State Bar Board Begins Transition Process in Earnest

The State Bar of California has begun the work of transitioning the Board-of-Trustees-to-be (né Board of Governors) from the current 23-member, mostly-elected configuration to the new, 19-member, mostly-appointed configuration that will take effect under the recently-enacted SB 163 (see earlier post).

A special Governance Transition Plan Subcommittee of the Board's Planning, Program Development and Budget Committee, chaired by third-year governor Patrick Kelly of Los Angeles, has posted a memo on the Bar's web site, outlining initial options for transitioning from the old board to the new model. The key issue to be decided will be how to handle the issue of elected lawyer representatives on the board, who make up 15 members of the current board (elected from seven districts established by the Bar), but only six members on the board-to-be (elected from districts coinciding with the six districts of the California Courts of Appeal).

The subcommittee, which, in addition to Kelly, includes attorney members Alec Chang, Craig Holden, and Loren Kieve, and public members Dennis Mangers and Gwen Moore, will hold its initial meeting on Monday, October 10, from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the Bar's San Francisco office. 

The final plan has to be submitted to the Legislature by January 12, 2012.  The transition must be accomplished by October 14, 2014, following the expiration of the term of office of all current elected attorney members of the Board. 

Governor Signs Bill Re-configuring State Bar Governance

 Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., has signed into law SB 163 by Senator Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa), which makes the most profound changes in the State Bar of California since the professional disciplinary system was instituted over 20 years ago.

Senator Noreen Evans

The changes made by the bill range from the mostly symbolic (changing the name of the Bar's governing body from the "Board of Governors" to the "Board of Trustees"), to the mostly obvious (establishing in statute that the primary purpose of the State Bar is the protection of the public), to the substantive (changing the composition of the governing board from one dominated (15 of 23) by attorneys elected by their fellow attorneys to one comprised primarily of political appointees.  Once a "grandfathering" process has been completed to permit the current contingent of elected governors to serve out their terms, the resulting board will consist of 19 members, including six attorney members elected from new districts coinciding those of the courts of appeal; five attorney members appointed by the Supreme Court, which is encouraged to appoint the members from specified demographies; non-attorney public members appointed by the Governor, Senate Rules Committee, and Speaker of the Assembly (the same as current law); and two new attorney members appointed by the Senate Rules Committee and Speaker of the Assembly.

The Board of Governors has appointed a "Transition Plan Subcommittee" of its Planning, Program Development and Budget Committee, which will develop a "Proposed Plan to Transition the Bar to a Smaller Board."  The committee is chaired by third year governor Patrick Kelly of Los Angeles, and includes attorney members Alec Chang, Craig Holden, and Loren Kieve, and public members Dennis Mangers and Gwen Moore.  It will hold its initial meeting on Monday, October 10, from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the Bar's San Francisco office.

The undisputed good news about the signing of SB 163 is that the bill extends for another year the Bar's authority to collect fees from the state's lawyers, thereby ensuring the continuation of the Bar's activities - and primarily its attorney discipline system - for the coming year.  The fees authorized under the bill are reduced by a $10 rebate, and all members will also be given the option of designating that $20 of their fees (as opposed to the current $10) go to support legal services programs.  In addition, the bill memorializes the Bar's agreement to transfer $2 million in each of the next two fiscal years from funds received from non-mandatory sources to the IOLTA program, again for the support of legal services.

For a detailed description of these and other provisions of SB 163, see the final Assembly Judiciary Committee analysis of the bill prepared for its September 2, 2011, hearing.

State Bar to Consider "Re-organization Separation Plan"

It appears the State Bar is preparing for a major reorganization, above and beyond that contemplated by SB 163 (Evans), this year's Fee Bill.  At its meeting scheduled for August 30, 2011, at the Bar's Los Angeles offices, the Bar's Board of Governors will consider and vote upon a "Re-Organization Separation Plan" that proposes to ease the way out for Bar employees dislocated by a "structural reorganization" of the Bar currently being developed by Executive Director Joseph Dunn.

Joseph Dunn

The details of the reorganization have not been revealed to the public (and possibly have not been finalized);the Board agenda item describing the separation plan mentions that its goal is not to reduce stuff but to "enhance performance"and change the institution's "organizational culture."  The proposed reorganization plan would help achieve this goal by providing an enhanced separation package for line and confidential (but not executive staff) employees who elect to leave the Bar. 

The proposed reorganization is separate and apart from the changes in the State Bar's governance which are anticipated to take place with the expected enactment of SB 163, which (if the bill is enacted in its current form - see earlier post) will change the Bar from an organization overseen primarily by elected attorneys.  SB 163 is currently on the Assembly Floor awaiting a final vote by that house, which would send it back to the Senate for concurrence and then to Governor Brown for signature.  There have been rumors that the bill may be returned to the Assembly Judiciary Committee for some late amendments, but so far nothing of kind has taken place.

The changes contained in the proposed reorganization and anticipated enactment of SB 163 come hard on the heels of major changes in the Bar's attorney discipline system earlier this year, beginning with the resignation of Chief Trial Counsel James Towery and the subsequent dismissal of four of the top administrators of the discipline system.  The issue of an Interim Chief Trial Counsel is also on the agenda for the Board's August 30 meeting, but to be considered in closed session as a personnel matter.

New State Bar Governance Model Appears in SB 163

Just over a week after the State Bar's "Governance in the Public Interest Task Force" issued its legislatively mandated report (including both majority and minority reports; see earlier post), Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Noreen Evans has amended her SB 163, this year's State Bar Fee Bill, to include a hybrid version of the two - with an added legislative twist.

In some respects, SB 163 now represents a clear Solomonic "splitting of the baby" between the majority and minority reports. Where the majority report sought to maintain the current 23-member board, with 12 of the 17 attorney members elected and a 17/6 ratio of attorneys to public members, and the minority report called for an all-appointed 15-member board with a 9/6 attorney/public member ratio, the SB 163 model calls for the board to be comprised of (after the terms of existing members expire, no later than 2014) 19 members (exactly midway between the two models), of which 13 will be attorneys and 6 non-attorney public members.
The 13 attorneys, in turn, will be comprised of six elected from new districts paralleling the existing Court of Appeal districts (a feature of the Majority Report); five appointed by the Supreme Court (a feature of both reports) and - the only completely new feature of the bill - two appointed by the Legislature, one each by the Speaker of the Assembly and the Senate Rules Committee. This addresses a point of legislative concern that appears to have been hanging around since the last time Jerry Brown was governor - the disparate appointing authority between the Governor (who has four public member appointments to the Board) and Legislature (which has two). Under SB 163, both the Governor and the Legislature would have the authority to appoint four board members - although the Governor's would all be non-attorney public members and the Legislature's would be split between non-attorney public members and attorneys. Presumably the Governor has been consulted with and signed off on this matter, since it was an argument over relative appointing authority long ago (back in 1976) that led then-Governor Brown to veto one of the original State Bar Fee Bills.

One thing both the majority and minority reports and SB 163 all agree on: The name of the Bar's governing body will be changed from "Board of Governors" to "Board of Trustees."

Other provisions of SB 163 would require the board to complete and implement a 5-year strategic plan, with attendant reporting requirement, and would reconstitute the Governance in the Public Interest Task Force in a way more consistent with the new composition of the board.

SB 163 is currently on the Senate Floor, awaiting the vote to send it to the Assembly for further deliberation. That vote will occur this week.