California 2023-2024 Regular Session Status: Enacted 1 D cosponsors

SB 40 — State Bar of California.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 697, Statutes of 2023.

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 December 05, 2022. Enacted.

Signed by Governor Gavin Newsom (Democratic) on October 10, 2023.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 72% · 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.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (1 D).

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 5 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 (State Bar) , a public corporation governed by a board of trustees. Under existing law, the officers of the State Bar are a chair, a vice chair, and a secretary. Existing law requires the chair to preside at all meetings of the State Bar and of the board, and requires the vice chair to preside at those meetings in the event of the chair's absence or inability to act. Existing law authorizes the board to prescribe additional duties of the chair and the vice chair and to prescribe the duties of the secretary. Existing law sets the length of the terms of the chair and the vice chair at one year, and requires them to assume the duties of their office at the conclusion of the annual meeting following their appointment. This bill instead would extend the length of those terms up to 2 years, and would require them to assume the duties of their office at the conclusion of the September meeting following their appointment. This bill would require the board to appoint an executive director of the State Bar, who would be responsible for the leadership and management of the State Bar according to the strategic direction set by the board, and to appoint a general counsel of the State Bar to serve as the chief legal advisor to the board on issues not related to attorney discipline, as specified. The bill would set the length of the term for those appointments at 4 years, and would authorize reappointment for additional 4-year terms. The bill would require the State Bar to notify the Senate Committee on Rules and the Senate and Assembly Committees on Judiciary within seven days of the dismissal or hiring of those positions, and would make those appointments subject to confirmation by the Senate, as specified. The bill would limit the application of these provisions to persons appointed on or after January 1, 2024. Existing law exempts the State Bar from laws restricting, or prescribing a mode of procedure for the exercise of powers of state public bodies or state agencies, as specified. This bill would subject members of the board of trustees and employees of the State Bar to specified conflicts of interest provisions relating to contracts, which are generally applicable to public officers and employees. By expanding the scope of provisions, the violation of which would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires a member of the board to disqualify themself from making, participating in the making of, or attempting to influence any decisions of the board or a committee of the board in which the member has a financial interest, as defined, that it is reasonably foreseeable may be affected materially by the decision. Existing law makes an intentional violation of this requirement subject to specified criminal penalties. Existing law also requires a member to disqualify themself when there exists a personal nonfinancial interest that will prevent the member from applying disinterested skill and undivided loyalty to the State Bar in making or participating in the making of decisions. Under this bill, the scope of the disqualification requirement relating to decisions in which a member has a financial interest, as described, would be expanded to include any decision of the State Bar. By expanding the scope of this requirement, an intentional violation of which is a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Under the bill, the scope of the disqualification requirement relating to a member's personal interests would also be expanded to include any personal interests that may have that effect on the member's making or participating in the making of decisions. Under existing law, the State Civil Service Act, certain acts, including convictions of certain crimes, are cause for discipline of a state employee or of a person whose name appears on an employment list. Existing provisions of the Penal Code require the Attorney General to furnish state summary criminal history information to various entities, including an agency, officer, or official of the state if the information, among other things, is required to implement a statute or regulation that expressly refers to specific criminal conduct applicable to that person. Existing law authorizes the agency, officer, or official of the state to perform state and federal criminal history information checks, as provided. If a fingerprint-based criminal history information check is required pursuant to any statute, existing law requires the check to be requested from the Department of Justice and requires the applicable agency or entity to submit to the Department of Justice fingerprint images and related information required by the Department of Justice, as specified. Existing law requires the Department of Justice to provide a state or federal response or a fitness determination, as appropriate, to the agency or entity, as specified. This bill would revise and recast these provisions, as applicable to the State Bar, within the State Bar Act. In this regard, the bill would require the State Bar to require all employees and prospective employees to submit fingerprints to the Department of Justice and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to establish identity and to determine whether the individual has a record of criminal conviction in this state or in other states, including through a national criminal history check. The bill would authorize the State Bar to impose this requirement on volunteers, contractors, and subcontractors. This bill would also revise and recast similar provisions of the State Bar Act relating to applicants for admission or reinstatement and licensees. In this regard, the bill would require an applicant for admission or reinstatement to submit or resubmit fingerprints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in addition to the Department of Justice, in order to establish the identity of the applicant and in order to determine whether the applicant or licensee has a record of criminal conviction in this state or in other states, including through a national criminal history check. Existing law states legislative intent and findings regarding diversity and inclusion in the practice of law. Existing law requires the State Bar to develop and implement a plan to meet specified goals and to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature, by March 15, 2019, and every 2 years thereafter, on the plan and its implementation, as prescribed. This bill would change the date for the submission of the report to March 30 every 2 years. Existing law authorizes the State Bar Court to order the involuntary inactive enrollment of an attorney for violation of probation under specified circumstances and requires the State Bar Court to terminate such an enrollment upon expiration of a period equal to the period of stayed suspension in the probation matter, or until the State Bar Court makes an order regarding the recommended actual suspension in the probation matter, whichever occurs first. This bill would require the State Bar Court to terminate enrollment upon expiration of that described period or until the effective date of a Supreme Court order imposing an actual suspension on account of the probation violation or other disciplinary matter, whichever occurs first. Existing law provides for the creation of an examining committee within the State Bar with varied responsibilities relating to examinations and other requirements for admission to the practice of law, including, among others, registration of law students, receiving applications for the general bar examination, and collecting fees fixed by the board and paid by applicants to defray the expense of administering existing law relating to admission to practice. This bill would, with respect to these specified responsibilities, replace the examining committee with the State Bar. The bill would make related conforming changes. The bill would delete obsolete provisions relating to passing the law students' examination. Existing law requires an applicant for admission and licensure to practice law to meet certain requirements, including passing a general bar examination. Existing law gives an unsuccessful applicant for admission to practice, after they have taken any examination and within 4 months after results have been declared, the right to inspect their examination papers at the office of the examining committee located nearest to the place at which the applicant took the examination. The applicant also has the right to inspect the grading of the papers. This bill would delete those inspection provisions and, instead, would require that an applicant for admission to practice who did not pass the California bar examination, for 30 days following the release of examination results, have electronic access to their answers to the written sessions of the bar examination, including the ability to download, save, and print. Existing law, except as specified, requires hearings and records of original disciplinary proceedings in the State Bar Court to be public, following a notice to show cause. This bill would, instead, require those proceedings to be public following the filing of a notice of disciplinary charges. Existing law requires disciplinary investigations of licensees to be confidential until formal charges are filed, and requires investigations of certain related matters to be confidential until the formal proceeding is instituted. Existing law authorizes waiver of that confidentiality requirement by specified entities under specified circumstances, including by the Chief Trial Counsel or the chair of the board when warranted for the protection of the public. This bill would revise the circumstances under which the confidentiality of those investigations may be waived. In this regard, the bill would additionally authorize the board to vote to waive confidentiality, but only when warranted for protection of the public. The bill would require the board to hold a meeting under these provisions in closed session and to provide notice to a licensee whose confidential information is being considered for disclosure. The bill, for the board's assessment whether to waive confidentiality, would establish a presumption in favor of maintaining confidentiality and establish specified considerations. The bill would provide for related public announcements by the Chief Trial Counsel or Chair of the State Bar and for prior notice of such announcements to the licensee. The bill would authorize a licensee to file a motion to prevent the State Bar from disclosing information pursuant to the waiver. The bill would require the State Bar Court to rule on the motion within 10 court days of the filing. This bill would also restrict the Chief Trial Counsel's and the chair of the board's authority to waive confidentiality of disciplinary investigation. In this regard, the bill would require the Chief Trial Counsel to exercise the authority with the written concurrence of the chair, and would require a determination that disclosure is needed to prevent an immediate harm to the public, as specified, and that the above-described provisions relating to the board's authority to waive confidentiality are inadequate for the protection of the public. This bill, beginning January 1, 2025, would prohibit the Chief Trial Counsel from issuing private reprovals to an attorney accused of misconduct. The bill, by April 1, 2024, would require the board, in consultation with the Chief Trial Counsel, to provide to the Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees recommendations for codifying a formal disciplinary diversion program for attorneys accused of minor violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Existing law requires the State Bar to issue an Annual Discipline Report by October 31 of each year describing the performance and condition of the State Bar discipline system, including all matters that affect public protection, as prescribed. This bill would change the deadline for that report to November 30 of each year. Existing law authorizes the board, with the approval of the Supreme Court, to formulate and enforce rules of professional conduct for all licensees of the State Bar. Under existing law, a person who reports to the State Bar or causes a complaint to be filed with the State Bar that an attorney has engaged in professional misconduct, knowing the report or complaint to be false and malicious, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Existing law authorizes the State Bar to notify the appropriate district attorney or city attorney that a person has filed what the State Bar believes to be a false and malicious report or complaint against an attorney and recommend prosecution of that person. This bill would require a licensee to inform the State Bar if the licensee knows that another licensee has conspired to engage in or has engaged in seditious conspiracy, treason, rebellion, or insurrection, as specified. The bill would deem to have committed professional misconduct any licensee of the State Bar who makes a complaint to the State Bar pursuant to this reporting provision with the intent to intimidate, harass, or otherwise deter a fellow licensee from engaging in the lawful practice of law. The bill would authorize the board to amend the rules of professional conduct, and require the board to propose those amendments to the Supreme Court for approval, to implement these reporting provisions. Existing law relating to suspension or disbarment of an attorney requires a court that finds after prescribed proceedings that a crime of which an attorney was convicted or the circumstances of its commission involved moral turpitude, to enter an order disbarring the attorney or suspending them from practice for a limited time, according to the gravity of the crime and the circumstances of the case, or to otherwise dismiss the proceedings. This bill, in lieu of the alternative of dismissing the proceedings, would require a court to determine if the facts and circumstances surrounding the conviction involve other misconduct warranting discipline, and if so, impose the appropriate discipline. Existing law, until January 1, 2024, requires the board to charge an annual license fee for active licensees for 2023 of up to $390, or of up to $386 if the State Bar has entered into a contract to sell its San Francisco office building by October 31, 2022. Existing law requires the board to charge an annual license fee for inactive licensees of up to $97.40, or of up to $96.40 if the State Bar has entered into a contract to sell its San Francisco office building by October 31, 2022. This bill, until January 1, 2025, would, instead, require the board to charge an annual license fee of up to $390 for active licensees for 2024, without the exception relating to the sale of the San Francisco office building described above. The bill, beginning January 1, 2024, would require the board to charge an annual license fee of up to $97.40 for inactive licensees, without the exception relating to the sale of the San Francisco office building described above. Existing law generally requires the State Bar to hold the net proceeds from the sale of real property, as described, without expenditure or commitment for any purpose until approved by the Legislature by statute. Existing law, as an exception to that provision, authorizes up to 10% of the net proceeds from the sale of the State Bar's San Francisco office to be used for improvement of the State Bar's discipline system, as specified. This bill would revise that exception to instead authorize the State Bar to use the net proceeds from the sale of the State Bar's San Francisco office to cover employee salaries and to cover operational costs associated with the State Bar's discipline system and administration of the biannual admissions exam. Existing law requires the board to establish and administer a Client Security Fund to relieve or mitigate pecuniary losses caused by the dishonest conduct of active licensees, registered foreign legal consultants, and certain other attorneys, arising from or connected with the practice of law. Existing law requires reimbursement of the fund by an attorney whose actions have caused payment from the fund and provides for collection, as specified. This bill would further provide that the licensee's obligation to reimburse the fund is imposed as a penalty, payable to and for the benefit of the State Bar, to promote rehabilitation and protect the public. The bill would also provide that the reimbursement provisions are declaratory of existing law. Existing law authorizes the board to increase the annual license fee for active licensees by up to $40 and the annual license fee for inactive licensees by up to $10 for the purposes of the Client Security Fund and the costs of its administration, as specified. This bill, until January 1, 2025, would authorize the board to disburse or appropriate any excess funds not needed to support the Client Security Fund, including reserve funds, to the State Bar's general fund. The bill would require funds that are disbursed or transferred pursuant to that authority to first be used to cover salaries and benefits of employees in bargaining units for which a memorandum of understanding has been agreed to by the State Bar before being used for any other purpose. Existing law requires the board to establish and administer an Attorney Diversion and Assistance Program, as prescribed, to identify and rehabilitate attorneys with impairment due to substance use or a mental health disorder affecting competency so that attorneys so afflicted may be treated and returned to the practice of law in a manner that will not endanger the public health and safety. Existing law requires moneys for the support of the program, treatment services for those who cannot afford to pay, and related programs to be paid in whole or part by an annual fee of $10 per active licensee and annual fee of $5 per inactive licensee. Existing law authorizes the board to seek alternative sources for funding the program. Existing law authorizes the transfer of any excess funds not needed to support the Attorney Diversion and Assistance Program, including reserve funds, to the Client Security Fund if there are sufficient funds available to fully support the program. This bill, until January 1, 2025, would authorize the board to disburse or appropriate any excess funds not needed to support the program, including reserve funds, to the State Bar's general fund. The bill would require funds that are disbursed or transferred pursuant to that authority to first be used to cover salaries and benefits of employees in bargaining units for which a memorandum of understanding has been agreed to by the State Bar before being used for any other purpose. Existing law requires the board to establish a committee to oversee the operation of the Attorney Diversion and Assistance Program with membership and responsibilities as prescribed. Existing law requires the committee to report to the board and to the Legislature annually on March 1 on the implementation and operation of the program, as specified. This bill would delete that committee report requirement. Existing law requires the board to engage the services of an independent national or regional public accounting firm with specified experience for an audit of its financial statement for each fiscal year. Existing law requires that a copy of the audit and financial statement be submitted within 120 days of the close of the fiscal year to the board, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the Assembly and Senate Committees on Judiciary. This bill would require that submission annually on or before May 31. This bill would require the State Bar to prepare a report on how it would use revenue generated by an increase in the mandatory annual license fees for active and inactive licensees. The bill would require the report to include, among other things, the State Bar's calculation of the necessary fee increase to maintain its existing operations and service levels and the State Bar's assessment of all programs and activities that require additional funding, as specified. The bill would also require the State Bar to provide a progress report on the Office of Chief Trial Counsel's case processing standards, as specified. The bill would require the State Bar to submit these reports no later than April 1, 2024, to the board of trustees, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the Assembly and Senate Committees on Judiciary. This bill would make findings and declarations relating to the intent of the Legislature to work on issues relating to client trust accounts. 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 697, Statutes of 2023.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4:30 p.m.

  4. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 31. Noes 8. Page 2735.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  5. In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

  6. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 60. Noes 14. Page 3249.) Ordered to the Senate.

  7. Ordered to third reading.

  8. Read third time and amended.

  9. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

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

  11. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 8. Noes 3.) (July 11).

  12. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  13. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  14. Referred to Com. on JUD.

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

  16. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 1053.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  17. Read second time. Ordered to consent calendar.

  18. From committee: Do pass. Ordered to consent calendar. (Ayes 10. Noes 0. Page 1011.) (May 2).

  19. Set for hearing May 2.

  20. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  21. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

  22. Referred to Com. on RLS.

  23. From printer. May be acted upon on or after January 5.

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

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 17 voted No

Sponsors (1)

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

Unfinished Business SB40 Umberg Concurrence

Passed 31 Yea · 8 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 10100
Democratic 20101
Republican 1600
Total 31801
% of votes cast 78%20%0%3%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Roth — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Newman — Yea
Min — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Wilk — Nay
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Ashby, Angelique V. Democratic Yea
Becker, Josh Democratic Yea
Blakespear, Catherine S. Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Not Voting
Cortese, Dave Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Gonzalez, Lena A. Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Menjivar, Caroline Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Nay
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Rubio, Susan Democratic Yea
Smallwood-Cuevas, Lola Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wahab, Aisha Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Alvarado-Gil, Marie Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay
Niello, Roger W. Republican Nay
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Nay
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Nay

