BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2684|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2684
Author: Assembly Judiciary Committee
Amended: 5/8/12 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-0, 7/3/12
AYES: Evans, Harman, Blakeslee, Corbett, Leno
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 59-14, 5/10/12 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Civil actions: interpreter costs: indigent
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill provides that court interpreter fees
may also be recovered when the court has authorized a court
interpreter for an indigent person who is represented by
pro bono attorney, as defined. This bill also provides
that the certification of pro bono legal services for a
legal services contract with the state exceeding $50,000
could be fulfilled by a certification to make either a good
faith effort to provide the specified minimum number of
hours of pro bono legal services or an equivalent amount of
financial contributions to qualified legal services and
support centers, as defined.
ANALYSIS : Existing law defines "indigent person" as a
person whose income is: (1) 125% or less of the current
poverty threshold as specified; or (2) who is eligible for
Supplemental Security Income or free services under the
CONTINUED
AB 2684
Page
2
Older Americans Act or Developmentally Disabled Assistance
Act. (Business and Professions Code (BPC) Section 6213(d))
Existing law provides that except as otherwise provided by
statute, a prevailing party, as defined, is entitled as a
matter of right to recover costs in any action or
proceeding. (Code of Civil Procedure Section (CCP)
1032(a)(5))
Existing law enumerates the items allowable as costs under
CCP Section 1032, including, among other things:
filing, motion, and jury fees;
court reporter fees as established by statute;
court interpreter fees for a qualified court
interpreter authorized by the court for an indigent
person represented by a qualified legal service project,
as specified; and
any other item that is required to be awarded to the
prevailing party pursuant to statute as an incident to
prevailing in the action at trial or on appeal. (CCP
Section 1033.5(a))
Existing law defines a pro bono attorney as any attorney,
law firm, or legal corporation, licensed to practice law in
this state, that undertakes, without charge to the party,
the representation of an indigent person, referred by a
qualified legal services project, qualified support center,
or other qualified project, in a case not considered to be
fee generating, as defined. (BPC Section 8030.4(d))
This bill adds to the existing authorization for recovery
of court interpreter fees by prevailing parties under
Section 1033.5 of the CCP above, where the court has
authorized a qualified court interpreter for an indigent
person who is represented by a pro bono attorney, as
defined.
Existing law requires that any contract with the state for
legal services that exceeds $50,000 include a certification
AB 2684
Page
3
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, as defined, during each year of the contract
equal to the lesser of either: (1) 30 multiplied by the
number of full-time attorneys in the firm's offices in the
state, with the number of hours prorated on an actual day
basis for any contract period of less than a full year, or
(2) 10% of its contract with the state, as specified. (BPC
Section 6072(a))
Existing law 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, and that
every lawyer authorized and privileged to practice law in
California is expected to make a contribution. Existing
law provides that in some circumstances, it may not be
feasible for a lawyer to directly provide pro bono services
and, in those circumstances, a lawyer may instead fulfill
his/her individual pro bono ethical commitment, in part, by
providing financial support to organizations providing free
legal services to persons of limited means. Existing law
specifies certain factors that the lawyer should consider
in deciding to provide financial support. (BPC Section
6073)
This bill specifies in Section 6072 of the BPC that the
contracting firm must agree to make a good faith effort to
provide, during the duration of the contract, a minimum
number of hours of pro bono legal services, or an
equivalent amount of financial contributions to qualified
legal service projects and support centers, as defined,
during each year of the contract equal to the lesser of two
specified formulas.
This bill adds a reference to financial contributions
wherever reference is made to providing pro bono legal
services.
Background
The CCP permits certain costs to be recovered by a
prevailing party, as specified. Until last year, there was
AB 2684
Page
4
no provision providing for recovery of costs for court
interpreters provided to non-English speakers in civil
cases. AB 1403 (Assembly Judiciary Committee), Chapter 409,
Statutes of 2011, among other things, provided a limited
remedy by providing for recovery of costs for qualified
court interpreters authorized by the court for indigent
non-English speakers who are represented by a qualified
legal services project, as specified under the BPC.
This bill, a follow-up to AB 1403, adds that court
interpreter fees can be recovered by a prevailing party for
a qualified court interpreter authorized by the court for
an indigent non-English speaker who is represented by a pro
bono attorney, as defined.
In addition, the BPC requires that any contract with the
state for legal services that exceeds $50,000 include a
certification by the contracting law firm that it agrees to
make a good faith effort to provide a minimum number of
hours of pro bono legal services, as defined, during each
year of the contract. Separately, the BPC permits a lawyer
to fulfill his/her pro bono goals in part by providing
financial support to organizations providing free legal
services to persons of limited means equal to, at minimum,
the approximate value of the hours of pro bono legal
service that he/she would otherwise have provided.
This bill also recognizes that financial contributions to
legal aid organizations can help to meet a state
contractor's pro bono goals.
Prior legislation . AB 1403 (Assembly Judiciary Committee),
Chapter 409, Statutes of 2011, passed the Senate Floor
(39-0) on 9/8/11.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/6/12)
Legal Aid Association of California
OneJustice
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author:
AB 2684
Page
5
The Assembly Judiciary Committee has held many hearings
on the legal aid funding crisis precipitated by the
economic recession as well as the lack of civil court
interpreters - a problem made worse by recent and
ongoing budget cuts.
This bill follows upon last year's AB 1403, to
facilitate the provision of court interpreters when they
are determined to be necessary for indigent parties in
civil matters. AB 1403 allowed indigent parties to
recover the cost of court interpreters when they are the
prevailing party and are represented without charge by a
qualified nonprofit legal services organization. This
bill would simply allow for the same cost recovery when
the matter is handled by a pro bono attorney affiliated
with a qualified legal services organization. Only
cases that are not considered to be fee generating would
be covered. Doing so would also help to expand access
to interpreter services at a time when court budget cuts
are a significant obstacle to court-provided
interpreters. Despite budget limitations, our courts
must increasingly serve a growing number of parties who
need assistance with English, a time-consuming process
that frequently causes significant delays in court
proceedings for all court users. Making professional
interpreters more widely available will assist the court
in handling matters expeditiously while limiting the
need to rely on court interpreters and other court
personnel.
This bill �also] promotes legal pro bono support by
counting the financial contributions to nonprofit legal
aid groups made by lawyers and law firms who are state
contractors. Under existing law, contracts for legal
services of more than $50,000 must include a
certification that the contracting firm will make a good
faith effort to provide direct pro bono services during
the period of the contract. (Bus. & Prof. Code section
6072.) A separate provision of existing law recognizes
that lawyers can help to meet their pro bono goals by
making financial contributions to legal aid
organizations in addition to or in lieu of providing
direct pro bono services. (Bus. & Prof. Code section
AB 2684
Page
6
6073.) This bill more explicitly links these provisions
by recognizing that financial contributions to legal aid
organizations can help to meet a state contractor's pro
bono goals.
Proponents of this bill argue that "�m]any Californians,
including victims of domestic violence and others in civil
court proceedings, are not proficient in English and need
language interpreters to obtain meaningful access to the
court system in civil matters. AB 2684 will promote access
to justice, efficient court administration, and greater
public trust and confidence in the legal system by adding
court interpreter fees for a qualified court interpreter
authorized by the court for an indigent person represented
by a pro bono attorney to the allowable costs under
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033.5(a)."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 59-14, 5/10/12
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall,
Bill Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos,
Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, Davis, Dickinson, Eng, Feuer,
Fong, Fuentes, Galgiani, Gatto, Gordon, Hagman,
Halderman, Hall, Hayashi, Roger Hern�ndez, Hill, Huber,
Hueso, Huffman, Lara, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza,
Miller, Mitchell, Monning, Nestande, Nielsen, Pan, Perea,
Portantino, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Swanson, Torres,
Wagner, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. P�rez
NOES: Conway, Donnelly, Beth Gaines, Garrick, Gorell,
Grove, Jones, Knight, Logue, Mansoor, Morrell, Norby,
Silva, Valadao
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cook, Fletcher, Furutani, Harkey,
Jeffries, Olsen, V. Manuel P�rez
RJG:k 7/6/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
AB 2684
Page
7