The MPRE — the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, developed by the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) — is a separate examination from the bar examination: a two-hour, 60-question multiple-choice test on the standards governing lawyers’ and judges’ professional conduct, of which 50 questions are scored and 10 are unscored pretest questions. Scores are reported on a scale of 50 to 150, each jurisdiction sets its own passing score, and the examination is required for bar admission in all United States jurisdictions except Wisconsin and Puerto Rico.
This program is part of the expanding PassProfessor catalog — join the notify list and we’ll email you when enrollment opens.
The examination at a glance
| Item | Verified position |
|---|---|
| Examination | Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE), developed by the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) |
| Position | A separate examination from the bar examination. The MPRE does not test substantive law for bar admission; it measures knowledge and understanding of the established standards for the professional conduct of lawyers. Passing the bar examination does not satisfy the MPRE requirement, and passing the MPRE does not satisfy any part of the bar examination |
| Format | 60 multiple-choice questions, each with four answer choices: 50 scored questions and 10 unscored pretest questions, which are indistinguishable from scored questions |
| Length | Two hours; computer-based, administered at Pearson VUE testing centers |
| Schedule | Administered three times per year — in March, August, and November |
| Content | Twelve subject areas under NCBE’s MPRE Subject Matter Outline, drawn from the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct, and controlling constitutional decisions and generally accepted principles in leading cases and procedural and evidentiary rules. Largest areas: Conflicts of Interest (12–18%), Litigation and Other Forms of Advocacy (10–16%), and the Client-Lawyer Relationship (10–16%) |
| Scoring | Scores reported on a scale ranging from 50 (low) to 150 (high). There is no national passing score: each jurisdiction establishes its own passing score |
| Requirement | Required for admission to the bars of all United States jurisdictions except Wisconsin and Puerto Rico |
| Examination fee | NCBE fee: $185 per administration for 2026 and 2027 test dates (a third-party fee charged by NCBE) |
| Administrator | NCBE; administered on NCBE’s behalf by Pearson VUE. PassProfessor is independent and is not affiliated with NCBE |
The MPRE occupies a singular place in American legal licensing: it is the examination that tests whether a future lawyer knows the rules of being a lawyer. Developed by the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) and required for bar admission in every United States jurisdiction except Wisconsin and Puerto Rico, the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination measures knowledge and understanding of the established standards for the professional conduct of lawyers — the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct, and the controlling decisional and procedural law that surrounds them. Its questions are short ethical dramas: a client confides, a conflict surfaces, a fee is disputed, a tribunal is misled or nearly misled, and the candidate must identify what the governing standards require of the lawyer in the next move.
Reading the verified facts
Every fact in the table above is stated as the administering body states it in its own publications, because candidates for the MPRE are ill-served by the approximations that circulate about it. Three reading disciplines govern this guide. First, the figures given are the administrator’s figures — the format, the content weights, and the scoring position are reproduced from the primary documents named in this file’s INTERNAL section, and where those documents do not publish a figure, this guide prints none rather than borrowing one. Second, the companion PassProfessor program this guide accompanies is in the works and unbuilt: nothing in this guide describes a question bank, a course, or an enrollment that exists today. Third, where the examination has recently changed or is announced to change, the guide teaches the current position and dates the change, so a candidate can locate their own sitting inside it.
The route, step by step
Step 1 — Register with NCBE and schedule
Create an NCBE account, register for one of the year’s three administrations (March, August, or November), and schedule the computer-based sitting at a Pearson VUE testing center, which administers the examination on NCBE’s behalf. NCBE’s fee is $185 per administration for 2026 and 2027 test dates. Many candidates sit the MPRE during law school, when their jurisdiction’s timing rules allow, rather than in the bar examination season.
Step 2 — Confirm your jurisdiction’s passing score and timing rules
There is no national pass mark. Your jurisdiction sets its scaled passing score — published scores across jurisdictions range from 75 to 86 — and may also set how long an MPRE score remains valid and when it must be earned relative to admission. Get both numbers from your jurisdiction’s bar admissions authority, not from national summaries.
Step 3 — Sit the MPRE
Sixty multiple-choice questions in two hours, each with four answer choices. Fifty are scored; ten are unscored pretest questions, indistinguishable from the rest. Two minutes per question is the average the format allows, and the examination’s short scenarios are built to that pace.
Step 4 — Receive and report the scaled score
NCBE scores the examination and reports scores to examinees and jurisdictions, typically within five weeks of the test date. Your score is reported on the 50-to-150 scale; whether it passes is decided by the jurisdiction whose standard you must meet — a score can pass in one jurisdiction and fall short in another with a higher established standard.
The examination outline in full
Regulation of the Legal Profession — 6–12%
The profession’s gate and its discipline: the inherent authority of courts to regulate lawyers, admission to the bar and the candour it demands of applicants, the forms of lawyer discipline and their grounds, multijurisdictional practice and its limits, and the lawyer’s obligations on reporting misconduct.
In the guide this area is taught as the frame the other eleven hang in: admission and discipline are presented as one lifecycle, and multijurisdictional practice is worked through its standard situations — the visiting lawyer, the temporarily present lawyer, the lawyer practising where a client or a matter wandered. Candidates learn to ask the area’s master question first: is this lawyer authorised to be doing this, here, at all?
The Client-Lawyer Relationship — 10–16%
One of the examination’s three heaviest areas: formation of the relationship and who the client is, the lawyer’s duties of competence-adjacent loyalty expressed through scope, allocation of authority between lawyer and client, communications, fees and their agreements, the decision rights each side holds, and termination of the relationship. Items turn on allocation: which decisions belong to the client (objectives, settlement, plea, testimony), which to the lawyer (means, within consultation), and what the rules require when the two disagree or the client disappears, discharges, or endangers the representation.
The guide teaches this area as a decision-rights map. Each relationship event — engagement, instruction, fee event, conflict of instructions, termination — is presented with its governing rule and its standard examination variation, and candidates practise identifying whose call a described decision is before evaluating whether it was the right call, because the items are built in that order.
Client Confidentiality — 6–12%
Three doctrines candidates persistently merge, examined as three: the attorney-client privilege (an evidentiary rule belonging to the client), the work-product doctrine, and the ethical duty of confidentiality (broader than privilege, covering all information relating to the representation, from any source). The outline then tests the duty’s machinery: client-authorised disclosure, implied authorisation, and the exceptions — among them preventing reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm, preventing or mitigating client crime or fraud using the lawyer’s services, securing legal advice about compliance, and complying with court orders or other law.
In the guide, confidentiality is taught as three concentric protections drawn on one page — privilege narrowest, work product beside it, the ethical duty widest — with every exception pinned to the ring it punctures. Candidates drill the standard confusions until they invert: the file fact learned from a newspaper is confidential but not privileged; the exception that permits disclosure to prevent a fraud does not compel it; consent must be informed and confirmed where the rules require.
Conflicts of Interest — 12–18%
The examination’s largest area, and its most mechanical: concurrent conflicts between current clients, conflicts from the lawyer’s personal interests and duties, former-client conflicts and the substantial-relationship test, prospective-client conflicts, conflicts from a lawyer’s prior government or judicial service, imputed conflicts across a firm, and the screening and consent mechanisms that cure what can be cured. Items present a cast of clients past, present, and prospective and a lawyer whose loyalties intersect them; the candidate must run the analysis the rules prescribe — is there a conflict, is it consentable, was consent informed and confirmed in writing where required, is it imputed, can it be screened?
The guide teaches conflicts as an algorithm the candidate performs in order, every time: identify the clients, classify each relationship (current, former, prospective), locate the adversity or material limitation, test consentability, verify the consent formalities, then imputation and screening. Worked casts are practised until the sequence is automatic, because the area’s items are lost by skipped steps, not by unknown rules.
Competence, Legal Malpractice, and Other Civil Liability — 6–12%
The duty to practise competently and diligently, the civil consequences when practice fails — malpractice liability and its elements, liability to third persons in defined circumstances — and the lawyer’s duties around client property claims and disputes that shade into liability. This area connects the ethical floor to the courtroom consequence: the same failure can be a rule violation, a disciplinary matter, and a damages claim, and items test whether the candidate knows which system is asking.
The guide presents this area as the ethics–liability interface: each duty is stated once as a rule of conduct and once as a source of civil exposure, and candidates learn the boundary questions items favour — when a non-client may claim, what a malpractice plaintiff must show, and which duties run to the tribunal or the public rather than to any private claimant.
Litigation and Other Forms of Advocacy — 10–16%
The advocate’s duties inside proceedings: candour to the tribunal, fairness to opposing party and counsel, the rules of evidence-adjacent conduct — meritorious claims, expediting litigation, the prohibition on falsifying evidence or disobeying tribunal obligations, conduct toward witnesses, trial publicity, and the special duties of prosecutors. At 10–16% this is the third of the examination’s heavy areas, and its items are the most theatrical: a deposition answer shading into falsehood, a document that must or must not be produced, a witness who must not be coached into a story.
In the guide, advocacy is taught as a bounded zeal: each duty is paired with the advocacy instinct it restrains, and the prosecutor’s special obligations are given their own treatment, because the outline does and items follow. Candour’s remedial sequence — remonstrate, disclose to the extent necessary, withdraw where required — is drilled as an ordered procedure, since items test its steps in order.
Transactions and Communications with Persons Other Than Clients
The lawyer outside the client relationship facing outward: truthfulness in statements to others, the duties owed when dealing with unrepresented persons (no implied representation, clarification of the lawyer’s role, no legal advice beyond the advice to secure counsel), communications with persons represented by counsel and the no-contact rule, and the rules for organisational constituents. The outline states this area without the percentage range this guide quotes for others, and the guide follows the outline’s presentation rather than inventing a weight.
The guide teaches this area through its two master rules — do not mislead, and do not mistake your role in the other person’s eyes — and works the standard situations: negotiation statements and their materiality line, the unrepresented person’s misunderstanding and the clarification it triggers, and the organisational setting where the lawyer’s client is the entity and its people are not.
Different Roles of the Lawyer — 4–10%
The lawyer wearing other hats: advisor, evaluator, negotiator, intermediary traditions, advocate in nonadjudicative proceedings, and the third-party neutral — mediator, arbitrator, and the lawyer serving in law-related capacities where clients may believe the protections of a client-lawyer relationship apply. The area examines what changes when the role changes: the duties that follow the lawyer, the account owed to non-clients about what the lawyer is and is not doing for them, and the conflicts consequences of moving between roles.
In the guide, roles are taught as a wardrobe with labels: each role is presented with its duty set and its disclosure obligations, and items are practised by first naming the role the facts construct — because in this area, as in practice, most errors are role errors: duties of a neutral discharged as if an advocate, or advocacy expected where a neutral was engaged.
Safekeeping Funds and Other Property — 2–8%
The trust account area: holding client and third-person funds and property separate from the lawyer’s own, the records that must be kept, prompt notification and delivery of funds and property a client or third person is entitled to receive, and the handling of disputed claims to funds in the lawyer’s possession. Small in weight, absolute in character: the rules admit no de minimis and no good intentions, and the items test the standard failures — commingling, premature withdrawal, disputed funds distributed to the louder claimant.
The guide teaches safekeeping as a closed system with no judgement calls: money in, money identified, money held, money out to the person entitled, disputes frozen until resolved. Candidates memorise the flow and its prohibitions completely, because this area offers the examination’s best exchange rate of study minutes for secured items.
Communications About Legal Services — 4–10%
Advertising and solicitation: the rules governing lawyer communications about services — the prohibition on false or misleading communications, the conditions on advertising, the strict limits on direct solicitation of prospective clients, and communications about fields of practice and specialisation. Items test the constitutional-era balance the Model Rules strike: commercial speech protected, deception and coercive in-person solicitation regulable. The classic constructions recur — the advertisement that omits what makes it misleading, the solicitation that arrives too soon after an accident, the specialisation claim that outruns certification.
The guide organises this area by channel and by defect: print and broadcast advertising, targeted mail, in-person and live solicitation, each with its governing rule and its standard violation. Candidates learn to classify the communication first and locate the defect second, mirroring how the items are assembled.
Lawyers’ Duties to the Public and the Legal System — 2–4%
The profession’s public account: voluntary pro bono service as an aspirational duty, accepting court appointments, the obligations around improving the law and the profession’s institutions, and political-activity constraints where they attach to legal office. The smallest weighted area on the outline is also its most distinctive in kind — it examines what lawyers owe beyond clients and tribunals, and its items test the precise status of those duties: aspirational where the rules make them aspirational, mandatory where they do not.
In the guide this area is taught by status precision. Each duty is labelled with its actual normative force under the Model Rules, because the items’ distractors characteristically upgrade an aspiration into a mandate or dissolve a mandate into a suggestion. Short as the area is, it is studied whole.
Judicial Conduct
The outline’s closing area turns from advocates to the bench: the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct as the MPRE examines it — judicial independence and impartiality, the conduct of judicial duties, disqualification, extrajudicial activities, and political conduct of judges and judicial candidates. The current outline presentation read for this guide does not attach a percentage range to this area, and none is invented here.
The guide teaches judicial conduct as a parallel code with its own logic: where the lawyer’s rules balance loyalty against candour, the judge’s rules subordinate nearly everything to impartiality and its appearance. Disqualification triggers and extrajudicial limits are drilled as lists with fact-pattern triggers, and candidates are reminded that the area tests the Model Code, not intuitions about fairness.
The sitting itself: format, scoring, and what follows
The MPRE’s difficulty is not scale but seduction. Sixty short scenarios in two hours invites speed, and every scenario is engineered with an answer that feels professionally decent and is wrong under the rules — the kind gesture that breaches confidentiality, the pragmatic silence that breaches candour, the conflict waived by a consent the rules do not accept. The governing texts are the Model Rules and the Model Code, not the candidate’s state rules and not the candidate’s conscience, and items are lost precisely where those diverge. The conflicts area alone can supply nearly a fifth of the paper, in analyses with five moving parts each; the examination rewards candidates who run a procedure over candidates who recognise a vibe.
A sitting is also an administrative event, and its rules are part of the examination. Arrive under the administrator’s identification and conduct rules as published for your window, work at the pace the format’s arithmetic sets, and answer every item: across the programs in this guide’s family of examinations, unscored pretest material — where the administrator uses it — is indistinguishable from scored material, and no scoring system in this guide rewards a blank. When the result arrives, read it in the administrator’s own terms — a scaled score against an established standard, a part passed within a program’s clock, a jurisdiction’s line met or missed — and take the next step the route prescribes while the material is still warm, whether that step is the companion part, the next component of a licensure file, or a rebuilt study plan aimed at the domain weights the result exposed.
What this examination is for
It must be said plainly, because candidates and catalogues alike blur it: the MPRE is a separate examination from the bar examination. It is not a subject inside the bar exam, not a section of it, and not satisfied by passing it. A candidate passes the bar examination on substantive law and still owes the MPRE; a candidate passes the MPRE — as many law candidates do while still in school — and still owes the entire bar examination. The PassProfessor catalog carries material for the bar examination family; this program is not that material. It is built to NCBE’s MPRE Subject Matter Outline alone: twelve areas of professional conduct, sixty questions, two hours, and a scaled score whose passing line is set not by NCBE but by the jurisdiction whose bar the candidate seeks to join.
Preparation errors this guide is written to prevent
The recurring errors are structural, and they repeat across sittings. Candidates study to the wrong blueprint — a neighbouring examination’s outline, an outdated revision, a summary that rounded the weights away. Candidates study evenly across an uneven paper, giving a small domain the hours a large one needed. Candidates prepare for recognition when the examination tests application, rehearsing definitions for a paper built of described situations demanding a worked answer. And candidates neglect the route itself — the eligibility step, the window, the deadline, the corequisite — and lose a season to an administrative failure no amount of content knowledge can repair. Every section of this guide is aimed at one of those four errors: the outline is given at full weight, the route is given in order, and the sitting is described at its real pace.
After the examination
There is no career signal in the MPRE in the ordinary sense — no employer hires for it — and that is the point: it is a threshold of the licensing system itself, the ethics gate through which every admitted lawyer in all but two jurisdictions has passed. Its professional significance is real nonetheless. The standards it examines are the standards the holder will be disciplined under for an entire career, and the examination is most candidates’ first structured encounter with them as operative law rather than as a law school course. Jurisdictions set their passing scores deliberately within the published range, treating the examination as a calibrated minimum-competence screen for professional conduct — the one subject in which the public’s interest in a floor is at its most direct.
Hold the result in the file where it belongs. A pass in this examination is a component in a larger professional record — a licensure application, a certification file, a registration — and the bodies that will ask for it later ask in their own formats and on their own timelines. Keep the administrator’s result communication, note the window and the standard you were measured against, and confirm how the receiving body wants the result evidenced. Where the examination is one of a pair or a set, the result also starts clocks the companion components run on; the route section of this guide states those clocks as the administrator publishes them.
A preparation plan that respects the outline
Build the plan on the outline’s weights, not on habit or on the order of a textbook. Open with the domain or function the outline weights most heavily for this examination, because it is where the sitting is decided; then work the remaining areas in outline order, keeping a running record, area by area, of where practice performance is thin. Convert every content area into worked items early — this examination family tests application, and reading without answering is rehearsal for a different event. Reserve complete timed sittings, at the examination’s real item count and time limit, for the plan’s final stage, and take them under examination conditions: no pauses, no references, and the administrator’s section structure observed where the format imposes one. Close the plan by returning to the heaviest area for a final pass, because sittings are most often decided there. The companion PassProfessor program page describes the preparation program itself, which is in the works; this guide stands on its own as the route and outline reference for the MPRE.
Frequently asked questions
Why does the MPRE test the Model Rules instead of my state’s rules?
Because it is a national examination: one instrument, used by nearly every jurisdiction, must test a common standard, and the Model Rules are that standard. Jurisdictions adopt rules closely modelled on them, but where your state’s rule differs from the Model Rule, the MPRE follows the Model Rule. Candidates must consciously suppress state-specific variations learned in practice or in state-focused courses.
How are the twelve areas weighted?
Per NCBE’s Subject Matter Outline: Conflicts of Interest 12–18%; Litigation and Other Forms of Advocacy 10–16%; the Client-Lawyer Relationship 10–16%; Regulation of the Legal Profession 6–12%; Client Confidentiality 6–12%; Competence, Legal Malpractice, and Other Civil Liability 6–12%; Different Roles of the Lawyer 4–10%; Communications About Legal Services 4–10%; Safekeeping Funds and Other Property 2–8%; Lawyers’ Duties to the Public and the Legal System 2–4%. The outline presents Transactions and Communications with Persons Other Than Clients and Judicial Conduct without the ranges quoted here, and this guide invents none for them.
What is the difference between confidentiality and privilege on this examination?
Privilege is an evidentiary rule protecting confidential client-lawyer communications from compelled disclosure, and it belongs to the client. Confidentiality is the broader ethical duty covering all information relating to a representation, whatever its source. Work product is a third, distinct protection. Items test the three separately and punish their merger — a fact can be confidential without being privileged, and the ethical duty survives where privilege ends.
How should conflicts items be approached?
Procedurally. Identify every client relationship in the cast — current, former, prospective — then test adversity or material limitation, then consentability, then whether informed consent was confirmed in the form the rules require, then imputation and any screening. The area is the examination’s largest (12–18%) and its items are assembled so that skipping a step selects a distractor.
What does ‘informed consent, confirmed in writing’ mean in these items?
It is a defined formality: consent given after the lawyer has communicated adequate information and an account of the material risks and reasonably available alternatives, and confirmed in a writing the rules recognise. Items turn on the difference between a client’s oral agreement, a signed writing, and consent that was never informed — three different answers wearing similar facts.
Why is there no national passing score?
Because admission standards belong to the jurisdictions. NCBE develops and scores the examination and reports a scaled score from 50 to 150; each jurisdiction sets the score its applicants must reach — published standards run from 75 to 86 — and sets ancillary rules such as score validity periods. The same scaled score can therefore pass in one jurisdiction and not in another.
How long do scores take, and how are they reported?
NCBE reports scores to examinees and to jurisdictions, typically within five weeks of the test date. Scores do not expire under any NCBE rule; expiration, where it exists, is a jurisdiction’s rule about how recent a score must be for admission.
What is the prosecutor’s special position in the advocacy area?
The Model Rules impose special responsibilities on prosecutors beyond the advocate’s general duties — including duties around probable cause, the rights of the accused, and remedial obligations for wrongful convictions — and the outline’s advocacy area examines them distinctly. Candidates who apply ordinary adversary logic to prosecutor scenarios answer the area’s most characteristic trap.
Do judges really appear on a lawyers’ examination?
Yes. The outline closes with judicial conduct under the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct — impartiality, disqualification, extrajudicial and political activity. Candidates who will never sit as judges still answer for the system they will practise in, and the area’s analysis differs enough from lawyer conduct that it must be studied on its own terms.
How should the two hours be paced?
At the format’s arithmetic: two minutes per question, sustained. The scenarios are short; the time losses come from re-reading casts in conflicts items and from debating conscience against text. Practise with a visible clock, answer from the rules’ procedure, and reserve end-of-exam minutes for flagged items rather than for re-litigating settled ones.
I already passed the bar examination. Do I still need the MPRE?
If your jurisdiction requires it — all but Wisconsin and Puerto Rico do — yes, independently and completely. The examinations certify different things, neither reports to or substitutes for the other, and admission files are closed only when every component, MPRE included, is satisfied under that jurisdiction’s rules.
Where do this guide’s facts come from?
From NCBE’s own publications — the MPRE examination pages and the MPRE Subject Matter Outline at ncbex.org, including its area list and percentage ranges — recorded in this file’s INTERNAL section. Facts that could not be verified from those sources were omitted.
Is the MPRE fee part of bar admission fees?
No. The $185 NCBE fee for 2026 and 2027 administrations is the examination’s own registration fee, charged by NCBE. Jurisdiction admission fees, bar examination fees, and character-and-fitness charges are separate and are set by each jurisdiction.