AB 2878 — Attorneys: State Bar: board of trustees.

Summary

The State Bar Act provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California, a public corporation governed by a board of trustees. That act requires 6 members of the 19-member board to be attorneys elected from State Bar Districts. That act requires protection of the public to be the highest priority for the State Bar and the board of trustees in exercising their licensing, regulatory, and disciplinary functions and requires protection of the public to be paramount whenever the protection of the public is inconsistent with any other interest sought to be promoted. That act provides that the State Bar is subject to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act and the California Public Records Act, as specified. That act, until January 1, 2017, requires the board to charge an annual membership fee for active members of up to $315 for 2016. The act requires the board of trustees to elect or select the president, vice president, and treasurer of the State Bar, as specified. Existing law prohibits the Legislature, when the board of trustees places a charge upon or otherwise makes available all or any portion of the income or revenue from membership fees for the payment of security of an obligation of the State Bar and so long as any obligation remains unpaid, from reducing the maximum membership fee below the maximum in effect at the time the obligation is created or incurred and provides that this provision constitutes a covenant to the holder of such an obligation. The act requires the board of trustees to contract with the California State Auditor's Office to conduct a performance audit of the State Bar's operations, as specified. That act establishes the State Bar Court to act in the place of the board of trustees in the determination of disciplinary proceedings, as specified. That act requires the board to appoint a lawyer admitted to practice in California to serve as chief trial counsel, as specified. That act authorizes the State Bar to raise additional revenue by any lawful means, including, but not limited to, the creation of foundations or not-for-profit corporations. That act requires the board to establish and administer a Client Security Fund to relieve or mitigate pecuniary losses caused by dishonest conduct of active members of the State Bar, as specified. This bill would provide that the board of trustees consist of no more than 19 members and no fewer than 13 members and would require the board to transition to a 13-member board, as specified. The bill would remove from the board attorney members elected from State Bar Districts and would make conforming changes. The bill would provide that each appointing body, when making appointments to the board after December 31, 2016, should consider appointing members who have education or experience, or both, in one of 6 specified areas, including public finance. The bill would require that a maximum of 6 members of the board be public members, as appointed by specified entities, and would require members of the board to serve a term of 4 years. The bill would require the California Supreme Court to select from the members of the board a chair and vice chair instead of the board of trustees electing a president and vice president. The bill would require members of the executive committee of the board to include at least one member of the board appointed by each appointing authority. This bill would provide that any decision of the board raising antitrust concerns is subject to review, modification, veto, or other appropriate action by the California Supreme Court. The bill would require the Office of Chief Trial Counsel to open a nonattorney complaint against a person when the office becomes aware of an allegation that a person not licensed to practice law in California has practiced or held himself or herself out as practicing law or entitled to practice law in the state and would require the complaint to be evaluated and processed, as specified. This bill would require the Attorney General to appoint a State Bar enforcement program monitor prior to March 31, 2017, and would require the program enforcement monitor to evaluate the disciplinary system and procedures of the State Bar, as specified. The bill would require the program enforcement monitor to submit an initial report no later than October 1, 2019, and to issue a final report before March 31, 2020. The bill would make these provisions inoperative on March 31, 2020, and would repeal the provision as of January 1, 2021. The bill would require the board of trustees to engage the services of an independent national or regional public accounting firm with at least 5 years of experience in governmental auditing for an audit of its revenues, expenditures, reserves, and financial statements for each fiscal year and would require the California State Auditor, for the performance audit due in January 2017, to review all of the State Bar's expenses, including, but not limited to, executive salaries. The bill would also require California State Auditor to conduct a performance audit evaluating the State Bar's progress in certain areas, including correcting any issues raised in prior California State Auditor audits, and would require the California State Auditor to report its findings and recommendations, as specified. This bill would provide that access to records of the State Bar Court is subject to the rules and laws applicable to the judiciary instead of the California Public Records Act and would exempt the State Bar Court from the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. This bill, until January 1, 2018, would require the board to charge an annual membership fee in a specified amount for 2017. The bill would repeal the provision prohibiting the Legislature from reducing the maximum membership fee and would prohibit the State Bar from creating any foundation or nonprofit corporations, as specified. The bill would require the State Bar to conduct a thorough analysis of the Client Security Fund and to submit a report to the Legislature on its analysis of that fund by March 15, 2017, as specified. 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.

Bill Text

• Amended 08/31/16 - Amended Senate Current pdf August 31, 2016
• Amended 08/19/16 - Amended Senate pdf August 19, 2016
• Amended 06/02/16 - Amended Assembly pdf June 02, 2016
• Amended 05/27/16 - Amended Assembly pdf May 27, 2016
• Amended 04/18/16 - Amended Assembly pdf April 18, 2016
• Introduced 02/25/16 - Introduced pdf February 25, 2016
• AB2878 View text html

Action History

1. August 31, 2016

   In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.

2. August 31, 2016

   Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 25. Noes 13. Page 5599.).

3. August 31, 2016

   Ordered to third reading.

4. August 31, 2016

   (Ayes 26. Noes 13. Page 5586.)

5. August 31, 2016

   Withdrawn from committee.

6. August 31, 2016

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

7. August 31, 2016

   Senate Rule 29.3 (b) suspended. (Ayes 26. Noes 10. Page 5583.)

8. August 22, 2016

   Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

9. August 22, 2016

   Withdrawn from committee.

10. August 19, 2016

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

11. June 28, 2016

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

12. June 09, 2016

    Referred to Com. on JUD.

13. June 06, 2016

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

14. June 02, 2016

    Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 5205.)

15. June 02, 2016

    Read third time and amended. Ordered to third reading. (Page 5205.)

16. June 02, 2016

    Assembly Rule 63 suspended. (Page 5168.)

17. June 02, 2016

    Assembly Rule 69 suspended. (Page 5168.)

18. June 02, 2016

    Reconsideration granted. (Page 5168.)

19. May 31, 2016

    Motion to reconsider made by Assembly Member Mark Stone.

20. May 31, 2016

    Read third time. Refused passage. (Ayes 10. Noes 50. Page 5008.).

21. May 27, 2016

    Read third time and amended. Ordered to third reading. (Page 4944.)

22. April 27, 2016

    Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

23. April 26, 2016

    From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (April 26).

24. April 19, 2016

    Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

25. April 18, 2016

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

26. March 28, 2016

    Referred to Com. on JUD.

27. February 26, 2016

    From printer. May be heard in committee March 27.

28. February 25, 2016

    Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

• Committee on Judiciary · Primary

Votes

Subjects