BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Senator Noreen Evans, Chair 2011-2012 Regular Session SB 163 (Evans) As Introduced Hearing Date: May 10, 2011 Fiscal: No Urgency: No SK SUBJECT State Bar Act DESCRIPTION This bill would authorize the State Bar of California (State Bar or the Bar) to collect active membership dues of up to $410 for the year 2012, which would continue the current active dues amount of $410. Consistent with existing law, those dues would fund only mandatory programs of the State Bar, and members can deduct $5 if they did not wish to support lobbying and other legislative activities. Members can also deduct an additional $5 if they did not wish to fund access and elimination of bias programs. Existing law also directs $10 of membership dues to legal services purposes unless a member elects not to support those activities. BACKGROUND The State Bar of California is a public corporation. Attorneys who wish to practice law in California generally must be admitted and licensed in this state and must be a member of the State Bar. (Cal. Const. art. VI, Sec. 9.) The State Bar of California is the largest state bar in the country. As of February 2011, the State Bar had 170,986 active members and 49,034 inactive members, which represents a slight annual increase in both active members and inactive members. Total State Bar membership is listed at 231,982, which includes 2,098 Judge members and 9,864 members who are "Not Eligible to Practice Law." The Bar's programs are financed mostly by annual membership dues paid by attorneys as well as other fees paid by applicants SB 163 (Evans) Page 2 of ? seeking to practice law. At the end of 2010, the State Bar had a fund balance of $11.9 million in its General Fund; the Bar is projecting a continued surplus through at least 2013 of $10.7 million (projected 2012) and $9.3 million (projected 2013). SB 163 (Evans) Page 3 of ? CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW Existing law 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. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 6000 et seq.) Existing law provides that the State Bar shall be governed by a 23-member Board of Governors (the Board), comprised of 16 lawyers elected by members of the Bar from nine specified districts for three-year staggered terms, and six public non-lawyer members, four of whom are appointed by the governor, one who is appointed by the Senate Rules Committee, and one who is appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly. The 23rd member of the Bar Board is its president, who is elected by the other board members to serve a fourth single year. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 6010 et seq.) Existing law provides for the Governance in the Public Interest Task Force in the State Bar and requires that task force to submit a report by May 15, 2011, and every three years thereafter, to the Supreme Court, the Governor, and the Senate and Assembly Judiciary Committees containing recommendations for enhancing the protection of the public, as specified. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 6001.2.) Existing law authorizes the State Bar to collect $315 in annual membership fees from active members for a total annual dues bill of $410 for the year 2011. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 6140.) The other $95 is pursuant to statutory authorization to assess annually the following fees: $40 for the Client Security Fund (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 6140.55); $25 for disciplinary activities (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 6140.6); $10 to fund the Lawyer Assistance Program (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 6140.9); $10 special assessment to fund information technology upgrades (expires January 1, 2014) (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 6140.35); and $10 for the Building Fund (expires January 1, 2014) (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 6140.3). Existing law authorizes the State Bar to collect $75 in annual membership fees from inactive members for a total annual dues bill of $125. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 6141.) The other $50 is pursuant to statutory authorization to assess annually the SB 163 (Evans) Page 4 of ? following fees: $10 for the Client Security Fund (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 6140.55); $25 for disciplinary activities (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 6140.6); $5 to fund the Lawyer Assistance Program (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 6140.9); and $10 for the Building Fund (expires January 1, 2014) (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 6140.3). Existing case law , Keller v. State Bar of California (1990) 496 U.S. 1, 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. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 6140.05, Keller v. State Bar of California (1990) 496 U.S. 1.) Existing law directs $10 of membership dues to legal services purposes unless a member elects not to support those activities. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 6140.01.) This bill would authorize the State Bar to collect active membership dues of up to $410 for the year 2012. COMMENT 1.Stated need for the bill In support of the bill, the sponsor, State Bar of California, writes that it is "pleased to support Senate Bill 163 . . . Existing law requires the Board of Governors to charge annual membership dues for members. SB 163 will extend for one year (2012) the State Bar's authority to collect the dues needed to keep it operating in order to ensure public protection and the proper regulation of attorneys. The bill simply extends this authority and the amount is not increased by this legislation." 2.Governance in the Public Interest Task Force Last year, AB 2764 (Committee on Judiciary, Chapter 476, Statutes of 2010) created within the State Bar the Governance in the Public Interest Task Force to be made up of 11 members appointed by the President of the State Bar. Seven of the SB 163 (Evans) Page 5 of ? members must be attorney members of the board and three must be public members. The president must also be a member of the Task Force and preside over its meetings. AB 2764 required the Task Force, on or before May 15, 2011, and every three years thereafter, to submit a report to the Supreme Court, the Governor, and the Senate and Assembly Judiciary Committees containing recommendations for enhancing the protection of the public and ensuring that protection of the public is the highest priority in the licensing, regulation, and discipline of attorneys. This report is to be reviewed by the Senate and Assembly Judiciary Committees in their regular consideration of the annual bar dues bill. The Task Force was created in response to concerns that actions by the State Bar Board of Governors did not sufficiently take into account the protection of the public. Several examples demonstrating the concern were included in this committee's analysis of AB 2764, including the Board's action to approve a scaled-back online "Find a Lawyer" program that critics argued left out important helpful consumer information in response to opposition from local bar associations. The Board decision not to reappoint Scott Drexel as Chief Trial Counsel was also highlighted in the analysis which noted legal press at the time that described allegations that Drexel was not reappointed because he aggressively pursued attorney misconduct and suggested that the Board's decision was based on internal profession-protection politics and not public interest issues. The Bar Board also nearly voted to oppose two important consumer protection measures (SB 94 (Calderon, Ch. 630, Stats. 2009) and AB 764 (Nava, 2009)) which addressed attorney participation in foreclosure-related scams. Finally, the malpractice insurance disclosure rules ultimately approved by the Board were felt by many to be considerably scaled back. The Task Force began meeting in October 2010 and, after regularly and diligently holding a number of meetings around the state, the Task Force voted on May 5, 2011 to submit its reports and recommendations to the Supreme Court, Governor, and Legislature. AB 2764 provided that, if the task force does not reach a consensus on all recommendations, the dissenting members may prepare and submit a dissenting report. Although the Committee has not yet received the final reports, it appears that there will in fact be two reports from the Task Force-a majority and a minority report. SB 163 (Evans) Page 6 of ? A recent article in the Recorder legal newspaper bore this out, stating: The minority group on the task force-which includes State Bar President William Hebert-says the board should be smaller, with members appointed by the state Supreme Court. The minority members contend that elected board members tend to represent the provincial interests of their constituents to the detriment of a broader public interest. They also argue that the State Bar shouldn't be the only professional oversight body in California that governs itself. "If we had appointees who were screened for their qualifications and appointed by the Supreme Court, we would have a higher-quality board that better understood the mission of the board and better understood its public protection mission," Hebert said after today's vote. The majority sees the elected system as a good vehicle to give Bar members a voice in their own governance, said board member Jon Streeter. Streeter said the attempt to reduce the size of the board and throw out the election system is "little more than a power grab by certain public members on the board," adding that "the absence of any evidence to support the abandonment of a system that we have had for 84 years suggests that there are some private agendas going on here." ("Over protest, Bar task force says structural changes aren't needed," The Recorder, May 5, 2011.) SB 163 (Evans) Page 7 of ? Summaries of both of these draft reports are available on the Task Force's website. While the final reports have not yet been submitted to the Committee, the following chart briefly summarizing the draft proposals that are available online is provided to the Committee as background: ---------------------------------------------------------------- | |Existing law |"Comprehensive |"All-appointed | | | |Governance Reform |Proposal" | | | |Proposal" | | |-----------+--------------+------------------+------------------| |Total |23 |22 + president |Reduce to 15 | |Board of | | | | |Governors | | | | |-----------+--------------+------------------+------------------| |Attorney |17 |17 |Reduce to 9 | |members | | | | |-----------+--------------+------------------+------------------| |Public |6 |6 |6 | |members | | | | |-----------+--------------+------------------+------------------| |Make-up |15 attorney |12 attorney |Attorney members | | |members |members elected |appointed by the | | |elected from |from 5 districts |Supreme Court | | |9 districts |(based on | | | | |District Courts |Permit the | | |1 CYLA* |of Appeal) |Supreme Court to | | |attorney | |create a Merit | | |member |3 attorney |Screening | | | |members appointed |Committee to vet | | |1 president |by the Supreme |attorney | | | |Court |applicants | | |6 public | | | | |members = |1 CYLA attorney |No change to the | | |4 by Governor |member |number and method | | | | |of selecting | | |1 by Senate |1 president |public members | | |Rules | | | | |1 by Speaker |Permit Supreme | | | | |Court to create a | | | |*California |Merit Screening | | | |Young Lawyers |Committee to vet | | | |Association |attorney | | | | |applicants | | | | | | | | | |No change to the | | SB 163 (Evans) Page 8 of ? | | |number and method | | | | |of selecting | | | | |public members | | ---------------------------------------------------------------- The proposals also contain other provisions relating to the State Bar; the following highlights a few of these provisions: "Comprehensive Governance Reform Proposal" Include public protection charge Re-name the Board of Governors to the Board of Trustees Require 50 percent public member participation on Regulations, Admission, and Discipline Committee and Member Oversight Committee Make changes designed to increase transparency and complement alignment with the Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act Create new Public Information and Outreach Committee Create new Legislative Liaison committee "All-appointed Proposal" Include public protection charge Re-name the Board of Governors to the Board of Trustees Provide that the Supreme Court appoints president Apply Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act to the Board Require the State Bar to make available at least 25 hours of continuing legal education in the field of ethics at no charge Recommend evaluation of whether the unified Bar structure advances public protection and require a report containing steps to disunify the Bar As this bill moves through the process, the author may wish to consider amending the bill to incorporate recommendations from the Task Force which enhance the protection of the public. 1.State Bar's fiscal status a. State Bar General Fund projections At the end of 2010, the State Bar had a fund balance of $11.9 million in its General Fund. The Bar is projecting a continued surplus through at least 2013 of $10.7 million (projected 2012) and $9.3 million (projected 2013) (See chart below). These amounts assume that the Bar continues with the salary freeze that has been in place since 2008 and no unanticipated significant cost increases occur. The following chart illustrates these figures: SB 163 (Evans) Page 9 of ? --------------------------------------------------- | |Forecast |Projected|Projected| | | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | |---------------------+---------+---------+---------| |Revenues |$62.9 |$62.5 |63.4 | |---------------------+---------+---------+---------| |Baseline |$62.0 |$63.7 |$64.9 | |expenditures | | | | |---------------------+---------+---------+---------| |Surplus (Deficit) |$0 | ($1.2) |($1.5) | |---------------------+---------+---------+---------| |Ending retained |$12 |$10.7 |$9.3 | |savings | | | | --------------------------------------------------- *$ millions In addition to the $11.9 million fund balance in its General Fund, the State Bar also has another $6.4 million in the "Public Protection Reserve Fund" which is designed as its "rainy-day" fund to allow the Bar to continue operations should its dues authority not be continued, as occurred when Governor Wilson vetoed the Bar's dues bill in 1997 and in 2009 when Governor Schwarzenegger did the same. At the end of 2010, the Bar's Public Protection Reserve Fund contained $6.4 million. That amount represents 10.7 percent of 2010 General Fund operating expenses, 6.4 percent of total agency-wide operating expenses, and 4.9 percent of total agency-wide operating revenues. These percentages are consistent with the recommendations of the Government Finance Officers Association which suggests a "minimum GF reserve of 5% to 15% of operating revenues." The Bar states that the Public Protection Fund is needed because it is "exposed to an unusual financial risk not experienced by most state and local governments: the risk of an abrupt 100% loss of its dominant source of operating revenue-mandatory member dues . . . Mandatory member dues account for over 95% of the State Bar's General Fund revenues, financing operating costs exceeding $1.1 million per week. If the State Bar were to lose the authority to collect mandatory dues, the Public Protection Reserve would provide a small but crucial window of time for the organization to react in a manner that best protects the interests of the public." SB 163 (Evans) Page 10 of ? b. History of General Fund activity Bar documents indicate the history of the Bar's General Fund activity. Over the past few years, the Bar has generally taken in more money than it has spent. As illustrated below, 2006 and 2007 revenues were higher than expenditures. In 2008, however, expenditures outpaced revenues. For 2009, revenues and expenditures were essentially equal. In 2010, the General Fund's actual expenditures were at their lowest level since 2007. According to the State Bar: Ýt]he significant reduction in costs was the result of circumstances unique to 2010 that aren't representative of the Bar's typical expenditure levels. During 2010, six of the Bar's executive staff positions, including Chief Trial Counsel, General Counsel, Chief Information Officer, Director of Media & Information Services, Web Editor, and Senior Executive of Member Services, were vacant for all or a significant part of the year. These executive positions, along with higher than anticipated turnover in other staff positions combined with lower than anticipated benefit costs, resulted in approximately $2.8 million in savings. Additionally, the print version of the CalBar Journal was eliminated during the first quarter, resulting in over $800,000 in reduced postage and printing costs. Due to the delay in the adoption of the 2010 dues bill, many non-critical expenditures were postponed to later years. Significant savings were also realized from lower audit and outside counsel costs. In total, actual expenditures for 2010 were 11% lower than the adopted budget. SB 163 (Evans) Page 11 of ? The following chart compares the budgeted annual expenses to actual annual expenses: --------------------------------------------------- | Year | Budget | Actual | % Variance | |------------+------------+------------+------------| | 2007 | $61.4* | $58.1 | 5.4% | |------------+------------+------------+------------| | 2008 | $65.2 | $62.3 | 4.4% | |------------+------------+------------+------------| | 2009 | $65.2 | $62.8 | 3.6% | |------------+------------+------------+------------| | 2010 | $67.4 | $59.8 |11.2% | | | | | | --------------------------------------------------- *$ millions The State Bar indicates: "Typically, the State Bar's actual annual expenses are between 4 percent and 5 percent lower than budget - usually attributable to salary savings that occur due to staff turnover. 2010 was an extraordinary year due to the delay in passage of the 2010 fee bill and the transition of executive director. The timing of filling several vacant executive staff positions was affected by the October 2010 veto and recruitments were put on hold." c. Temporary Emergency Legal Services Voluntary Assistance Option Last year's dues bill, AB 2764 (Committee on Judiciary), created the Temporary Emergency Legal Services Voluntary Assistance Option, directing, until January 1, 2014, $10 of membership dues to legal services purposes unless a member elects not to support those activities. The State Bar indicates that this direction has resulted in a $2 million revenue loss in member dues to the General Fund. Staff notes that had the $2 million not been redirected either to members if they chose or to the State Bar's Legal Services Trust Fund Program for distribution to nonprofit organizations that provide free civil legal services to low-income Californians, that money would have gone to the General Fund. The Bar indicates that it is addressing this revenue loss by redirecting a significant portion ($1.3 million) of its SB 163 (Evans) Page 12 of ? sponsored insurance programs-primarily the general liability and group insurance policies administered through Marsh-to the General Fund. According to the Bar, the sponsorship revenue generated from these policies is approximately $1.8 million annually. In previous years, the Bar states that approximately $1 million was allocated to the Lawyers Assistance Program (LAP) with the remaining proceeds allocated to covering the administrative costs of the insurance programs and setting aside funding for future additional membership benefit programs. The Bar indicates that, in 2011, the allocation to LAP was discontinued and $1.3 million of the $1.8 million of annual sponsorship revenues has been directed to the General Fund. The Bar indicates that the $500,000 difference is being used for insurance program expenses. Also, in 2011, there was a one-time case transfer from the Certification Fund of $1.2 million to help cover the loss of revenue. SB 163 (Evans) Page 13 of ? d. Salaries As the Bar has indicated previously, there have not been salary or step increases since 2008. The chart below shows the relevant figures over the last ten years. According to the Bar, its staff is divided into three categories: represented staff, confidential staff, and executive staff. Represented staff are covered by a Memorandum of Understanding that includes a table of step increases by job class. A similar structure exists for confidential staff who are not covered by the bargaining unit and are not executive staff. Additionally the Bar states that employees at the top step generally only receive increases when a cost of living adjustment is made and, in some years, employees who are topped out may receive a lump sum payment that does not affect their base salary. Below is the history of step and merit increases since 2001: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Category|2001 |2002 |2003 |2004 |2005 |2006 |2007 |2008 |2009 |2010 |2011 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------| |Represen|3.5% |5% |2.5% |0% |4.5% |4.5% |5% |5% |0% |0% |0% | |ted | |step; |step | | | | |step; | | | | | | |9% cola | | | | | |3% cola | | | | |--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------| |Confiden|3.5% |5% |2.5% |0% |4.5% |4.5% |5% |5% |0% |0% |0% | |tial | |step; |step | | | | |step; | | | | | | |9% cola | | | | | |3% cola | | | | |--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------| |Executiv|5.71% |4.48% |0% |5.34% |3.2% |5.57% |5.11% |0% |0% |0% |0% | |e | | | | | | | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2.State Bar's annual discipline report On April 30, 2011, the State Bar released its annual discipline report for the year ending December 31, 2010. Required by Business and Professions Code Section 6086.15, the report describes the "performance and condition of Ýthe Bar's] attorney discipline system in the previous calendar year." This year's report notes that the figures show a significant rise in both the backlog and caseload. Under existing law, investigations of complaints should be completed within six months or, for complex cases, within 12 months. Complaints that are open more than six SB 163 (Evans) Page 14 of ? months from receipt without disciplinary charges filed are considered part of the "backlog." The State Bar indicates that it made major changes in the format, organization, and content of this year's report in part to respond to recommendations from the State Auditor. As a result, the Bar acknowledges that it is difficult to make meaningful comparisons with reports from prior years. For example, some of the numbers in this year's report are higher than in years' past because they were previously excluded from prior counts. Despite this challenge, the following key figures are notable: The overall backlog at the end of 2010 is 4,193 cases, an increase of over 60 percent from the numbers for the previous year, under the adjusted methodology used in the report. The report notes, however, that these figures are substantially increased by the inclusion of more than 2,000 cases, which are either held or in abeyance because of other pending criminal, civil, or State Bar proceedings. Excluding these cases would yield a backlog of 1,901 complaints, an increase of over five percent from the previous year. As of December 31, 2010, the investigative backlog stood at 350 cases, down from 409 at the end of 2009. During 2010, 712 investigations were completed more than six months after receipt of the original complaint, or, in designated complex cases, more than 12 months. This figure was up from 546 in 2009. During 2010, 3,866 cases were filed or closed more than six months after the receipt of the original complaint, up from 1,971 in 2009. The Intake Unit received 17,904 written complaints in 2010. This is roughly equal to the 2009 level, but sharply higher than the levels experienced in 2007 and 2008 (under 13,600 complaints each year). The Intake Unit closed 13,325 cases and forwarded 6,028 complaints to the investigations unit. In contrast, 10,603 cases were closed and 5,378 cases were advanced to investigation in 2009. The Investigations Unit in turn closed 3,024 cases-up almost 50 percent from the 2009 levels. That unit forwarded 1,362 cases to the Trial Unit, an increase of more than one-third from the prior year. The Trial Unit closed 719 cases in 2010, up from 238 cases the year before. The unit formally filed 636 cases with the State Bar Court, a 50 percent increase from the previous year's SB 163 (Evans) Page 15 of ? level. The Executive Summary also noted that the sharp rise in caseload appears to be connected to the large number of complaints received by the State Bar against lawyers involved in home loan modification scams in 2009 and 2010. 1.State Auditor's biennial report on State Bar's performance The State Auditor is required by law to conduct a performance audit every two years of the State Bar's operations during the prior fiscal year. This year, the Auditor's staff indicates that the audit will likely be completed in late May. At the request of this committee, the audit will review the Lawyers Assistance Program (LAP) to better understand whether LAP is meeting its mission and, importantly, whether it is protecting clients and the public from substance-abusing attorneys. In the past, the State Auditor's biennial report has helped to inform this committee's oversight responsibilities. For example, in 2007 the report raised questions regarding how the Bar prepared its budget. The State Auditor noted that the Bar's "budget preparation methodology does not ensure that all resources are identified and properly allocated so that the State Bar effectively and efficiently accomplishes its statutory mandates." The Bar agreed with the Auditor's recommendation on the issue and made changes to its methodology to address the concern. The 2007 State Auditor's report also brought to light the Bar's action in collecting the assessment of the $10 building fund fee for the potential purchase of a State Bar facility in Los Angeles. That action was taken without notice to the Legislature and without any opportunity for legislative review. The Auditor's report played a critical role in highlighting the issue. As a result, it will be especially helpful to this committee's work over the next two years to have the benefit of the expertise and reporting of the State Auditor. Support : None Known Opposition : None Known HISTORY SB 163 (Evans) Page 16 of ? Source : State Bar of California Related Pending Legislation : AB 572 (Wieckowski), which is identical to this bill, has been referred to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. Prior Legislation : AB 2764 (Judiciary, Chapter 476, Statutes of 2010) SB 55 (Corbett, Chapter 2, Statutes of 2010) SB 641 (Corbett, 2009) vetoed AB 3049 (Judiciary, Chapter 165, Statutes of 2008) SB 686 (Corbett, Chapter 474, Statutes of 2007) AB 1529 (Jones, Chapter 341, Statutes of 2005) SB 1490 (Judiciary, Chapter 384, Statutes of 2004) AB 1708 (Judiciary, Chapter 334, Statutes of 2003) SB 352 (Kuehl, Chapter 24, Statutes of 2001) SB 1367 (Schiff, Chapter 118, Statutes of 2000) SB 144 (Schiff, Chapter 342, Statutes of 1999) **************