Official roll call →

SB 40 Umberg Senate Third Reading By Maienschein

Passed 60 Yea · 14 Nay · 6 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 45002
Unaffiliated 15500
Republican 0904
Total 601406
% of votes cast 75%18%0%8%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Rodriguez — Yea
Villapudua — Yea
Ting — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Low — Yea
Wood — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Essayli — Nay
Waldron — Nay
Holden — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Mathis — Nay
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Nay
Luz Rivas — Yea
Vince Fong — Nay
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Addis, Dawn Democratic Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Alvarez, David Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bains, Jasmeet Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bennett, Steve Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Connolly, Damon Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Lowenthal, Josh Democratic Yea
McKinnor, Tina Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Ortega, Liz Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Not Voting
Papan, Diane Democratic Yea
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Schiavo, Pilar Democratic Not Voting
Soria, Esmeralda Democratic Yea
Valencia, Avelino Democratic Yea
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
Zbur, Rick Chavez Democratic Yea
Alanis, Juan Republican Not Voting
Chen, Phillip Republican Not Voting
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Davies, Laurie Republican Nay
Dixon, Diane Republican Nay
Flora, Heath Republican Nay
Gallagher, James Republican Nay
Hoover, Josh Republican Not Voting
Lackey, Tom Republican Nay
Patterson, Joe Republican Not Voting
Sanchez, Kate Republican Nay
Ta, Tri Republican Nay
Wallis, Greg Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 8 Yea · 3 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 7000
Unaffiliated 1100
Republican 0200
Total 8300
% of votes cast 73%27%0%0%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Maienschein — Yea
Essayli — Nay
Connolly, Damon Democratic Yea
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
McKinnor, Tina Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Papan, Diane Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Dixon, Diane Republican Nay
Sanchez, Kate Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Consent Calendar

Passed 39 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 11000
Democratic 22000
Republican 6001
Total 39001
% of votes cast 98%0%0%3%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Roth — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Newman — Yea
Min — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Ashby, Angelique V. Democratic Yea
Becker, Josh Democratic Yea
Blakespear, Catherine S. Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Cortese, Dave Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Gonzalez, Lena A. Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Menjivar, Caroline Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Rubio, Susan Democratic Yea
Smallwood-Cuevas, Lola Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wahab, Aisha Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Alvarado-Gil, Marie Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Not Voting
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Yea
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Yea
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass and be ordered to the Consent Calendar

