California State Bar

The agenda item presents a final report and recommendations resulting from the evaluation of various subentities working under the umbrella of the Bar, guided by Appendix I of the 2017 Governance in the Public Interest Task Force Report. Key subentities reviewed include the Committee of Bar Examiners, California Board of Legal Specialization, Council on Access and Fairness, Client Security Fund Commission, Lawyer Assistance Program Oversight Committee, and Committee on Mandatory Fee Arbitration. The discussion emphasizes challenges in governance related to the State Bar's extensive use of volunteers compared to other California regulatory bodies, focusing on role definition, accountability, clear lines of authority, impartial decision-making, engagement, and size optimization (suggesting a standard size of 7 or fewer volunteers). Specific recommendations for the Committee of Bar Examiners include shifting informal moral character conferences to staff, clarifying the Board's oversight role, and defining the CBE's budget authority as limited to fee recommendations. The overall goal aligns with the strategic objective of successfully transitioning to a 'new State Bar' focused on public protection and regulating the legal profession.

This initial report by the California Civility Task Force proposes four concrete actions to improve civility in California's legal profession. Key pillars include mandating one hour of MCLE for civility training with a focus on bias, providing specific civility training for judges, revising State Bar disciplinary rules to prohibit repeated incivility, and requiring all attorneys to annually reaffirm a civility pledge. The overarching aim is to foster professionalism, enhance the effectiveness of the justice system, and elevate the public's perception of lawyers.

Key discussions included receiving presentations on the Lawyer Assistance Program (LAP) and the psychometrician's input regarding the modified examination. Specific decisions were made regarding the structure of the modified California Bar Examination starting July 2017, including essay question timing and the weight given to Performance Test scores. The Committee agreed to hold a public forum on April 29, 2016, to discuss proposed amendments to rules governing law school regulation. Recognition was extended to retiring and resigned staff/members, and posthumous recognition was granted for a deceased applicant's bar accomplishments. The Committee resolved to support an amendment to AB 2099 regarding accreditation authority, received and filed Key Indicators reports, and discussed subcommittee goals for 2015-2016. Action was taken on reports concerning the July 2015 Bar Examination, financial analysis, and revisions to Indirect Cost Allocation Policies. The Committee approved proposed amendments to Admissions Rules regarding open/closed meetings, granted a waiver request for San Joaquin College of Law, adopted suggested actions for Trinity Law School, registered the American Institute of Law, adopted mandatory actions for California School of Law, and placed American Heritage University School of Law on a 12-month probation with specific conditions. Finally, proposed amendments to Informal Conference Procedures were adopted.

This Action Plan for Justice, developed by The California Commission on Access to Justice, aims to enhance the accessibility, effectiveness, and fairness of the justice system in California. It outlines a comprehensive strategy to address major barriers to access to justice, focusing on several key areas: increasing funding and resources for legal services, promoting and supporting pro bono work, improving the delivery of legal services (including for rural areas and through technology), assisting self-represented litigants, expanding language access, and enhancing services for modest-means clients. The plan is guided by core principles emphasizing meaningful access for vulnerable populations, a continuum of services, innovative delivery, stable resources, statewide accessibility, client-centered planning, and collaborative partnerships, with the ultimate goal of achieving true access to justice for all Californians.

The meeting discussed recommendations for a sandbox program, including the requirement for authorization from both the Supreme Court and the Legislature for its establishment. Key functions of the sandbox project involve collecting targeted evidence to inform decisions about legal services regulation policies, balancing data collection with potential burdens on participating entities. Funding should be provided for rigorous, independent evaluations of the sandbox's goals. The structure involves a Sandbox Regulator within the judicial branch, governed by a volunteer board appointed by the Legislature and the Supreme Court. The regulator will implement policies and procedures to minimize the risk of harm to consumers through proactive risk-based regulation.