF08508880 (S.F. Super. Ct., Nov. 7, 2016).

The trial court's initial ground for denying Sander's petition for a writ of mandate was that disclosure of the bar admissions data would require the bar to create new records, a duty not imposed by California's public records law.

In an opinion authored by Presiding Justice Peter J. Siggins of the 1st District's Division 3, the appeals panel agreed with Wiss.

"It is well established under California law and guiding federal precedent under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) ... that, while the CPRA requires public agencies to provide access to their existing records, it does not require them to create new records to satisfy a request," Siggins wrote.

Justices Stuart R. Pollak and Martin J. Jenkins rounded out the panel.