California 2015-2016 Regular Session Status: Enacted

SB 387 — State Bar: attorneys: annual membership fees: meetings: public records.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 537, Statutes of 2015.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

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

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 24, 2015. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 70% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 6 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

Existing law, the State Bar Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California, a public corporation. The State Bar is governed by a board of trustees. Existing law authorizes the board, among other duties, to aid in all matters pertaining to the improvement of the administration of justice, including all matters that may advance the professional interests of the members of the State Bar. Existing law requires the State Bar to issue an Annual Discipline Report describing the performance and condition of the State Bar discipline system. Existing law requires the report to cover the previous calendar year and to include accurate and complete descriptions of, among other things, the existing backlog of cases within the discipline system and a description of the programs at the State Bar directed at preventing acts warranting discipline. Existing law requires the board to appoint a lawyer admitted to practice in California to serve as chief trial counsel. The Office of the Chief Trial Counsel, which is responsible for reviewing charges of lawyer misconduct, investigates and prosecutes complaints about attorneys. This bill would revise the content of the information in the report. The bill would additionally require the backlog of cases to include other matters opened in the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel and pending beyond 6 months after receipt, as specified. Existing law, until January 1, 2016, requires the board to charge an annual membership fee for active members of up to $315 for 2015. This bill would, until January 1, 2017, require the board to charge that annual membership fee for 2016. Existing law requires the State Bar to review its workload standards to measure the effectiveness and efficiency of its disciplinary activities, including, but not limited to, the State Bar Court and the Client Security Fund, and to provide guidance to the State Bar and the Legislature in allocating resources, as specified. This bill would delete that requirement. The bill would, instead, require the State Bar to develop and implement a specified workforce plan for its discipline system and conduct a public sector compensation and benefits study to reassess the numbers and classifications of staff required to conduct the disciplinary activities. The bill would require the State Bar to conduct a thorough analysis of its operating costs and develop a spending plan to determine a reasonable amount for the annual membership fee, as specified. The bill would require the State Bar to report to the Legislature by May 15, 2016. Existing law requires the board to engage the services of an independent public accounting firm for an audit of its financial statement for each fiscal year. This bill would require, effective January 1, 2016, the State Bar to contract with the California State Auditor's Office to conduct an in-depth financial audit of the State Bar, including an audit of its financial statement, internal controls, and relevant management practices, as provided, and would require the office to provide a copy of the audit to the board, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and to the Assembly and Senate Committees on Judiciary. Under existing law, no law of this state restricting or prescribing a mode of procedure for the exercise of powers of state public bodies or state agencies is applicable to the State Bar, unless the Legislature expressly so declares. Except as specified, existing law requires every meeting of the board to be open to the public. Existing law, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, requires that all meetings of a state body be open and public and that all persons be permitted to attend any meeting of a state body, subject to certain conditions and exceptions. A violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor. Existing law exempts the board from the act, but requires the board to ensure that its open meeting requirements are consistent with, and conform to, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires state and local agencies to make public records available for inspection, subject to certain exceptions. This bill, commencing April 1, 2016, would make the State Bar subject to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. The bill would provide that the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act does not apply to the Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission or the Committee of Bar Examiners. By expanding the scope of that crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also make the State Bar subject to the California Public Records Act. The bill would require any identifying information submitted by an applicant to the State Bar for admission and a license to practice law and all State Bar admission records to be confidential and would prohibit disclosure pursuant to any state law, including the California Public Records Act. The bill would make other conforming changes in this regard. This bill would incorporate additional changes in Section 11121 of the Government Code proposed by AB 85 that would become operative only if AB 85 and this bill are both chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2016, and this bill is chaptered last. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 537, Statutes of 2015.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4:45 p.m.

  4. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 40. Noes 0. Page 2752.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  5. In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

  6. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 80. Noes 0. Page 3094.) Ordered to the Senate.

  7. Ordered to third reading.

  8. Read third time and amended.

  9. Assembly Rule 69 suspended.

  10. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  11. Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  12. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (August 27).

  13. August 19 set for first hearing. Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  14. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. pursuant to Joint Rule 10.5.

  15. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  16. Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  17. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (July 14).

  18. Referred to Com. on JUD.

  19. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  20. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 1075.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  21. Ordered to special consent calendar.

  22. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  23. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 983.) (May 12).

  24. Set for hearing May 12.

  25. Referred to Com. on JUD.

  26. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 27.

  27. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Jackson · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Jackson

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"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

Passed 40 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 37000
Democratic 3000
Total 40000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Beall — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Moorlach — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Vidak — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Hill — Yea
Allen — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Anderson — Yea
Pan — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
De León — Yea
Runner — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Hall — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Bates — Yea
Block — Yea
Huff — Yea
Lara — Yea
Leno — Yea
Liu — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Monning — Yea
Morrell — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Roth — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 80 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 71000
Democratic 4000
Republican 5000
Total 80000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Yea
Alejo — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Yea
Brown — Yea
Harper — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Linder — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Weber — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Salas — Yea
Chau — Yea
Chu — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Low — Yea
Mayes — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Olsen — Yea
Perea — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Williams — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Burke — Yea
Holden — Yea
Kim — Yea
Gray — Yea
Levine — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Lopez — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Campos — Yea
Medina — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Baker — Yea
Chang — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Chávez — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Dababneh — Yea
Daly — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Steinorth — Yea
Thurmond — Yea
Ting — Yea
Wood — Yea
Hadley — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Yea
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
Travis Allen — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 17 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 13000
Democratic 2000
Republican 2000
Total 17000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (17)
Member Party Vote
Bloom — Yea
Wood — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Chang — Yea
Holden — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Weber — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 10 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 9000
Republican 1000
Total 10000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (10)
Member Party Vote
Alejo — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Chau — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Thurmond — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Weber — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Special Consent #2

Passed 38 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 35001
Democratic 3000
Total 38001
% of votes cast 97%0%0%3%
How each member voted (39)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Yea
Block — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Lara — Yea
Liu — Yea
Moorlach — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Vidak — Yea
Allen — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Fuller — Not Voting
Mitchell — Yea
De León — Yea
Runner — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Hall — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Bates — Yea
Beall — Yea
Hill — Yea
Huff — Yea
Leno — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Monning — Yea
Morrell — Yea
Pan — Yea
Roth — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 6000
Democratic 1000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Leno — Yea
Monning — Yea
Moorlach — Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

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 SB 387 do?
Existing law, the State Bar Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California, a public corporation. The State Bar is governed by a board of trustees. Existing law authorizes the board, among other duties, to aid in all matters pertaining to the improvement of the administration of justice, including all matters that may advance the professional interests of the members of the State Bar. Existing law requires the State Bar to issue an Annual Discipline Report describing the performance and condition of the State Bar discipline system. Existing law requires the report to cover the previous calendar year and to include accurate and complete descriptions of, among other things, the existing backlog of cases within the discipline system and a description of the programs at the State Bar directed at preventing acts warranting discipline. Existing law requires the board to appoint a lawyer admitted to practice in California to serve as chief trial counsel. The Office of the Chief Trial Counsel, which is responsible for reviewing charges of lawyer misconduct, investigates and prosecutes complaints about attorneys. This bill would revise the content of the information in the report. The bill would additionally require the backlog of cases to include other matters opened in the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel and pending beyond 6 months after receipt, as specified. Existing law, until January 1, 2016, requires the board to charge an annual membership fee for active members of up to $315 for 2015. This bill would, until January 1, 2017, require the board to charge that annual membership fee for 2016. Existing law requires the State Bar to review its workload standards to measure the effectiveness and efficiency of its disciplinary activities, including, but not limited to, the State Bar Court and the Client Security Fund, and to provide guidance to the State Bar and the Legislature in allocating resources, as specified. This bill would delete that requirement. The bill would, instead, require the State Bar to develop and implement a specified workforce plan for its discipline system and conduct a public sector compensation and benefits study to reassess the numbers and classifications of staff required to conduct the disciplinary activities. The bill would require the State Bar to conduct a thorough analysis of its operating costs and develop a spending plan to determine a reasonable amount for the annual membership fee, as specified. The bill would require the State Bar to report to the Legislature by May 15, 2016. Existing law requires the board to engage the services of an independent public accounting firm for an audit of its financial statement for each fiscal year. This bill would require, effective January 1, 2016, the State Bar to contract with the California State Auditor's Office to conduct an in-depth financial audit of the State Bar, including an audit of its financial statement, internal controls, and relevant management practices, as provided, and would require the office to provide a copy of the audit to the board, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and to the Assembly and Senate Committees on Judiciary. Under existing law, no law of this state restricting or prescribing a mode of procedure for the exercise of powers of state public bodies or state agencies is applicable to the State Bar, unless the Legislature expressly so declares. Except as specified, existing law requires every meeting of the board to be open to the public. Existing law, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, requires that all meetings of a state body be open and public and that all persons be permitted to attend any meeting of a state body, subject to certain conditions and exceptions. A violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor. Existing law exempts the board from the act, but requires the board to ensure that its open meeting requirements are consistent with, and conform to, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires state and local agencies to make public records available for inspection, subject to certain exceptions. This bill, commencing April 1, 2016, would make the State Bar subject to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. The bill would provide that the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act does not apply to the Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission or the Committee of Bar Examiners. By expanding the scope of that crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also make the State Bar subject to the California Public Records Act. The bill would require any identifying information submitted by an applicant to the State Bar for admission and a license to practice law and all State Bar admission records to be confidential and would prohibit disclosure pursuant to any state law, including the California Public Records Act. The bill would make other conforming changes in this regard. This bill would incorporate additional changes in Section 11121 of the Government Code proposed by AB 85 that would become operative only if AB 85 and this bill are both chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2016, and this bill is chaptered last. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Who sponsors SB 387?
SB 387 is sponsored by Jackson.
What is the current status of SB 387?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 24, 2015. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 387?
Track SB 387 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 387

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.

Stay ahead of SB 387

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →