California 2009-2010 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly 1 D cosponsors

AB 663 — Legal aid: court interpreters: appearances by telephone.

Last action — From Senate committee without further action.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

(1) Existing law, the State Bar Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California, a public corporation. Existing law provides that it is the duty of an attorney to, among other things, never reject, for any consideration personal to himself or herself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed. Existing law provides that a lawyer may fulfill his or her ethical commitment to provide pro bono services, in part, by providing financial support to organizations providing free legal services to persons of limited means. This bill would prohibit a person or organization that is not a specified type of legal aid organization, as defined, from using the term "legal aid," or any confusingly similar name in any firm name, trade name, fictitious business name, or other designation, or on any advertisement, letterhead, business card, or sign. The bill would subject a person or organization that violates this prohibition to specified civil liability. (2) Existing law provides that, in all general civil cases, as defined, a party who has provided notice may appear by telephone at certain conferences, hearings, and proceedings, except as specified. This bill would require the Judicial Council, on or before July 1, 2010, and periodically as appropriate, to enter into one or more master agreements with a vendor or vendors to provide for telephone appearances in civil cases under the provisions described above, or as otherwise permitted by law. The bill would impose requirements regarding those master agreements, including that the vendor charge a party for an appearance by telephone in an amount set by the Judicial Council, and that the vendor pay to the state $15 for each appearance by telephone and a proportionate share of an amount equal to the total revenue received from vendors by all courts for providing telephone appearances for the 2008–09 fiscal year. The bill would require those funds to be deposited in the Trial Court Trust Fund and used for specified purposes. (3) Existing law requires that, when a witness is incapable of understanding the English language or is incapable of expressing himself or herself in the English language so as to be understood directly by counsel, court, and jury, an interpreter be sworn to interpret for him or her. This bill would require the Judicial Council, by September 1, 2010, to establish a working group to review, identify, and develop best practices to provide interpreters in civil actions and proceedings, as specified. The bill would require the Judicial Council to select up to 5 courts to participate in a pilot project, to commence on July 1, 2011, to provide interpreters in civil proceedings. The bill would provide that the initial pilot courts shall participate until June 30, 2014, and would require the Judicial Council to consider whether a pilot court shall continue participating in the project and whether to select another court or additional courts. The pilot project would be funded from the revenue derived from the telephonic appearance fee described above. (4) Existing law requires the Judicial Council to conduct a study of language and interpreter use and need in court proceedings, with commentary, and to report its findings and recommendations to the Governor and to the Legislature every 5 years. Existing law requires that this study serve as the basis for determining the need to establish interpreter programs and certification and establishing these programs and examinations through the normal budgetary process. This bill would require, in addition, as of January 1, 2011, that the study described above serve as the basis of determining the need for and use of interpreters in civil and criminal court proceedings. The bill would require trial courts to collect and report the use of interpreters in all criminal and civil proceedings in the manner specified by the Judicial Council.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. From Senate committee without further action.

  2. In committee: Held under submission.

  3. In committee: Placed on APPR suspense file.

  4. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  5. From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Re-referred. (Ayes 3. Noes 1.) (June 23).

  6. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  7. Referred to Com. on JUD.

  8. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  9. Read third time, passed, and to Senate. (Ayes 51. Noes 28. Page 1883.)

  10. Read second time. To third reading.

  11. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 5.) (May 28).

  12. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  13. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  14. Read second time and amended.

  15. From committee: Amend, do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 2.) (April 21).

  16. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  17. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.

  18. Referred to Com. on JUD.

  19. From printer. May be heard in committee March 28.

  20. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Blumenfield · Cosponsor
  • Jones · Primary
  • De Leon · Cosponsor
  • John A. Perez · Cosponsor
  • Portantino · Cosponsor
  • Salas · Cosponsor
  • Coto · Cosponsor
  • DeSaulnier · Cosponsor
  • Fuentes · Cosponsor
  • Furutani · Cosponsor
  • Ma · Cosponsor
  • Mendoza · Cosponsor
  • Oropeza · Cosponsor
  • Solorio · Cosponsor
  • Torres · Cosponsor
  • Torrico · Cosponsor
  • Yamada · Cosponsor
  • Mike Fong · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 17 co-sponsors · 104 not signed on · 4 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Jones

Co-sponsors (17)

  • Blumenfield
  • De Leon
  • John A. Perez
  • Portantino
  • Salas
  • Coto
  • DeSaulnier
  • Fuentes
  • Furutani
  • Ma
  • Mendoza
  • Oropeza
  • Solorio
  • Torres
  • Torrico
  • Yamada
  • Fong, Mike Democratic

Not signed on (104)

104 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 104 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Placed on Appropriations Suspense file.

