The National Conference of Bar Examiners has created a Uniform Bar Exam, which a state can use in lieu of writing its own exams. (Story here and commentary here.)
Of course, states have been moving in this direction for years through the widespread adoption of the multistate bar exam (MBE), multistate essay exam (MEE), multistate performance test (MPT), and multistate professional responsibility exam (MPRE). But most states have continued to test (or at least claim to be testing) some state-specific material. The Uniform Bar Exam, if adopted, would effectively do away with state-specific material entirely.
I like the idea of a uniform exam for a couple of reasons. First, and most importantly, knowledge about local law should not be a prerequisite for bar admission. Consider that the typical bar exam already puts very little emphasis on local law, and there is no evidence that this emphasis on general legal principles has produced more incompetence or malpractice.
That's no surprise. Law schools (and bar prep courses) can expose students to only a small fraction of the law that lawyers need to know. If the licensing process ensured that lawyers know all of the law that's necessary for practice, the exam would have to be administered over several months and cover a lot more than it currently does. That's not the point, and it shouldn't be. A uniform bar exam acknowledges the reality that we want lawyers to understand basic legal principles and concepts. Throughout their careers, lawyers have to educate themselves about local law and changes to local law. Knowing those variations at the beginning of one's career shouldn't be a requirement for bar admission.
Second, states often have cited the bar exam as a justification for excessive restrictions on multijurisdictional practice. Even with the increasingly widespread adoption of Rule 5.5, states continue to be wary of out-of-state lawyers. The traditional argument against more cross-border practice is that out-of-state attorneys simply do not know local law and should be restricted accordingly. But if in-state lawyers don't have to know local law to become licensed (as is already the case in most states as a practical matter), it becomes a lot harder to justify many of the existing restrictions on multijurisdictional practice. In fact, many existing restrictions may even be unconstitutional.
There are other reasons for adopting a uniform exam, some of which are spelled out in the previously referenced commentary (such as ensuring consistently high quality, well-designed testing material), so this development (if it takes hold) seems to me to be welcome. I suspect, though, that my view may not be widely shared...