BILL ANALYSIS SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair 2009-2010 Regular Session SB 877 (Harman) As Amended March 8, 2010 Hearing Date: May 4, 2010 Fiscal: No Urgency: No TW:jd SUBJECT Arbitration: Legal Representation DESCRIPTION This bill would remove the sunset provision from the out-of-state attorney arbitration counsel program, making the program permanent. BACKGROUND Many companies use in-house counsel to handle their legal needs, including representing the company during arbitration proceedings. In Birbrower v. Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal.4th 117, the court ruled that out-of-state attorneys were precluded from representing their clients in California arbitrations. Due to the financial burden imposed on out-of-state parties having to locate in-state counsel and the resulting time burden on parties and courts, the Legislature enacted AB 2086 (Keeley, Chapter 915, Statutes of 1998), which created the Out of State Attorney Arbitration Counsel Program (OSAAC) under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1282.4 and Rules of Court Rule 9.43. California courts allow out-of-state attorneys to appear pro hac vice upon submitting an application to the court and serving notice of the hearing on the application with the State Bar of California. (Rules of Court Rule 9.40.) Similarly, under OSAAC, out-of-state attorneys can represent parties in California arbitrations once they have satisfied, among other things, the following requirements: (1) file a certificate with the arbitrator and State Bar of California; and (2) submit to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the California State Bar. (more) SB 877 (Harman) Page 2 of ? (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 12824; Rules of Court Rule 9.43.) When it was enacted in 1999, the bill contained a sunset date of two years. A subsequent report prepared in 2000 by the State Bar noted that some certificates contained no attorney of record on file, and many were never filed. Accordingly, there was little record of adequate compliance by both attorneys in filing the certificates and by arbitrators in ensuring that the rules adopted by the Supreme Court for the out-of-state attorney in arbitration appearances were followed. SB 2153 (Schiff, Chapter 1011, Statutes of 2000), among other things, extended the sunset to January 1, 2006. OSAAC was extended to January 1, 2007 by AB 415 (Harman, Chapter 607, Statutes of 2005). AB 2482 (Harman, Chapter 357, Statutes of 2006) required the out-of-state attorney to get the arbitrator's approval of certificate of intent to appear in arbitration before the out-of-state attorney filed it with the State Bar. AB 2482 also contained a reporting requirement by the State Bar and extended the sunset provision to January 1, 2011. This bill seeks to remove the sunset provision of the OSAAC and permanently allow out-of-state attorneys to appear on behalf of their clients in California arbitrations as long as they have met OSAAC requirements. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW Existing law provides that a party to an arbitration has the right to be represented by an attorney at any arbitration proceeding or hearing. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1282.4(a).) Existing law authorizes an out-of-state attorney to appear on behalf of a client in arbitration as long as the out-of-state attorney files a certificate, as specified, and once the certificate is approved by the arbitrator, the certificate must be filed with the State Bar of California and served on all parties to the arbitration. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1282.4(b-e).) Existing law provides that the out-of-state attorney participating in an arbitration is subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the State Bar of California. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1282.4(f).) Existing law provides that the above-described provisions sunset on January 1, 2011. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1282.4(k).) This bill would remove the sunset provision and make the SB 877 (Harman) Page 3 of ? out-of-state arbitration requirements permanent. COMMENT 1. Stated need for the bill The author writes: This bill does not seek to remedy a deficiency; rather, it seeks to acknowledge that a previously assigned deficiency has been adequately and permanently addressed. The out-of-state arbitration program is an effective, useful program that should be a permanent fixture of California state law. Accordingly, this bill seeks to implement the suggestion of the State Bar that "consideration should be given to whether the sunset provisions of CCP [Sec.] 1282.4 should be removed, which would make the requirements for out-of-state attorneys to appear in California arbitration proceedings permanent." Further, the California Dispute Resolution Council (CDRC), a supporter of the bill, notes that "[t]his statute has worked to ensure that arbitrations can proceed smoothly in our state, especially in those cases where out of state counsel are the lawyers for the parties involved in the arbitration. This is not an attempt by these lawyers to avoid becoming members of the state bar but merely to perform their duties for their clients when the arbitration occurs in the State of California." 2. OSAAC is working In 2000, it was apparent that out-of-state attorneys applying to appear on behalf of their clients under the OSAAC program were not being effectively regulated. Accordingly, AB 2482 (Harman, Chapter 357, Statutes of 2006) strengthened oversight of the program and required the out-of-state attorney to obtain the arbitrator's approval on the certificate of intent to appear in arbitration before the out-of-state attorney filed the certificate with the State Bar. The "2009 Report of the State Bar of California to the California Legislature in Accordance with AB 2482 (Harman) (2006, Ch. 357) Relating to Arbitration Proceedings Conducted Under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1282.4" (the Report) shows that the OSAAC program is sufficiently protecting California litigants. During the two-year period covered in the Report, only 1,192 out-of-state attorneys filed a certificate of SB 877 (Harman) Page 4 of ? arbitration appearance. The number of out-of-state attorneys requesting to appear in arbitrations in 2007 and 2008 was lower than out-of-state attorneys requesting to appear pro hac vice (approximately 2,600 per year). The State Bar compiled a table showing the number of out-of-state applicants and the corresponding number of times they appeared in arbitrations during the two years covered by the report as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |# of | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |Appearanc| | | | | | | | | | | |es | | | | | | | | | | | |---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------| |# of | 676 | 104 | 33 | 10 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 |2 | |Applicant| | | | | | | | | | | |s | | | | | | | | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As the table demonstrates, there are a number of out-of-state attorneys making multiple appearances in California arbitrations. The State Bar reports the following special circumstances for which arbitrators accepted repeated appearances by these out-of-state attorneys: 1. the arbitration is a collection case on behalf of a major brokerage firm against registered representative employees; 2. the out-of-state attorney represented the brokerage firm nationwide; 3. the proceeding is in California because the claimant resides in California and prefers to use an out-of-state attorney because of his or her familiarity with the subject; or 4. the applicant is in-house counsel or associated with outside law firms who handle similar matters nationwide. The State Bar reports that it did not receive any written complaints about the OSAAC program during the reporting period and it is not aware of any complaints or alleged violations of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1282.4. Interested stakeholders also have not reported any complaints. In fact, the CDRC notes that "[t]he statute has been in effect for over ten years and there is no evidence that the State Bar has permitted abuse of the procedure by out of state attorneys." SB 877 (Harman) Page 5 of ? The State Bar recommends that the sunset provision should be removed and the requirements for out-of-state attorneys appearing in California arbitration proceedings should be made permanent. Given that the dual step requirement of arbitrator's approval and subsequent filing with the State Bar is providing sufficient oversight over out-of-state attorneys and there have been no complaints over this process, removing the sunset provision from Code of Civil Procedure Section 1282.4 appears to be appropriate. Support : California Dispute Resolution Council Opposition : None Known HISTORY Source : Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association Related Pending Legislation : None Known Prior Legislation : AB 2482 (Harman, Ch. 357, Stats. 2006) (See Comment 2.) AB 415 (Harman, Ch. 607, Stats. 2005) extended the sunset to January 1, 2007. SB 2153 (Schiff, Ch. 1011, Stats. 2000), among other things, extended the sunset to January 1, 2006. AB 2086 (Keeley, Ch. 915, Stats. 1998) permitted out-of-state attorneys, upon the filing of a certificate disclosing required information, to represent parties in California arbitrations. This bill set a sunset date of January 1, 2001. **************