BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 641|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
VETO
Bill No: SB 641
Author: Corbett (D)
Amended: 5/20/09
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-0, 5/12/09
AYES: Corbett, Harman, Florez, Leno, Walters
SENATE FLOOR : 39-0, 5/26/09 (Consent)
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 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : State Bar Act
SOURCE : State Bar of California
DIGEST : This bill authorizes the State Bar of California
(State Bar) to collect active membership dues of up to $410
for the year 2010, which will continue the current active
dues amount of $410. Consistent with existing law, those
dues will fund only mandatory programs of the State Bar,
and members can deduct five dollars if they did not wish to
CONTINUED
SB 641
Page
2
support lobbying and other legislative activities. Members
can also deduct an additional five dollars if they did not
wish to fund access and elimination of bias programs.
This bill also provides that the fees paid by limited
liability partnerships and law corporations to the State
Bar shall be used for its regulatory and disciplinary
purposes. This bill increases that amount from $50,000 to
$100,000 for contracts for information technology goods
and/or services, as specified.
ANALYSIS : 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. (Business
and Professions Code Section 6000 et seq. All further
statutory references are to this Code.)
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 2009. (Section
6140.) The other $95 is pursuant to statutory
authorization to assess annually the following fees: $40
for the Client Security Fund (Section 6140.55); $25 for
disciplinary activities (Section 6140.6); $10 to fund the
Lawyer Assistance Program (Section 6140.9); $10 special
assessment to fund information technology upgrades (expires
January 1, 2011) (Section 6140.35); and $10 for the
Building Fund (expires January 1, 2014) (Section 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 for the year 2009. (Section
6141.) The other $50 is pursuant to statutory
authorization to assess annually the following fees: $10
for the Client Security Fund (Section 6140.55); $25 for
disciplinary activities (Section 6140.6); five dollars to
fund the Lawyer Assistance Program (Section 6140.9); and
$10 for the Building Fund (expires January 1, 2014)
(Section 6140.3).
CONTINUED
SB 641
Page
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.
(Section 6140.05, Keller v. State Bar of California (1990)
496 U.S. 1.)
This bill authorizes the State Bar to collect active
membership dues of up to $410 for the year 2010.
The bill provides that the State Bar shall have a
preference for using in-house employees for information
technology (IT) project, whenever possible. Nothing in
this 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.
The bill requires the State Bar to report to the Senate
Committee on Judiciary and the Assembly Committee on
Judiciary on or before April 1, 2010, and annually
thereafter, on the impact of the changes made to Section
6008.6 by Senate Bill 641 of the 2009-10 Regular Session.
In addition to a description of the impact of those
changes, the report shall include, with specificity, the
following: (1) 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 $100,000; and (2) whether the changes have improved the
efficiency of the contracting process. The report required
by this section may be included with the report described
in Section 6140.36.
The above provisions, sunsets on January 1, 2014.
CONTINUED
SB 641
Page
4
Existing law requires limited liability partnerships (LLPs)
and law corporations to register with the State Bar.
(Corporations Code Sections 16953(h), 13404.)
This bill provides that the fees paid by LLPs and law
corporations to the State Bar shall be used for its
regulatory and disciplinary purposes.
The bill 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 limited liability partnership has
complied with the security requirements described in
paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 16956 of the
Corporations Code.
Existing law 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. (Business and Professions Code Section
6008.6.)
This bill increases the above amount from $50,000 to
$100,000 only for contracts for IT goods and/or services.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/20/09)
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 Bar's operations, including discipline. The
bill also clarifies that the Bar can deposit fees collected
from law corporations and limited liability companies in
the 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
CONTINUED
SB 641
Page
5
services roles. This bill also increases 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.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:
"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
CONTINUED
SB 641
Page
6
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 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: 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,
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
RJG:do 1/6/10 Senate Floor Analyses
CONTINUED
SB 641
Page
7
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED