Editorial: a multiple-choice exam is not enough to measure whether someone is ready to practise

This is an editorial by the AGENTE LEX newsroom. It expresses the portal's opinion.

The 2026 professional aptitude test for the legal profession was held on 2 July. According to Order PJC/298/2026, it was an online exam, simultaneous for all candidates, with two multiple-choice parts: 50 common questions in two hours and 25 on the chosen speciality in one hour. Each correct answer adds a point and each mistake subtracts a third. The final mark weights the exam at 70% and the access master's or course mark at 30%, and a pass requires at least 5 out of 10.

The model's virtues must be acknowledged. It is free, the same for everyone, quick to mark and with clear review deadlines. The online format avoids travel. And weighting with the master's gives weight to prior training and not only to one morning's exam.

But an uncomfortable question is worth asking: does this exam measure whether someone is ready to practise?

What a test measures well

A test with a penalty for errors measures knowledge of rules and procedure, and does so objectively. Knowing what deadline an appeal has or which court has jurisdiction is essential. Nobody disputes that a future lawyer must master it.

The order also lets the second part be geared to the practice each candidate expects to follow: civil and commercial, criminal, administrative and contentious-administrative, or employment. Whoever chooses civil and commercial also picks a version on regional (foral) law. It is a good move that recognises the territorial diversity of the legal system and the early specialisation of young lawyers.

What a test does not measure

A lawyer's work includes much more:

• Drafting a clear and orderly document.
• Devising a strategy from incomplete facts.
• Explaining to a client their options, their risks and what it will cost.
• Identifying a conflict of interest or a professional secrecy problem.
• Negotiating, which Organic Law 1/2025 has made a mandatory prior step in most civil matters.

None of that is assessed by choosing between four options.

A revealing contrast

The Ministry itself applies another model when it assesses lawyers who already practise in another EU country. Under the resolution of 28 April 2026, their aptitude test consists of a practical case of up to four hours, followed by a reading before the board with questions on the case, the Spanish court system and ethics.

If a practical case with an oral defence is considered suitable for European professionals, one may ask why the main route of access for Spanish graduates relies exclusively on multiple-choice questions.

Our proposal

We do not propose replacing the test, but completing it:

1. Add a practical part, even a short one: a case with a filing or an opinion.
2. Assess ethics with scenarios, not only memory questions.
3. Make use of the master's, whose mark already weighs 30%, so that the practical part carries real and consistent weight across institutions.

We are aware of the cost: marking practical cases takes more time and more assessors. But access to a profession that defends other people's rights deserves that effort.

An exam that better measures practical ability benefits everyone: those who pass, who arrive better prepared to practise, and clients, who trust that their lawyer knows how to apply the law to a specific case.

Meanwhile

Those who have just passed face practical decisions no exam teaches. We review them in the guide to the 2026 bar admission exam. And if their path is to practise on their own, starting with good practice on matters such as lawyer advertising avoids problems from day one. More editorials in Opinion.