SB 133 — Courts.

Summary

(1) The California Constitution vests the judicial power of the state in the Supreme Court, courts of appeal, and superior courts, and establishes the Judicial Council to, among other things, adopt rules of court and perform functions prescribed by statute. Existing law, the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law, authorizes and regulates the formation and operation of, among others, nonprofit public benefit corporations. This bill would establish the California Access to Justice Commission, a nonprofit public benefit corporation, and would authorize the commission to receive funding appropriated by the Legislature. The bill would specify the membership of the commission and terms of the members. The bill would specify the purposes for which the commission may receive and use funding including, among others, providing ongoing leadership in efforts to achieve full and equal access to justice for all Californians. The bill would make the commission subject to the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law and would set the public meeting requirements for the commission. (2) 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 requires an attorney or law firm receiving or disbursing trust funds to establish and maintain an Interest On Lawyers' Trust Accounts (IOLTA) account in which the attorney or law firm is required to deposit or invest specified client deposits or funds. Existing law requires interest and dividends earned on IOLTA accounts to be paid to the State Bar of California and used for programs providing civil legal services without charge to indigent persons. Existing law requires the State Bar of California to distribute IOLTA funds and specified other funds to qualified legal service projects and qualified support centers, as defined, for the provision of civil legal services without charge to indigent persons in accordance with a specified statutory scheme. Existing law authorizes qualified legal services projects and qualified support centers to use the funds to provide work opportunities with pay and scholarships for disadvantaged law students to help defray their law school expenses, among other purposes. This bill would authorize qualified legal service projects and qualified support centers to also use the funds to provide loan repayment assistance for the purposes of recruiting and retaining attorneys in accordance with a loan repayment assistance program administered by the California Access to Justice Commission. The bill would appropriate $250,000 from the General Fund to the Judicial Council to provide funding to the California Access to Justice Commission to administer a tax advantaged student loan repayment assistance program for service providers employed by qualified legal service projects and support centers, as specified. (3) Existing law establishes the Appellate Court Trust Fund, the proceeds of which shall be used for the purpose of funding the courts of appeal and the Supreme Court. Existing law requires the funds, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to be apportioned by the Judicial Council to the courts of appeal and the Supreme Court taking into consideration all other funds available and the needs of each court in a manner that promotes equal access to the courts, ensures the ability of the courts to carry out their functions, and promotes implementation of statewide policies. This bill would authorize the funds to be apportioned by the Judicial Council to the Supreme Court, courts of appeal, and the Judicial Council, taking into consideration all other funds available to each and the needs of each. (4) Existing law generally requires the superior court, as an employer, to provide employees with the use of a lactation room or other location for employees to express milk in private, including, among other things, a clean and safe place to sit. Existing law requires the superior court, commencing July 1, 2024, to provide any court user access to a lactation room in any courthouse in which a lactation room is also provided to court employees, as specified. This bill would delay until July 1, 2026, the date by which the courts are required to provide public lactation rooms. (5) Existing law, until July 1, 2023, imposes a supplemental fee of $40 for filing any first paper subject to the uniform fee in certain civil proceedings, subject to reduction if the amount of the General Fund appropriation to the Trial Court Trust Fund is decreased from the amount appropriated in the 2013–14 fiscal year. This bill, among other things, would remove the July 1, 2023, sunset from those provisions, thereby extending those supplemental fees indefinitely. Under existing law, the uniform fee for filing any specified motion, application, order to show cause, or any other paper requiring a hearing subsequent to the first paper is $60 until July 1, 2023, at which time that fee is reduced to $40. This bill would remove the July 1, 2023, reduction of that filing fee to $40 and would indefinitely extend the operation of the $60 supplemental fee. Existing law, until July 1, 2023, requires a $1,000 fee to be paid on behalf of all plaintiffs, and by each defendant, intervenor, respondent, or adverse party to a civil action that is designated or determined to be a complex case. On and after July 1, 2023, existing law requires a fee of $550 to be paid under those circumstances. Existing law, until July 1, 2023, imposes a limitation of $18,000 on the total amount of complex fees collected from all defendants, intervenors, respondents, or other adverse parties appearing in a complex case. On and after July 1, 2023, existing law imposes a limitation of $10,000 on the amount of the fee required to be paid in those circumstances. This bill would extend the operation of the $1,000 complex case fee and the $18,000 total fee limitation indefinitely, thereby extending that higher fee rate and limitation. (6) Existing law prohibits the state from seeking a criminal conviction or sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin, as specified, and authorizes a person to prosecute a writ of habeas corpus for a violation of those provisions. Existing law requires the court to appoint counsel for the petitioner if the petitioner cannot afford counsel and either the petition alleges facts that would establish a violation of those provisions or the State Public Defender requests counsel be appointed. This bill would require Judicial Council to promulgate standards for appointment of private counsel in superior court for claims where an individual has not been sentenced to death. The bill would require those standards to include a minimum requirement of 10 hours of training in the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California. The bill would, if the individual has been sentenced to death, require the appointment standards to be consistent with existing standards in the California Rules of Court. (7) Existing law authorizes, until July 1, 2023, a party to appear remotely and a court to conduct conferences, hearings, proceedings, and trials in civil cases, in whole or in part, through the use of remote technology. This bill would extend these provisions until January 1, 2026. The bill would exempt specific types of proceedings from these provisions. The bill would authorize, until January 1, 2026, a court to conduct an adoption finalization hearing, in whole or in part, through the use of remote technology, without the court making specific findings and would prohibit a court from requiring a party to appear through the use of remote technology. The bill would additionally authorize, until January 1, 2026, the use of remote technology, as defined, for other types of proceedings, including, among others, proceedings regarding the involuntary treatment and conservatorship of gravely disabled persons under specified provisions, contempt proceedings, and competency proceedings. The bill would provide specified circumstances in which remote technology cannot be used. Existing law generally subjects any person under 18 years of age who commits a crime to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge that person to be a ward of the court. Existing law provides the right of a minor subject to juvenile court hearings to be physically present for those hearings. This bill would authorize the use of remote technology in juvenile justice proceedings, as defined, except in specified circumstances, until January 1, 2026. The bill would authorize the court to develop local procedures or protocols regarding the use of remote technology consistent with legislative findings and declarations in support of these provisions. The bill would require the Judicial Council, by April 1, 2024, to adopt, and trial court to implement by July 1, 2024, minimum standards for the courtroom technology necessary to permit remote participation in proceedings subject to these provisions. The bill would require, until July 1, 2024, that when the court conducts proceedings that will be reported by an official reporter or official reporter pro tempore, that the reporter be physically present in the same room as the judicial officer, except as specified. The bill would require, beginning July 1, 2024, that when the court conducts proceedings that will be reported by an official reporter or official reporter pro tempore, that the reporter be physically present in the same room as the judicial officer if the court cannot provide specified technology standards. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2026. The bill would require the Judicial Council to adopt rules that include standards for when a judicial officer, in limited situations and in the interest of justice, may preside over a remote court proceeding from a location other than a courtroom. The bill would require each superior court to report to the Judicial Council on or before October 1, 2023, and annually thereafter, and for the Judicial Council to report to the Legislature on or before December 31, 2023, and annually thereafter, to assess the impact of technology issues or problems affecting remote proceedings and purchases and leases of technology and equipment to facilitate remote conferences, hearings, or proceedings. Existing law prohibits, until January 1, 2024, a trial court from retaliating against an official court reporter or official court reporter pro tempore for notifying a judicial officer that technology or audibility issues are interfering with the creation of the verbatim record for a remote proceeding conducted pursuant to specified provisions of the Penal Code. This bill would, until January 1, 2026, expand application of this provision to all proceedings that include participation through remote technology, but would limit application to an official reporter or official reporter pro tempore that qualifies as a "trial court employee," as defined. (8) 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. (9) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.

Bill Text

• Chaptered 06/30/23 - Chaptered Current pdf June 30, 2023
• Enrolled 06/28/23 - Enrolled pdf June 28, 2023
• Amended 06/26/23 - Amended Assembly pdf June 26, 2023
• Introduced 01/18/23 - Introduced pdf January 18, 2023
• SB133 View text html

Action History

1. June 30, 2023

   Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 34, Statutes of 2023.

2. June 30, 2023

   Approved by the Governor.

3. June 27, 2023

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

4. June 27, 2023

   Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 32. Noes 8. Page 1774.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

5. June 27, 2023

   In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

6. June 27, 2023

   Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 62. Noes 16. Page 2409.) Ordered to the Senate.

7. June 26, 2023

   Ordered to third reading.

8. June 26, 2023

   Withdrawn from committee.

9. June 26, 2023

   (Ayes 56. Noes 17. Page 2370.)

10. June 26, 2023

    Assembly Rules Suspended.

11. June 26, 2023

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

12. March 30, 2023

    Referred to Com. on BUDGET.

13. March 27, 2023

    In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

14. March 27, 2023

    Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 29. Noes 8. Page 496.) Ordered to the Assembly.

15. March 20, 2023

    Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

16. March 16, 2023

    Ordered to second reading.

17. March 16, 2023

    Withdrawn from committee. (Ayes 28. Noes 8. Page 357.)

18. January 25, 2023

    Referred to Com. on B. & F.R.

19. January 19, 2023

    From printer. May be acted upon on or after February 18.

20. January 18, 2023

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

Sponsors

• Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review · Primary

Votes

Subjects