Passed 10 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 2000
Democratic 7001
Republican 1000
Total 10001
% of votes cast 91%0%0%9%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Min — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Ashby, Angelique V. Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Not Voting
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety finance 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 SB 40 do?
Existing law, the State Bar Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California (State Bar) , a public corporation governed by a board of trustees. Under existing law, the officers of the State Bar are a chair, a vice chair, and a secretary. Existing law requires the chair to preside at all meetings of the State Bar and of the board, and requires the vice chair to preside at those meetings in the event of the chair's absence or inability to act. Existing law authorizes the board to prescribe additional duties of the chair and the vice chair and to prescribe the duties of the secretary. Existing law sets the length of the terms of the chair and the vice chair at one year, and requires them to assume the duties of their office at the conclusion of the annual meeting following their appointment. This bill instead would extend the length of those terms up to 2 years, and would require them to assume the duties of their office at the conclusion of the September meeting following their appointment. This bill would require the board to appoint an executive director of the State Bar, who would be responsible for the leadership and management of the State Bar according to the strategic direction set by the board, and to appoint a general counsel of the State Bar to serve as the chief legal advisor to the board on issues not related to attorney discipline, as specified. The bill would set the length of the term for those appointments at 4 years, and would authorize reappointment for additional 4-year terms. The bill would require the State Bar to notify the Senate Committee on Rules and the Senate and Assembly Committees on Judiciary within seven days of the dismissal or hiring of those positions, and would make those appointments subject to confirmation by the Senate, as specified. The bill would limit the application of these provisions to persons appointed on or after January 1, 2024. Existing law exempts the State Bar from laws restricting, or prescribing a mode of procedure for the exercise of powers of state public bodies or state agencies, as specified. This bill would subject members of the board of trustees and employees of the State Bar to specified conflicts of interest provisions relating to contracts, which are generally applicable to public officers and employees. By expanding the scope of provisions, the violation of which would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires a member of the board to disqualify themself from making, participating in the making of, or attempting to influence any decisions of the board or a committee of the board in which the member has a financial interest, as defined, that it is reasonably foreseeable may be affected materially by the decision. Existing law makes an intentional violation of this requirement subject to specified criminal penalties. Existing law also requires a member to disqualify themself when there exists a personal nonfinancial interest that will prevent the member from applying disinterested skill and undivided loyalty to the State Bar in making or participating in the making of decisions. Under this bill, the scope of the disqualification requirement relating to decisions in which a member has a financial interest, as described, would be expanded to include any decision of the State Bar. By expanding the scope of this requirement, an intentional violation of which is a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Under the bill, the scope of the disqualification requirement relating to a member's personal interests would also be expanded to include any personal interests that may have that effect on the member's making or participating in the making of decisions. Under existing law, the State Civil Service Act, certain acts, including convictions of certain crimes, are cause for discipline of a state employee or of a person whose name appears on an employment list. Existing provisions of the Penal Code require the Attorney General to furnish state summary criminal history information to various entities, including an agency, officer, or official of the state if the information, among other things, is required to implement a statute or regulation that expressly refers to specific criminal conduct applicable to that person. Existing law authorizes the agency, officer, or official of the state to perform state and federal criminal history information checks, as provided. If a fingerprint-based criminal history information check is required pursuant to any statute, existing law requires the check to be requested from the Department of Justice and requires the applicable agency or entity to submit to the Department of Justice fingerprint images and related information required by the Department of Justice, as specified. Existing law requires the Department of Justice to provide a state or federal response or a fitness determination, as appropriate, to the agency or entity, as specified. This bill would revise and recast these provisions, as applicable to the State Bar, within the State Bar Act. In this regard, the bill would require the State Bar to require all employees and prospective employees to submit fingerprints to the Department of Justice and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to establish identity and to determine whether the individual has a record of criminal conviction in this state or in other states, including through a national criminal history check. The bill would authorize the State Bar to impose this requirement on volunteers, contractors, and subcontractors. This bill would also revise and recast similar provisions of the State Bar Act relating to applicants for admission or reinstatement and licensees. In this regard, the bill would require an applicant for admission or reinstatement to submit or resubmit fingerprints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in addition to the Department of Justice, in order to establish the identity of the applicant and in order to determine whether the applicant or licensee has a record of criminal conviction in this state or in other states, including through a national criminal history check. Existing law states legislative intent and findings regarding diversity and inclusion in the practice of law. Existing law requires the State Bar to develop and implement a plan to meet specified goals and to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature, by March 15, 2019, and every 2 years thereafter, on the plan and its implementation, as prescribed. This bill would change the date for the submission of the report to March 30 every 2 years. Existing law authorizes the State Bar Court to order the involuntary inactive enrollment of an attorney for violation of probation under specified circumstances and requires the State Bar Court to terminate such an enrollment upon expiration of a period equal to the period of stayed suspension in the probation matter, or until the State Bar Court makes an order regarding the recommended actual suspension in the probation matter, whichever occurs first. This bill would require the State Bar Court to terminate enrollment upon expiration of that described period or until the effective date of a Supreme Court order imposing an actual suspension on account of the probation violation or other disciplinary matter, whichever occurs first. Existing law provides for the creation of an examining committee within the State Bar with varied responsibilities relating to examinations and other requirements for admission to the practice of law, including, among others, registration of law students, receiving applications for the general bar examination, and collecting fees fixed by the board and paid by applicants to defray the expense of administering existing law relating to admission to practice. This bill would, with respect to these specified responsibilities, replace the examining committee with the State Bar. The bill would make related conforming changes. The bill would delete obsolete provisions relating to passing the law students' examination. Existing law requires an applicant for admission and licensure to practice law to meet certain requirements, including passing a general bar examination. Existing law gives an unsuccessful applicant for admission to practice, after they have taken any examination and within 4 months after results have been declared, the right to inspect their examination papers at the office of the examining committee located nearest to the place at which the applicant took the examination. The applicant also has the right to inspect the grading of the papers. This bill would delete those inspection provisions and, instead, would require that an applicant for admission to practice who did not pass the California bar examination, for 30 days following the release of examination results, have electronic access to their answers to the written sessions of the bar examination, including the ability to download, save, and print. Existing law, except as specified, requires hearings and records of original disciplinary proceedings in the State Bar Court to be public, following a notice to show cause. This bill would, instead, require those proceedings to be public following the filing of a notice of disciplinary charges. Existing law requires disciplinary investigations of licensees to be confidential until formal charges are filed, and requires investigations of certain related matters to be confidential until the formal proceeding is instituted. Existing law authorizes waiver of that confidentiality requirement by specified entities under specified circumstances, including by the Chief Trial Counsel or the chair of the board when warranted for the protection of the public. This bill would revise the circumstances under which the confidentiality of those investigations may be waived. In this regard, the bill would additionally authorize the board to vote to waive confidentiality, but only when warranted for protection of the public. The bill would require the board to hold a meeting under these provisions in closed session and to provide notice to a licensee whose confidential information is being considered for disclosure. The bill, for the board's assessment whether to waive confidentiality, would establish a presumption in favor of maintaining confidentiality and establish specified considerations. The bill would provide for related public announcements by the Chief Trial Counsel or Chair of the State Bar and for prior notice of such announcements to the licensee. The bill would authorize a licensee to file a motion to prevent the State Bar from disclosing information pursuant to the waiver. The bill would require the State Bar Court to rule on the motion within 10 court days of the filing. This bill would also restrict the Chief Trial Counsel's and the chair of the board's authority to waive confidentiality of disciplinary investigation. In this regard, the bill would require the Chief Trial Counsel to exercise the authority with the written concurrence of the chair, and would require a determination that disclosure is needed to prevent an immediate harm to the public, as specified, and that the above-described provisions relating to the board's authority to waive confidentiality are inadequate for the protection of the public. This bill, beginning January 1, 2025, would prohibit the Chief Trial Counsel from issuing private reprovals to an attorney accused of misconduct. The bill, by April 1, 2024, would require the board, in consultation with the Chief Trial Counsel, to provide to the Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees recommendations for codifying a formal disciplinary diversion program for attorneys accused of minor violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Existing law requires the State Bar to issue an Annual Discipline Report by October 31 of each year describing the performance and condition of the State Bar discipline system, including all matters that affect public protection, as prescribed. This bill would change the deadline for that report to November 30 of each year. Existing law authorizes the board, with the approval of the Supreme Court, to formulate and enforce rules of professional conduct for all licensees of the State Bar. Under existing law, a person who reports to the State Bar or causes a complaint to be filed with the State Bar that an attorney has engaged in professional misconduct, knowing the report or complaint to be false and malicious, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Existing law authorizes the State Bar to notify the appropriate district attorney or city attorney that a person has filed what the State Bar believes to be a false and malicious report or complaint against an attorney and recommend prosecution of that person. This bill would require a licensee to inform the State Bar if the licensee knows that another licensee has conspired to engage in or has engaged in seditious conspiracy, treason, rebellion, or insurrection, as specified. The bill would deem to have committed professional misconduct any licensee of the State Bar who makes a complaint to the State Bar pursuant to this reporting provision with the intent to intimidate, harass, or otherwise deter a fellow licensee from engaging in the lawful practice of law. The bill would authorize the board to amend the rules of professional conduct, and require the board to propose those amendments to the Supreme Court for approval, to implement these reporting provisions. Existing law relating to suspension or disbarment of an attorney requires a court that finds after prescribed proceedings that a crime of which an attorney was convicted or the circumstances of its commission involved moral turpitude, to enter an order disbarring the attorney or suspending them from practice for a limited time, according to the gravity of the crime and the circumstances of the case, or to otherwise dismiss the proceedings. This bill, in lieu of the alternative of dismissing