Passed 10 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 10001
Total 10001
% of votes cast 91%0%0%9%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Leno — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Ashburn — Yea
Price — Yea
Walters — Not Voting
Wyland — Yea
Emmerson — Yea

Official roll call →

AB 663 JONES Assembly Third Reading

Passed 60 Yea · 31 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 562901
Democratic 3000
Republican 1200
Total 603101
% of votes cast 65%34%0%1%
How each member voted (92)
Member Party Vote
Carter — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Conway — Nay
Eng — Yea
Charles — Yea
Evans — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Furutani — Yea
De — Yea
La — Yea
Torre — Yea
De — Yea
Leon — Yea
Fong — Yea
Bonnie — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
V. — Yea
Manuel — Yea
Perez — Yea
John — Yea
A. — Yea
Perez — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Salas — Yea
Saldana — Yea
Cook — Nay
Coto — Yea
Bill — Nay
Tom — Nay
Hall — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Anderson — Nay
Bass — Yea
Blakeslee — Nay
Duvall — Nay
Krekorian — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Monning — Yea
Nava — Yea
Price — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Swanson — Yea
Torlakson — Yea
Torrico — Yea
Tran — Yea
Fletcher — Nay
Audra — Nay
Fuller — Nay
Garrick — Nay
Hagman — Nay
Harkey — Nay
Block — Not Voting
Jeffries — Nay
Knight — Nay
Miller — Nay
Nestande — Nay
Silva — Nay
Smyth — Nay
Villines — Nay
Adams — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Beall — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Hill — Yea
Huber — Nay
Huffman — Yea
Logue — Nay
Ma — Yea
Nielsen — Nay
Ruskin — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Torres — Yea
Emmerson — Nay
Feuer — Yea
Davis — Yea
DeVore — Nay
Yamada — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Gilmore — Nay
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Nay
Strickland, Tony Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 16 Yea · 6 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 15500
Democratic 1000
Republican 0100
Total 16600
% of votes cast 73%27%0%0%
How each member voted (22)
Member Party Vote
Hall — Yea
Charles — Yea
De — Yea
Leon — Yea
John — Yea
A. — Yea
Perez — Yea
Audra — Nay
Duvall — Nay
Harkey — Nay
Krekorian — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Miller — Nay
Solorio — Yea
Torlakson — Yea
Nielsen — Nay
Price — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Davis — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety civil-rights labor
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 663 do?
(1) Existing law, the State Bar Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California, a public corporation. Existing law provides that it is the duty of an attorney to, among other things, never reject, for any consideration personal to himself or herself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed. Existing law provides that a lawyer may fulfill his or her ethical commitment to provide pro bono services, in part, by providing financial support to organizations providing free legal services to persons of limited means. This bill would prohibit a person or organization that is not a specified type of legal aid organization, as defined, from using the term "legal aid," or any confusingly similar name in any firm name, trade name, fictitious business name, or other designation, or on any advertisement, letterhead, business card, or sign. The bill would subject a person or organization that violates this prohibition to specified civil liability. (2) Existing law provides that, in all general civil cases, as defined, a party who has provided notice may appear by telephone at certain conferences, hearings, and proceedings, except as specified. This bill would require the Judicial Council, on or before July 1, 2010, and periodically as appropriate, to enter into one or more master agreements with a vendor or vendors to provide for telephone appearances in civil cases under the provisions described above, or as otherwise permitted by law. The bill would impose requirements regarding those master agreements, including that the vendor charge a party for an appearance by telephone in an amount set by the Judicial Council, and that the vendor pay to the state $15 for each appearance by telephone and a proportionate share of an amount equal to the total revenue received from vendors by all courts for providing telephone appearances for the 2008–09 fiscal year. The bill would require those funds to be deposited in the Trial Court Trust Fund and used for specified purposes. (3) Existing law requires that, when a witness is incapable of understanding the English language or is incapable of expressing himself or herself in the English language so as to be understood directly by counsel, court, and jury, an interpreter be sworn to interpret for him or her. This bill would require the Judicial Council, by September 1, 2010, to establish a working group to review, identify, and develop best practices to provide interpreters in civil actions and proceedings, as specified. The bill would require the Judicial Council to select up to 5 courts to participate in a pilot project, to commence on July 1, 2011, to provide interpreters in civil proceedings. The bill would provide that the initial pilot courts shall participate until June 30, 2014, and would require the Judicial Council to consider whether a pilot court shall continue participating in the project and whether to select another court or additional courts. The pilot project would be funded from the revenue derived from the telephonic appearance fee described above. (4) Existing law requires the Judicial Council to conduct a study of language and interpreter use and need in court proceedings, with commentary, and to report its findings and recommendations to the Governor and to the Legislature every 5 years. Existing law requires that this study serve as the basis for determining the need to establish interpreter programs and certification and establishing these programs and examinations through the normal budgetary process. This bill would require, in addition, as of January 1, 2011, that the study described above serve as the basis of determining the need for and use of interpreters in civil and criminal court proceedings. The bill would require trial courts to collect and report the use of interpreters in all criminal and civil proceedings in the manner specified by the Judicial Council.
Who sponsors AB 663?
AB 663 is sponsored by Blumenfield, Jones, De Leon, John A. Perez, Portantino, Salas, Coto, DeSaulnier, Fuentes, Furutani, Ma, Mendoza, Oropeza, Solorio, Torres, Torrico, Yamada, and Fong, Mike (Democratic).
What is the current status of AB 663?
This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 663?
Track AB 663 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 663

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 663

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →