BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2685
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2685 (Judiciary Committee)
As Introduced March 12, 2012
Majority vote
JUDICIARY 10-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Feuer, Wagner, Atkins, | | |
| |Dickinson, Gorell, Huber, | | |
| |Jones, Monning, | | |
| |Wieckowski, Bonnie | | |
| |Lowenthal | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Authorizes the State Bar (Bar) to assess active member
dues of $410 for 2013 only.
EXISTING LAW authorizes the Bar to collect $315 in annual
membership fees from active members, with a one year only $10
rebate in 2012, for a total annual dues bill of $400 in 2012
only. The other $95 is pursuant to statutory authorization to
assess annually the following fees: $40 for the Client Security
Fund; $25 for disciplinary activities; $10 to fund the Lawyer
Assistance Program (LAP); $10 special assessment to fund
information technology upgrades (expires January 1, 2014); and,
$10 for the Building Fund (expires January 1, 2014).
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : The State Bar of California is the largest state bar
in the country. The Bar's programs are financed mostly by
annual mandatory membership dues paid by attorneys as well as
other fees paid by applicants seeking to practice law. The Bar
has many committed and hard-working staff and new Bar leaders
who work diligently to ensure that the legal profession's
admissions system is properly administered to protect the
public, and its discipline system maximizes public protection.
Last Year's Major Governance Reforms : Last year the Legislature
enacted, in SB 163 (Evans), Chapter 417, Statutes of 2011, the
most sweeping changes to the governance structure of the State
Bar in many decades. Among other reforms, the Legislature
AB 2685
Page 2
reduced the size and revised the composition of the Bar board,
and specified for the first time that the protection of the
public is the highest priority for the Bar and its board of
trustees (the new name for the members of the board).
Successful Recent Implementation Efforts : Since the enactment
of SB 163 (Evans), the three branches of state government have
been working smoothly in the transition process called for in
that landmark legislation. The Bar has met all of the required
deadlines for informing the Legislature about the process for
transition to a smaller board as well as in developing its new
five-year strategic plan. It has also made very impressive
progress this past year under new leadership in dramatically
reducing its decades-old backlog of discipline cases. Just
since this past July, the Bar reportedly has cleared away
thousands of backlogged cases and also dramatically cut the
number of fully investigated backlog cases awaiting formal
charges. The year 2012 has proved to be a year of substantial
reported progress by the Bar on the discipline system reform and
repair front, as well as on the road to governance reform.
Thus as the Legislature strives as part of its annual oversight
responsibility to continue to assist the Bar and the public in
further strengthening the nation's largest Bar, it is timely for
the Legislature to continue to review with the Bar and other
interested parties other additional ways in which the Bar can
potentially improve its procedures to maximize transparency,
accountability and openness, and maximize its paramount duty of
public protection. In this regard, the following issue areas
are benefitting from discussions with the Bar as this measure
moves forward.
Because the Bar is housed within the judicial branch, it has not
yet been subject to some of the important consumer protection
and openness laws which seek to ensure the integrity,
transparency, and accountability of state government operations,
such as the Public Records Act, the Public Contract rules and
some conflict of interest requirements under the Political
Reform Act. (However there has been a trend towards consistency
with key consumer protection laws; for example, last year in SB
163 (Evans), the Bar was essentially made subject to the terms
of the Bagley-Keene Opening Meeting Law (B-K Act) by the
Legislature, see discussion below). Whether continuing to
exclude the Bar's non-court related functions from the benefits
AB 2685
Page 3
of such important public protection and transparency laws make
sense today, in light of the government's increasingly vigorous
commitment to transparency and accountability to the public it
serves, as well as the Bar's express public protection duty and
its recent acknowledgment of the importance of providing maximum
transparency to the public, warrants continuing beneficial
review and consideration by the Bar and the Legislature.
Full Compliance With Bagley-Keene : Last year the Legislature
directed the Bar to conform to the Bagley-Keene open meeting
requirements, and the Bar has not yet fully conformed to these
"good government" requirements. The Legislature is therefore
working with the Bar this year as this measure moves forward
with hopes and confidence of reaching full effective conformity
with this transparency law.
Public Accessibility to Bar Administrative Records : The
Legislature has broadly supported transparency and stated, in
the California Public Records Act (CPRA), that "access to
information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a
fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state."
However because of the Bar's status as a judicial branch entity
that is also not a court, it appears thus far not to have been
included in the broad public protection mandate for public
access to records. It is important to note in this regard that
the Supreme Court is set to consider a common law right to
access to the Bar's records when it hears Sander v. State Bar of
California, S194951, 2012 Cal. LEXIS 2190 (Cal. Feb. 29, 2012),
on appeal from a unanimous panel of the First District which
found such right of access applicable to the Bar. Thus this
appears to be an additional and timely issue for continuing
discussion with the Bar as this measure moves forward.
Conflict of Interest Provisions Under the Political Reform Act :
Legislative findings that "Ýp]ublic officials, whether elected
or appointed, should perform their duties in an impartial
manner, free from bias caused by their own financial interests
or the financial interests of persons who have supported them"
helped lead to the creation of the Political Reform Act (Act).
The Act requires that public entities have conflict of interest
codes that prevent officials from acting in a way that
financially benefits them. The Bar is already subject to this
Act. However, the Bar, along with the Judicial Council and the
Commission on Judicial Performance, is not yet apparently
AB 2685
Page 4
required to comply with the requirement, applicable to other
entities, that its conflict of interest codes must require that
designated employees be disqualified from decisions that may
financially benefit them. This too is an issue area that will
benefit from discussions as the measure moves forward.
Contracting Rules Under the Public Contract Code : The Public
Contract Code requires that contracts for services entered into
by state agencies for $5,000 or more are generally subject to
significant control requirements, including competitive bidding,
and review and approval by the Department of General Services.
However, courts and agencies within the judicial branch are
currently specifically exempted from these requirements.
Instead, thus far the Bar has only been required by the
Legislature to use competitive bidding for contracts that are
over $50,000 in the aggregate or, in the case of information
technology, over $100,000. There is also apparently no agency,
similar to the Department of General Services, providing
oversight of the Bar's contracting processes. This too is an
issue area that will benefit by further discussion as the
measure moves forward.
This measure received bipartisan unanimous support in the
Judiciary Committee and it has no known opposition.
Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert, Kevin Baker, and Leora
Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0003559