the proceedings, would require a court to determine if the facts and circumstances surrounding the conviction involve other misconduct warranting discipline, and if so, impose the appropriate discipline. Existing law, until January 1, 2024, requires the board to charge an annual license fee for active licensees for 2023 of up to $390, or of up to $386 if the State Bar has entered into a contract to sell its San Francisco office building by October 31, 2022. Existing law requires the board to charge an annual license fee for inactive licensees of up to $97.40, or of up to $96.40 if the State Bar has entered into a contract to sell its San Francisco office building by October 31, 2022. This bill, until January 1, 2025, would, instead, require the board to charge an annual license fee of up to $390 for active licensees for 2024, without the exception relating to the sale of the San Francisco office building described above. The bill, beginning January 1, 2024, would require the board to charge an annual license fee of up to $97.40 for inactive licensees, without the exception relating to the sale of the San Francisco office building described above. Existing law generally requires the State Bar to hold the net proceeds from the sale of real property, as described, without expenditure or commitment for any purpose until approved by the Legislature by statute. Existing law, as an exception to that provision, authorizes up to 10% of the net proceeds from the sale of the State Bar's San Francisco office to be used for improvement of the State Bar's discipline system, as specified. This bill would revise that exception to instead authorize the State Bar to use the net proceeds from the sale of the State Bar's San Francisco office to cover employee salaries and to cover operational costs associated with the State Bar's discipline system and administration of the biannual admissions exam. Existing law requires the board to establish and administer a Client Security Fund to relieve or mitigate pecuniary losses caused by the dishonest conduct of active licensees, registered foreign legal consultants, and certain other attorneys, arising from or connected with the practice of law. Existing law requires reimbursement of the fund by an attorney whose actions have caused payment from the fund and provides for collection, as specified. This bill would further provide that the licensee's obligation to reimburse the fund is imposed as a penalty, payable to and for the benefit of the State Bar, to promote rehabilitation and protect the public. The bill would also provide that the reimbursement provisions are declaratory of existing law. Existing law authorizes the board to increase the annual license fee for active licensees by up to $40 and the annual license fee for inactive licensees by up to $10 for the purposes of the Client Security Fund and the costs of its administration, as specified. This bill, until January 1, 2025, would authorize the board to disburse or appropriate any excess funds not needed to support the Client Security Fund, including reserve funds, to the State Bar's general fund. The bill would require funds that are disbursed or transferred pursuant to that authority to first be used to cover salaries and benefits of employees in bargaining units for which a memorandum of understanding has been agreed to by the State Bar before being used for any other purpose. Existing law requires the board to establish and administer an Attorney Diversion and Assistance Program, as prescribed, to identify and rehabilitate attorneys with impairment due to substance use or a mental health disorder affecting competency so that attorneys so afflicted may be treated and returned to the practice of law in a manner that will not endanger the public health and safety. Existing law requires moneys for the support of the program, treatment services for those who cannot afford to pay, and related programs to be paid in whole or part by an annual fee of $10 per active licensee and annual fee of $5 per inactive licensee. Existing law authorizes the board to seek alternative sources for funding the program. Existing law authorizes the transfer of any excess funds not needed to support the Attorney Diversion and Assistance Program, including reserve funds, to the Client Security Fund if there are sufficient funds available to fully support the program. This bill, until January 1, 2025, would authorize the board to disburse or appropriate any excess funds not needed to support the program, including reserve funds, to the State Bar's general fund. The bill would require funds that are disbursed or transferred pursuant to that authority to first be used to cover salaries and benefits of employees in bargaining units for which a memorandum of understanding has been agreed to by the State Bar before being used for any other purpose. Existing law requires the board to establish a committee to oversee the operation of the Attorney Diversion and Assistance Program with membership and responsibilities as prescribed. Existing law requires the committee to report to the board and to the Legislature annually on March 1 on the implementation and operation of the program, as specified. This bill would delete that committee report requirement. Existing law requires the board to engage the services of an independent national or regional public accounting firm with specified experience for an audit of its financial statement for each fiscal year. Existing law requires that a copy of the audit and financial statement be submitted within 120 days of the close of the fiscal year to the board, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the Assembly and Senate Committees on Judiciary. This bill would require that submission annually on or before May 31. This bill would require the State Bar to prepare a report on how it would use revenue generated by an increase in the mandatory annual license fees for active and inactive licensees. The bill would require the report to include, among other things, the State Bar's calculation of the necessary fee increase to maintain its existing operations and service levels and the State Bar's assessment of all programs and activities that require additional funding, as specified. The bill would also require the State Bar to provide a progress report on the Office of Chief Trial Counsel's case processing standards, as specified. The bill would require the State Bar to submit these reports no later than April 1, 2024, to the board of trustees, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the Assembly and Senate Committees on Judiciary. This bill would make findings and declarations relating to the intent of the Legislature to work on issues relating to client trust accounts. 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 40?
SB 40 is sponsored by Umberg, Thomas J. (Democratic).
What is the current status of SB 40?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced December 05, 2022. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 40?
Track SB 40 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 40

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 SB 40

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →