BILL ANALYSIS
AB 663
PageA
Date of Hearing: April 21, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
AB 663 (Jones) - As Amended: April 15, 2009
As Proposed to be Amended
SUBJECT : COURT INTERPRETERS: CIVIL PROCEEDINGS
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD A PILOT PROGRAM BE UNDERTAKEN TO PROVIDE
COURT INTERPRETERS FOR LOW INCOME PARTIES WHO NEED ASSISTANCE
WITH ENGLISH IN IMPORTANT CIVIL MATTERS?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This non-controversial measure, sponsored by the Judicial
Council, reflects the author's continued efforts to establish a
pilot program to provide court interpreters for low-income
litigants who need assistance with English in certain civil
matters. The bill implements an important recommendation of the
non-partisan California Commission on Access to Justice, and is
supported by a wide cross-section of stakeholders involved in
the provision of legal services. There is no known opposition.
SUMMARY : Implements recommendations of the California
Commission on Access to Justice.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Establishes a model pilot program to be developed by the
Judicial Council for providing court interpreters in important
civil matters not currently served.
2)Combats fraudulent and deceptive misuse of the term "legal
aid" unless the entity is a bona fide nonprofit organization
that provides civil legal services for the poor without charge
by prohibiting such conduct and providing a mechanism by which
injured consumers and legal aid organizations may obtain
relief.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires that every written proceeding in a court of justice
AB 663
PageB
in this state shall be in the English language, and judicial
proceedings shall be conducted, preserved, and published in no
other. (Code of Civil Procedure section 185.)
2)Provides that a person unable to understand English who is
charged with a crime has a right to an interpreter throughout
the proceedings. (Cal. Const., Art. I, section 14.)
3)Requires appointment of a qualified interpreter in all civil
proceedings where a party or witness is an individual who is
deaf or hearing impaired. (Evidence Code section 754.)
4)Provides for the appointment of an interpreter in certain
cases involving domestic violence, parental rights, and
dissolution of marriage involving a protective order, subject
to the availability of federal funding. (Evidence Code
section 755.)
5)Requires appointment of an interpreter whenever a witness is
incapable of understanding the English language or is
incapable of expressing himself or herself in the English
language so as to be understood directly by counsel, court and
jury. (Evidence Code section 752.)
6)Requires appointment of a translator whenever the written
characters in a writing offered in evidence are incapable of
being deciphered or understood directly. (Evidence Code
section 753.)
7)Provides pursuant to federal law that no person shall on the
ground of race, color, or national origin be excluded from
participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal
financial assistance, including conduct that has a
disproportionate effect on persons of limited English
proficiency. (42 U.S.C. section 2000(d).) State law is to
the same effect. (Government Code section 11135.)
8)Provides that it has been the tradition of those learned in
the law and licensed to practice law in this state to provide
voluntary pro bono legal services to those who cannot afford
the help of a lawyer; that every lawyer authorized and
privileged to practice law in California is expected to make a
contribution; that in some circumstances, it may not be
feasible for a lawyer to directly provide pro bono services;
AB 663
PageC
and that in those circumstances, a lawyer may instead fulfill
his or her individual pro bono ethical commitment, in part, by
providing financial support to organizations providing free
legal services to persons of limited means. (Business and
Professions Code Section 6073.)
9)Provides that a contract with the state for legal services
that exceeds fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) shall include a
certification by the contracting law firm that the firm agrees
to make a good faith effort to provide, during the duration of
the contract, a minimum number of hours of pro bono legal
services during each year of the contract and that failure to
make a good faith effort may be cause for nonrenewal of a
state contract for legal services, and may be taken into
account when determining the award of future contracts with
the state for legal services, and that in awarding a contract
with the state for legal services that exceeds fifty thousand
dollars ($50,000), the awarding department shall consider the
efforts of a potential contracting law firm to provide, during
the 12-month period prior to award of the contract, the
minimum number of hours of pro bono legal services. (Business
and Professions Code Section 6072.)
COMMENTS : The author states that this bill implements key
recommendations of the non-partisan California Commission on
Access to Justice to promote equal access to legal and judicial
services for low-income Californians.
Court Interpreter Model Pilot Program For Critical Cases,
Self-Supported By Court Fees To Address Governor's Fiscal
Concerns. The bill establishes a model pilot program to be
developed by the Judicial Council for providing court
interpreters in important civil matters not currently served.
The Access Commission's recommendation on this point explains:
Civil litigants who are unable because of language
proficiency to fully understand and participate in the
proceedings should have the right to a qualified
interpreter at all stages of the proceedings irrespective
of financial means. The implementation of this
recommendation would likely be incremental and funding for
all civil interpreter needs throughout the state will only
become available over time. However, it is critical that
access to court certified interpreters be recognized as a
universal right in our judicial system. An immediate step
AB 663
PageD
toward this goal at a time when resources are limited is to
establish pilot projects for court interpreters in civil
cases involving significant legal rights. Pilot projects
will allow a selected sample of courts to assess the need
for interpreters in civil cases, examine ways of maximizing
the use of existing interpreters through calendar
management, and determine what it would take in terms of
both funding and interpreters to provide adequate
interpretation services. This approach will help ensure
that funds are expended and available interpreters used in
the most efficient and effective manner to achieve the goal
of providing qualified interpreters to meet the need.
As with a substantively identical measure in 2005 (AB 2302), the
author states, "Nearly seven million Californians cannot access
the courts without significant language assistance, cannot
understand pleadings, forms or other legal documents, cannot
communicate with judges, clerks or other court staff, and cannot
understand or participate meaningfully in court proceedings -
much less effectively present their cases - without a qualified
interpreter. People with limited English proficiency are also
often members of groups whose cultural traits or economic
circumstances make them more likely to be subjected to legal
problems, in part because perpetrators recognize their victims'
limited ability to access judicial protection. For Californians
who are not proficient in English, the prospect of navigating
the legal system is daunting, especially for the growing number
of parties in family court and other cases who do not have
access to legal services and therefore have no choice but to
represent themselves in court - a virtually impossible task for
people who are unable to understand the proceedings."
The author notes that the Governor vetoed AB 2302 of 2005, a
substantively identical measure, stating, "[i]t is essential to
provide non-English speaking litigants with interpreters in
order to provide meaningful access to our justice system ?
[h]owever, now is not the time to expand programs that
significantly increase the expenditure of General Fund dollars
at a time the State is moving to eliminate its structural
deficit." In light of the Governor's recognition that
interpreters are essential, and in order to address the
Governor's fiscal concerns, this bill is self-supported by a
small ($10) fee increase so as to have no General Fund impact.
The Governor also vetoed a prior measure by the author last year
AB 663
PageE
(AB 3050), which was identical to this bill with respect to the
civil interpreter pilot proposal. The Governor's veto message
reflected no substantive or fiscal objections to the bill, but
stated:
The historic delay in passing the 2008-2009 State Budget
has forced me to prioritize the bills sent to my desk at
the end of the year's legislative session. Given the
delay, I am only signing bills that are the highest
priority for California. This bill does not meet that
standard and I cannot sign it at this time
Despite The Demographic Need And Various Legislative Efforts,
Access To A Court Interpreter In California Is Largely Limited
to Criminal Matters. The U.S. Constitution entitles criminal
defendants with limited English proficiency to an interpreter
supplied by the court. The California Constitution likewise
explicitly provides that a "person unable to understand English
who is charged with a crime has a right to an interpreter
throughout the proceedings." (Cal. Const. art. I, 14.) While
there is no corresponding constitutional right in ordinary civil
proceedings, observers have noted that there may be state and
federal statutory obligations to provide a court-appointed
interpreter where the failure to do so would deny full and equal
access to the courts on the basis of language, which has long
been recognized as a characteristic of prohibited discrimination
on the basis of national origin.
In California, it appears that court-appointed interpreters are
almost exclusively limited to criminal proceedings - and even in
those cases it is said that there are significant difficulties
ensuring the availability of interpreters in the needed language
in a timely manner. (California Commission on Access to
Justice, Language Barriers to Justice in California) (September
2005).)
Although the Judicial Council apparently does not collect hard
data on language need or interpreter use in civil matters, it
appears that the courts have begun to provide interpreters in
some civil matters by making use of the pool of court employees
and independent contractors normally assigned to criminal
matters. As discussed in more detail below, this development
has likely been compelled by the practical reality of a large
and growing number of Limited English Speaking (LEP) residents
in the state over the last 20 years.
AB 663
PageF
The California Commission on Access to Justice Has Repeatedly
Called for Greater Efforts to Address Language Access Needs In
the Courts. In its groundbreaking 2002 report, entitled The
Path to Equal Justice, the Access Commission found that people
with limited English proficiency are among those most likely to
need assistance in accessing the courts, and least likely to
receive it. The report concluded that language services are
essential to equal access to justice. "Litigants with limited
English proficiency must receive assistance in order to fully
understand and participate in the judicial process. In many
areas of the state, a third or more of all litigants may lack
fluency in English. Particularly when they are
self-represented, they cannot hope for justice without the
assistance of trained interpreters and other services that can
help them understand and present their cases, and courts must
have the ability to provide adequate certified interpreters."
Although the courts apparently do not collect reliable data, the
Access Commission has reported that millions of Californians are
involved with legal proceedings every year. (See Language
Barriers to Justice in California (2005). According to the
Access Commission, limited court resources, a lack of qualified
interpreters, and the absence of funding for payment of
interpreters for low-income litigants make it impossible to
provide interpreters for the vast majority of civil proceedings.
Therefore, courts rarely appoint interpreters in civil cases
unless parties pay for them.
According to the Judicial Council, the Los Angeles Superior
Court has a policy of making court interpreters available to
parties for an hourly fee, which is potentially subject to
discretionary waiver for indigent parties. This practice of
charging parties for court-provided interpreters is
controversial among legal services and civil rights advocates
because it is seen as conditioning equal access to court
services on the payment of an additional fee based on a
protected national origin characteristic. As discussed below,
the United States Department of Justice has also expressed
concerns about the practice of charging parties a fee for court
interpreters.
The Access Commission also reported that, as a result of an
increased need for interpreter services, courts often use
uncertified or unregistered interpreters - even in regions with
AB 663
PageG
large populations of people who speak those languages. In many
instances, in civil and family law matters, the court settles
for using a relative or friend of the party with limited English
proficiency if a certified or registered interpreter cannot be
found. According to the report, in an informal survey of legal
service providers several reported use of children for
interpretation. Others reported problems with untrained
interpreters adding their own ideas or insights to what is said
by the court or the parties involved, or prompting parties to
say something that the interpreter thinks the court wants to
hear. With an unqualified interpreter involved, the Access
Commission found, it is more likely than not that significant
portions of the testimony will be distorted by the interpreter
omitting information present in the original testimony, adding
information not present, or by stylistically altering the tone
and intent of the speaker. Judges and juries are not given the
opportunity to "hear" the testimony as it was originally spoken,
and defendants and witnesses cannot fully comprehend the
questions asked of them. The Access Commission's 2005 report
states, "This linguistic distortion compromises the fact-finding
process. Use of unqualified persons as interpreters not only
masks the problem but also may result in genuine injustice where
- through no fault of the court, the litigants or the translator
- critical information is distorted or not imparted at all.
Fraud is also a very real possibility. Unless a judge happens
to be fluent in the non-English language, he or she has no real
way of knowing whether the proceedings are being accurately and
comprehensively interpreted." Without a qualified interpreter,
the Access Commission concluded "the English speaking members of
the court and the non-English speaking litigants or witnesses
virtually do not attend the same trial."
The Commission also noted that the lack of available qualified
interpreters often causes substantial delay and disruption in
court proceedings, which adds to the expense and burden of
litigation. "The manager of interpreter services for the
Superior Court of Los Angeles County estimated that more than 40
proceedings are continued every day in that county because a
certified or registered interpreter is not available, resulting
in some 10,000 delayed proceedings per year." This finding is
confirmed by complaints reported to this Committee indicating
that civil matters needing an interpreter in downtown Los
Angeles family court departments can sometimes have access to a
Spanish interpreter if the parties and counsel wait until one
becomes available, often requiring lengthy delays and
AB 663
PageH
continuances. But it is not only cases needing an interpreter
that are delayed. If an interpreter becomes available, all
other businesses in the court is reportedly put on hold while
the cases needing an interpreter are handled, causing costly
interruptions and delays and frustration in the cases that are
put aside.
The starkest consequence of linguistic barriers to the courts is
that justice is denied, the Access Commission reports. In
addition, these barriers also impact the efficiency of the
courts. Inadequate assistance for litigants with limited
English proficiency affects the court's ability to function
properly, causing delays in proceedings, inappropriate defaults,
and faulty interpretation that can ultimately subvert justice.
The inability to accommodate the language needs of litigants
also impairs trust and confidence in the judicial system.
The Access Commission issued a further report in 2007, entitled
Action Plan for Justice, reiterating that civil litigants who
are unable because of language proficiency to fully understand
and participate in the proceedings should have the right to a
qualified interpreter at all stages of the proceedings
irrespective of financial means. The Access Commission
recommended the Judicial Council should work with the Governor
and the Legislature to ensure that adequate funding is provided
to make this a reality, noting that this recommendation would
likely be incremental as funding for all civil interpreter needs
will become available only over time. "However, it is critical
that access to court certified interpreters be recognized as a
universal right in our judicial system." As an immediate step
toward this goal at a time when resources are limited, the
Commission recommended establishment of pilot projects for court
interpreters in civil cases involving significant legal rights
to allow a selected sample of courts to assess the need for
interpreters in civil cases, examine ways of maximizing the use
of existing interpreters through calendar management, and
determine what it would take in terms of both funding and
interpreters to provide adequate interpretation services. This
approach will help ensure that funds are expended and available
interpreters used in the most efficient and effective manner to
achieve the goal of providing qualified interpreters to meet the
need.
The Access Commission concluded:
AB 663
PageI
Barriers to access to justice associated with language
difficulties pose a significant threat to the judicial
system. The Judicial Council's 2005 Trust and Confidence
Survey indicates that a substantial majority of
Californians (regardless of English proficiency) believe
that non-English speakers who are able to access the courts
fare less well than English speakers. Over 65 percent of
respondents believe that non-English speaking litigants
receive worse results in court proceedings than other
litigants. A significant erosion of public trust and
confidence in the fairness of the courts, either by
litigants with limited-English proficiency or by the public
as a whole, threatens the future legitimacy of the legal
system. Anecdotal information and surveys, including the
recent Judicial Council Trust and Confidence Survey, show
that many limited-English speakers simply forego their
rights rather than attempt to overcome this challenge. As
a result, in civil judicial proceedings that most affect
peoples' basic needs, they are unable to effectively
present their cases or protect their legal rights. Given
that courts are often the only source of protection against
such abuses as consumer fraud, employment and housing
discrimination and others, state and federal laws intended
for the protection of vulnerable groups against these
abuses can be rendered meaningless for limited-English
speakers.
Governmental Response to Access Commission Recommendations
Regarding Civil Interpreters. In January 2006, shortly after
the Access Commission's September 2005 language access report,
Governor Schwarzenegger issued his proposed state budget for FY
06-07 with the following comment on court interpreters:
For non-English speaking defendants and witnesses in
criminal cases, existing law provides for interpreters. No
such requirement exists for non-English speaking civil
litigants. These litigants are generally unable to use
professional interpreters unless they can pay for the costs
of the interpreter services. The issues at stake in child
custody, child support, and other civil cases can be
equally critical, and involve the well-being and safety of
parents and children. Therefore, it is essential to
provide interpreters for civil cases, including family law
and domestic violence cases. This will enable litigants to
have meaningful access to the courts. Using existing
AB 663
PageJ
resources, the Judicial Council will identify efficiencies
and best practices, and will, to the extent possible,
expand the use of interpreters in civil cases. (Governor's
Budget Summary, Judicial Branch, available at
http://www.dof.ca.gov/budget/historical/2006-07/documents/Fu
llBudgetSummary.pdf.)
It is not known what steps have been taken by the Judicial
Council to implement the Governor's admonition. However,
despite the Governor's suggestion that civil interpreter needs
be addressed using existing resources, the Judicial Council has
made clear to the Legislature that it believes additional
resources are needed to expand the availability of interpreters
in civil cases.
The Legislature has made serious efforts to respond to the
Judicial Council's request for new resources. Building on the
statement in the Governor's proposed 2006-2007 budget
acknowledging the importance of providing professional
interpreters in civil cases, the Assembly proposed and, with the
concurrence of the Senate, the Legislature provided $10 million
in the budget to fund civil interpreters. However, the Governor
deleted this funding from the Budget Act with the following
line-item veto message:
Item 0250-101-0932- For local assistance, Judicial Branch.
I reduce this item from $2,802,900,000 to $2,792,000 by
reducing:
(4) 45.45 Court Interpreters from $96,126,000 to
$86,126,000.
I am deleting the $10,000,000 legislative augmentation to
provide interpreters in civil cases. I believe it is
essential to provide non-English speaking litigants with
interpreters in order to provide meaningful access to our
justice system, and as such, I expect that the Judicial
Council will identify efficiencies and best practices, and
will, to the extent possible, expand the use of
interpreters in civil cases using existing resources. This
is consistent with the agreement I have made with the Chief
Justice regarding funding for the Courts, which provides a
stable funding level for the Judicial Branch and allows the
Judicial Council to prioritize programs within that annual
augmentation, as is appropriate for an independent branch
AB 663
PageK
of government. (See
http://www.dof.ca.gov/budget/historical/2006-07/documents/En
actedBudgetSummary2006-07.pdf.)
Following the Governor's action, the Legislature attempted to
establish a prospective mechanism for the provision of
court-paid certified interpreters in civil proceedings,
conditioned on the availability of future funds, by adopting AB
2302 (Judiciary). Although this bill enjoyed bipartisan
support, it was also vetoed by the Governor, as described above.
The author attempted once again to make progress on this issue
by introducing AB 3050 in 2008.
That measure was the subject of a letter of support to the
Governor from California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M.
George, stating: "As publicly elected constitutional officers,
it is our duty to continuously evaluate and appropriately adjust
state institutions to meet the changing needs of California's
dynamic population. Each day, thousands of California residents
rely on our courts to handle their most sensitive and valuable
personal and professional disputes and they expect them to be
resolved in a fair and equitable manner. It is fundamental to
California's judicial system that litigants are able to
meaningfully participate in the legal resolution of civil
grievances regardless of their primary language."
Federal And State Civil Rights Statutes May Require Interpreters
Or Other Steps To Provide Language Services In Order To Ensure
Equal Access To Court Operations By Language Minorities. Legal
services and civil rights advocates maintain that court programs
and operations are subject to state and federal statutes
mandating equal access and the provision of bilingual services
for persons who need assistance with English.
The Access Commission's 2005 report notes:
Federal and state laws guarantee equal access by people of
limited English proficiency to a wide range of public and
private health and social service programs and activities.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000(d)
et seq., and its implementing regulations prohibit
recipients of specified federal financial assistance from
engaging in policies, practices or procedures that have the
effect of excluding or limiting participation by persons of
AB 663
PageL
limited English proficiency in their programs and
activities. These and other federal statutes protect
access by those with limited English proficiency to
education, health care, social services and voting.
Similar protection for access to public services in
California is provided by the Dymally-Alatorre Bilingual
Services Act, which contains a bold articulation of state
policy in favor of equal access.
The Access Commission also observed, "The state's Standards of
Judicial Administration offer instruction to judges for
determining whether an interpreter is needed. Under Section 18
[now Standard 2.10], an interpreter is required if, after an
examination of a party or a witness, 'the court concludes (1)
the party cannot understand and speak English well enough to
participate fully in the proceedings and to assist counsel, or
(2) the witness cannot speak English so as to be understood
directly by counsel, court and jury.' The court is directed to
examine the party or witness 'on the record to determine whether
an interpreter is needed if (1) a party or counsel requests such
examination or (2) it appears to the court that the person may
not understand or speak English well enough to participate fully
in the proceeding.'" This standard also provides, "After the
examination, the court should state its conclusion on the
record. The file in the case should be clearly marked and data
entered electronically when appropriate by court personnel to
ensure that an interpreter will be present when needed in any
subsequent proceeding." However, in light of the Judicial
Council's statement to the Committee that it has no data
regarding interpreter need, it is not clear whether such
electronic records are kept or collected.
The Access Commission noted that the standards of judicial
administration do not specifically provide for payment of
interpreters or the source of such payment, but commented: "An
argument also could be made that standards of judicial
administration, interpreted in light of the Dymally-Alatorre
Bilingual Services Act and other state statutes, require courts
to appoint interpreters in all proceedings involving persons
with limited English proficiency."
Federal and state civil rights laws may also apply to the
provision of court interpreters. The Access Commission noted
that Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides
no person shall "on the ground of race, color, or national
AB 663
PageM
origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program
or activity receiving federal financial assistance." (42 U.S.C.
2000(d).) Title VI authorizes and directs specified federal
agencies "to effectuate the provisions ? by issuing rules,
regulations, or orders of general applicability." In Lau v.
Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974), the Supreme Court interpreted
regulations promulgated by the former Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare to hold that Title VI prohibits conduct
that has a disproportionate effect on persons of limited English
proficiency because such conduct constitutes national-origin
discrimination. Lau required a San Francisco school district
that had a significant number of non-English speaking students
to take reasonable steps to provide them with a meaningful
opportunity to participate in federally funded educational
programs.
In August 2000, pursuant to Executive Order 13166, the United
States Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a general guidance
document setting forth principles for agencies to apply in
developing guidance documents for funding recipients pursuant to
the Executive Order. Based on these principles, several federal
agencies have established policy guidelines imposing
responsibility on state recipients of federal funds to ensure
that persons of limited English proficiency have meaningful
access to services and benefits, including provision of language
assistance at no charge.
The Access Commission opined, "It is an open question whether,
as recipients of federal funding from the Department of Health
and Human Services (in areas such as collection of child
support) and other federal agencies and programs, state courts
are bound by the above guidelines and must provide equivalent
access to linguistic minorities without charge." The Access
Commission noted that "The issue is of considerable significance
given the determination by DOJ and federal agencies that, in
most cases, receipt of federal funds for a particular program or
activity subjects all the recipient's operations to Title VI
compliance."
More recently, the Administrative Office of the Courts issued a
"Limited English Proficiency Plan," (September 2008) which
appears to acknowledge application of federal obligations under
Title VI and Exec. Order 13166 in reciting that the plan was
developed in compliance with these federal requirements.
AB 663
PageN
Unfortunately this document pertains only to the central
administrative offices of the Judicial Council, not the trial
courts, and therefore does not address the provision of court
interpreters.
A February 21, 2008 letter from the Civil Rights Division of the
U.S. Department of Justice to the National Center for State
Courts states that Title VI and E.O. 13166 apply to state courts
receiving direct or indirect federal financial assistance. This
letter cites DOJ guidance stating, "At a minimum, every effort
should be taken to ensure competent interpretation for LEP
individuals during all hearings, trials, and motions during
which the LEP individual must and/or may be present. (67 FR
41455, 41471.)" This letter also addresses the question of
charging a fee for court interpreters, stating that "a
disturbing number of courts and court systems [have been]
engaging in a practice of charging LEP parties for
interpretation costs - a practice which implicates national
origin concerns."
It may also be relevant that the U.S. Department of Justice
recently announced settlement of a civil rights complaint
against the judicial branch of the State of Maine, requiring
that court interpreters be provided. According to a news
release issued by the U.S. DOJ, "The agreement resolves a
Justice Department investigation of a complaint alleging that
the Maine judicial branch, which receives federal funding, was
not in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
and the nondiscrimination provisions of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. These two acts together
prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national
origin, sex or religion by recipients of federal assistance. A
key aspect of Maine's model language assistance plan is the
administrative order issued in October 2006, stating that all
LEP individuals shall have access to language assistance during
all civil as well as criminal proceedings." (Available at
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2008/September/08-crt-867.html.)
The administrative order issued by the Maine Supreme Judicial
Court states: "Maine's state courts will provide all LEP
individuals who are parties or witnesses in any type of court
case, or parents of minors involved in juvenile actions, with an
interpreter in all court proceedings related to that case, at
the State's expense. 'All court proceedings' includes case
management conferences, CADRES and judicially-assisted
mediations, motion hearings, arraignments, commitment hearings,
AB 663
PageO
competency hearings, jury selection, trials, sentencing,
appellate arguments, and any other court events or proceedings
authorized by the presiding judge or justice." (Available at
www.courts.state.me.us/court_info/opinions/adminorders/%20JB_06_3
%20LEP.htm
A state statute similar to Title VI may likewise be applicable.
Government Code section 11135 provides: "No person in the State
of California shall, on the basis
of race, national origin, ethnic group identification ? be
unlawfully denied full and equal access to the benefits of, or
be unlawfully subjected to discrimination under, any program or
activity that is conducted, operated, or administered by the
state or by any state agency, is funded directly by the state,
or receives any financial assistance from the state." This
obligation is enforceable by a private right of action for
equitable relief pursuant to Government Code section 11139.
Legal Aid Fraud. Lastly, the bill outlaws legal aid fraud. As
the Commission's report explains:
When people are sued or need legal advice, they are
commonly directed to "legal aid" agencies in court forms
and by court staff, by information and referral lines, or
by word of mouth. Indigent people sued for eviction,
divorce, debt collection, or car repossessions, believe
that by contacting "legal aid" they are reaching out to the
proper agency that will assist them for no or low fees.
Unfortunately, because the
term "legal aid" is not regulated, anyone can use it as
part of their business name.
The result is that unscrupulous people create companies
named "legal aid" and take advantage of the widely held
belief that "legal aid" is the place that low-income people
in legal need should turn to. Other vulnerable groups such
as immigrants are similarly exploited, both because they
are often unfamiliar with the American legal system and
because they are unlikely to approach law enforcement
agencies to report abuses.
These companies defraud our state's most vulnerable
populations at a very
precarious time in their lives. They take large deposits
and fail to file responsive pleadings essential to protect
critical rights; they overcharge for services; and they
AB 663
PageP
charge for services that could be obtained at no cost. The
harm caused by these fraudulent practices has consequences
far beyond the harm they directly inflict on the consumers
who employ their services. By presenting themselves as
"legal aid" and then not fulfilling their promise and
overcharging clients, these businesses cause the public to
distrust legal aid agencies generally, not realizing that
these for-profit businesses are not true legal aid
organizations. This distrust can have far reaching effects
if the poor do not seek the assistance of legal aid under
the belief that it will cost them money they do not have
and will not adequately assist them with their legal
problems. Currently, there is no way to control directory
assistance referrals to these "legal aid" listings, and
even successful lawsuits against these businesses only
result in temporary abatement, as they simply change the
name and location of their operations to continue these
fraudulent practices.
Author's Technical Amendments . To address drafting issues at
the request of the Judicial Council, the author properly
proposes the following technical amendments:
SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares that there continues
to be a shortage in the availability of certified and registered
interpreters in particular languages and various geographic
regions of California. This shortage of qualified interpreters
the state courts that impacts the state's ability to provide
meaningful access to justice for all court users. It is the
intent of the Legislature that every effort be made to recruit
and retain qualified interpreters to work in the state courts,
and that the Judicial Council make further efforts to improve
and expand court interpreter services and address the shortage
of qualified court interpreters.
On page 10, line 22:
2) The initial pilot courts shall participate in the pilot
project until June 30, 2014. The Judicial Council, in
consultation with pilot courts, shall consider whether a pilot
court shall continue participating in the project and whether to
select another court or additional courts to join the project.
Courts selected to join the project shall participate for three
years or another duration determined by the Judicial Council, in
AB 663
PageQ
consultation with the pilot courts. In the selection of the
pilot courts, the Judicial Council shall assess the court's
capacity for success.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Judicial Council of California (sponsor)
AIDS Legal Referral Panel
American Civil Liberties Union
Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality
Bet Tzedek Legal Services
California Commission on the Status of Women
California Communities United Institute
California Federation of Interpreters
California Immigrant Policy Center
California National Organization for Women
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF)
Harriett Buhai Center
Inland Counties Legal Services
Inner City Law Center
Legal Aid Society of Orange County
Legal Aid Society of San Diego
Legal Services of Northern California
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Los Angeles Center for Law and Justice
Neighborhood Legal Service of Los Angeles County
Public Advocates
Public Counsel
Public Interest Clearinghouse
State Bar of California
Watsonville Law Center
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334