BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 55|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 55
Author: Corbett (D), et al
Amended: 12/10/09
Vote: 27 - Urgency
PRIOR VOTES NOT RELEVANT
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 59-0, 1/4/10 - See last page for vote
VOTES ON SB 641 (Corbett):
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-0, 5/12/09
AYES: Corbett, Harman, Florez, Leno, Walters
SENATE FLOOR : 39-0, 5/26/09
AYES: Aanestad, Alquist, Ashburn, Benoit, Calderon,
Cedillo, Cogdill, Corbett, Correa, Cox, Denham,
DeSaulnier, Ducheny, Dutton, Florez, Hancock, Harman,
Hollingsworth, Huff, Kehoe, Leno, Liu, Lowenthal,
Maldonado, Negrete McLeod, Oropeza, Padilla, Pavley,
Romero, Runner, Simitian, Steinberg, Strickland, Walters,
Wiggins, Wolk, Wright, Wyland, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Vacancy
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 75-1, 8/31/09
AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Arambula, Beall, Bill Berryhill, Tom
Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block, Blumenfield, Brownley,
Buchanan, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter, Chesbro,
Cook, Coto, De La Torre, De Leon, DeVore, Duvall,
Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes,
Fuller, Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick, Gilmore,
Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Huber,
CONTINUED
SB 55
Page
2
Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Krekorian, Lieu, Logue,
Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Miller, Monning, Nava,
Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, John A. Perez, V. Manuel
Perez, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Silva, Skinner, Smyth,
Solorio, Audra Strickland, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres,
Torrico, Tran, Villines, Yamada, Bass
NOES: Anderson
NO VOTE RECORDED: Conway, Davis, Portantino, Vacancy
SUBJECT : The State Bar Act
SOURCE : State Bar of California
DIGEST : Assembly Amendments delete the prior version of
the bill deleting the provisions of existing law that
require the Department of Conservation (DOC) to establish
reporting periods for redemption rates that require DOC to
determine redemption rates for specified types of beverage
containers.
As amended, this bill continues the State Bar's authority
to assess and collect dues form licensed attorneys in
California in order to support the State Bar's operations,
including discipline. This bill is the same bill as SB 641
(Corbett), which was vetoed, with two exceptions -- it
contains an urgency clause and the due date for the State
Bar dues changed from February 1 to March 1.
ANALYSIS :
Existing Law
1.Requires all attorneys who practice law in California to
be members of the State Bar and establishes the State Bar
for the purpose of regulating the legal profession.
Pursuant to the State Bar Act, the annual mandatory
membership fee set by the State Bar's Board of Governors
to pay for discipline and other functions must be
ratified by the Legislature.
2.Authorizes the State Bar to collect $315 in annual
membership fees from active members for a total annual
SB 55
Page
3
dues bill of $410 for the year 2009. The other $95 is
pursuant to statutory authorization to assess annually
the following fees:
A. $40 for the Client Security Fund; 25 for
disciplinary actions.
B. $10 to Fund the Lawyer Assistance Program.
C. $10 special assessment to fund information
technology upgrades (expires January 1, 2011).
D. $10 for the Building Fund (expires January 1,
2014).
3.Authorizes the State Bar to collect $75 in annual
membership fees from inactive members for a total annual
dues bill of $125 for the year 2009. The other $50 is
pursuant to statutory authorization to assess annually
the following fees:
A. $10 for the Client Security Fund.
B. $25 for disciplinary activities.
C. $5 to fund the Lawyer Assistance Program.
D. $10 for the Building Fund (expires January 1,
2014).
4.Prohibits the use by the State Bar of mandatory dues to
fund political and ideological activities, as a violation
of a member's First Amendment freedom of speech rights,
where such expenditures were not necessarily or
reasonably incurred for the purpose of regulating the
legal profession or improving the quality of the legal
services available to the people of the state. Existing
law allows members to deduct up to $10 from the mandatory
dues if the member does not wish to fund legislative
activities and non-Keller lobbying and activities with
his or her dues. (Keller v. State Bar of California
[1990] 496 U.S. 1.)
5.Requires limited liability partnerships (LLPs) and law
SB 55
Page
4
corporations to register with the State Bar.
6.Prohibits the State Bar from awarding a contract for
goods and/or services for more than $50,000 unless it
complies with specified public contracting requirements.
Specifically, this bill:
1.Authorizes the State Bar to continue to collect active
membership dues of up to $410 for the year 2010,
maintaining 2009 dues levels.
2.Provides that the State Bar shall have a preference for
using in-house employees for information technology (IT)
projects, whenever possible. Further provides that
nothing in the bill shall be read to be inconsistent with
any memorandum of understanding between the State Bar and
the recognized employee organizations or any relevant
principles of labor law.
3.Increases the State Bar's informal bid contracting
authority limits from $50,000 to $100,000 for contracts
for IT goods and/or services, as specified.
4.Requires the State Bar to report to the Senate and
Assembly Judiciary Committees on or before April 1, 2010,
and annually thereafter, on the impact of the changes
made per #3 above. In addition to a description of the
impact of those changes, the report shall include, with
specificity, the following:
A. The projects that previously would have been
required to comply with Article 4 (commencing with
Section 10335) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 2
of the Public Contract Code, but are no longer
subject to that requirement because the contract
amount is between $50,000 and $100,0000.
B. Whether the changes have improved the efficiency
of the contracting process. This provision sunsets
on January 1, 2014.
5.Provides that the fees paid by LLPs and law corporations
to the State Bar shall be used for its regulatory and
SB 55
Page
5
disciplinary purposes.
6.Provides that at the time of filing an Application for
Issuance of a Certificate of Registration as a LLP
pursuant to the Rules of the State Bar, an applicant for
registration shall also file with the State Bar a
separate form stating that the LLP has complied with the
security requirements described in paragraph (2) of
subdivision (a) of Section 16956 of the Corporations
Code.
7.Adds an urgency clause.
Background
This bill reauthorizes the State Bar to collect annual
membership fees for 2010, keeping with the typical approach
of an annual dues authorization bill to ensure the State
Bar is appropriately funded and provide helpful and
appropriate legislative oversight of the State Bar's many
important functions. The bill authorizes the State Bar to
continue to collect active membership dues of up to $410
for the year 2010, maintaining 2009 dues levels. It also
clarifies that the State Bar can deposit fees collected
from law corporations and limited liability companies in
the State Bar's general fund to be used for regulatory and
disciplinary purposes. This change is intended to assist
the State Bar in its non-dues revenue adjustments to help
ensure that it can fulfill its public protection and member
services roles. This bill also increase the State Bar's
informal bid contracting authority limits from $50,000 to
$100,000 for IT contracts only. The increased threshold
for these contracts is intended to help provide the State
Bar with greater flexibility.
The State Bar has indicated that it is planning to
implement the following cost reduction measures:
1.Defund 46 vacant positions totaling a nine percent
workforce reduction (saves $4 to $5 million annually).
2.End General Fund subsidy of the Lawyer's Assistance fund
and implement plans to reduce funding to the statutory
minimum (saves approximately $300,000 in 2010 and
SB 55
Page
6
increasing in future years).
3.End the print edition of the CalBar Journal in 2010
(saves approximately $1.1 million annually).
This bill is identical to SB 641 (Corbett), except that
this bill includes an urgency clause and postpones the date
by which dues must be submitted for one month (March 1) to
reflect that dues statements will be issued later than
usual because of the Governor's veto of SB 641. The author
and sponsor report that the State Bar has acted responsibly
to address the issues raised in the Governor's veto
message.
If not enacted, the State Bar will be required to begin
immediately procedures for a layoff process that would
result in formal layoff notices being sent in the first
week of January. Supporters state that this would be
crippling to the State Bar's essential mission of public
protection against unethical attorneys.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 1/4/10)
State Bar of California (source)
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
this bill continues the State Bar's authority to assess and
collect dues from licensed attorneys in California in order
to support the State Bar's operations, including
discipline. The bill also clarifies that the State Bar can
deposit fees collected from law corporations and limited
liability companies in the State Bar's general fund to be
used for regulatory and disciplinary purposes. This change
is intended to assist the State Bar in its non-dues revenue
adjustments to help ensure that it can fulfill its public
protection and member services roles. This bill also
increase the State Bar's informal bid contracting authority
limits from $50,000 to $100,000 for IT contracts only. The
increased threshold for these contracts is intended to help
provide the State Bar with greater flexibility.
SB 55
Page
7
SB 641 VETO MESSAGE
The Governor vetoed SB 641, stating:
"I am returning Senate Bill 641 without my signature.
"This bill would, among other provisions, authorize the
State Bar to collect annual bar dues from its members
for 2010.
"In 1997, Governor Pete Wilson vetoed the annual State
Bar dues bill, citing numerous concerns that the State
Bar had become overly political, unresponsive to its
membership, and inefficient. Unfortunately, twelve
years later, inefficiencies remain unaddressed and
questions about the State Bar's role in the evaluation
of judicial nominees suggest that the State Bar's
political agenda continues.
"In July, the State Auditor released a report critical
of the State Bar. Among the problems noted by the
report: salaries for staff have risen significantly
over the past five years; the costs of its
disciplinary system have escalated by $12 million from
2004 to 2008 while the number of disciplinary
inquiries opened has declined; and a lack of internal
controls allowed the embezzlement of nearly $676,000
by a former employee. As the organization charged
with regulating the professional conduct of its
members, the conduct of the State Bar itself must be
above reproach. Regrettably, it is not.
"In addition, recent actions by the State Bar's
Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission (JNE) also
call into question the State Bar's impartiality in
considering judicial appointments. All JNE Commission
proceedings are required by law to be confidential and
qualification ratings are not to be released to the
public prior to the Governor considering an
appointment. Unfortunately, recent events have
required the State Bar to launch an official inquiry
into the confidentiality of such proceedings.
Moreover, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has
recently questioned the reliability of the
SB 55
Page
8
Commission's recommendations by noting its failure to
follow statutory guidelines when considering judicial
nominees. By failing to follow the law, the JNE
Commission has damaged its reputation for impartiality
and, in turn, the State Bar's.
"There is no question the State Bar has an essential
role in the state's justice system and must continue to
oversee the licensing, education, and discipline of
California's lawyers. However, I am returning this
bill without my signature because the State Bar cannot
continue with business as usual. It must take the time
to reexamine the problems noted by the State Auditor
and continue its investigation into the JNE Commission.
I urge the State Bar to resolve these issues as soon
as possible so the Legislature can reintroduce this
measure early next year."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Ammiano, Arambula, Beall, Blakeslee, Block,
Blumenfield, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero,
Chesbro, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon,
Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Fuller,
Furutani, Galgiani, Gilmore, Hall, Hayashi, Hill, Huber,
Huffman, Jones, Knight, Krekorian, Lieu, Logue, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Monning, Nava, Niello, Nielsen,
John A. Perez, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino, Ruskin,
Salas, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Audra Strickland,
Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Tran, Yamada, Bass
NO VOTE RECORDED: Adams, Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Tom
Berryhill, Charles Calderon, Carter, Conway, DeVore,
Fletcher, Gaines, Garrick, Hagman, Harkey, Hernandez,
Jeffries, Miller, Nestande, Saldana, Silva, Villines
RJG:cm 1/6/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****