Bar makes fee request to Supreme Court
Editors note: On Oct. 31, the State Bar submitted supplemental information to its fee request to the California Supreme Court. The filing, along with the amicus briefs filed in the case, are posted online.
The State Bar of California has submitted a request to the California Supreme Court asking
the court to grant the authority to collect fees. This submission follows a letter from the court requesting this action,
and is informed by the Supreme Court’s 1998 In re Attorney Discipline System decision.
As authorized by the Board
of Trustees, the State Bar’s request provides several options the court can
consider. The submission asks the court to rule by the end of November in order
to allow the bar to issue fee statements beginning in early December, on the
usual schedule.
“I’m confident that the
request we submitted will provide the court with the information it needs to
act on our request and look forward to its early positive response,” State Bar
President David J. Pasternak said. “In the meantime, we are in the process of
continuing important reforms to ensure the State Bar is doing the best possible
job at public protection for all Californians.”
Consistent with the board’s
resolution, the request asks for the ability to collect fees for attorney
discipline as well as pro-active public protection activities such as access to
justice initiatives. The request thus tracks the 2012 statutory language which
introduced public protection as the State Bar’s core mission, a concept which
the 2016 Governance in the Public Interest Task Force found to include both
proactive and reactive efforts to ensure attorney discipline, professional
excellence and a healthy legal system, accessible to all.
The assessment options also
include amounts that would be necessary in order to implement legislatively
mandated workforce planning reforms, as well as to expedite case processing
times in the bar’s Office of Chief Trial Counsel.
The State Bar also hopes to move forward with seeking appointment of a monitor
to ensure the effectiveness of the discipline system, a reform agreed upon by
both the legislature and the California Supreme Court. The cost of a monitor is
also identified in the Court submission.
The request to the court
comes after the legislature was unable to pass a fee bill this year. The
funding at issue in the fee bill and the request to the court is part of the
State Bar’s general fund, which is comprised in large part of mandatory member
fees. Some programs, for example admissions and sections, will not be affected
because they are outside the general fund and are separately funded. Attorneys
licensed in California are required to pay an annual fee. None of the State Bar’s
funding comes directly from taxpayers.
In a 1998 Supreme Court order, In re Attorney Discipline System, the
court granted interim authority for the State Bar to collect fees. Then-Gov.
Pete Wilson had vetoed a fee bill in 1997, and the bar went without adequate
funding in 1998, resulting in significant loss of staff and the cessation of
State Bar public protection functions. The In re Attorney Discipline System decision found that the public and the courts in California suffered tremendous
harm when the State Bar was without adequate funding and unable to carry out
its functions. The Supreme Court found that it had the duty to authorize the
State Bar to collect fees on an interim basis until the legislature acted to
pass a law.
“We need the funding to support the employees who are crucial to achieving our
public protection mission and implementing the many important reforms before
us,” Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, executive director of the State Bar of
California, said. “We will also be working closely with the legislature and the
court to continue making needed reforms a reality. Ultimately, our work is for
the benefit of Californians, and we’re seeking to do our best public protection
work on their behalf.”