Proposed amendments to the State Bar rules regarding 1) member record; 2) minimum continuing legal education; and 3) providers of continuing education services
The Office of General Counsel has reviewed all State Bar Rules to determine whether there are any material inconsistencies with the related statutes and Rules of Court. This proposal contains proposed amendments to remedy inconsistencies in State Bar Rules regarding 1) member record; 2) minimum continuing legal education; and 3) providers of continuing education services.
1. Member Record (Title 2, Division 1, Rule 2.2)
Business and Professions Code section 6002.1 states, in part:
(a) Official member records include: . . . (3) any other jurisdictions in which the member is admitted and dates of his or her admission.
(a) Official member records include: . . .
California Rules of Court, rule 9.6, states that official membership records:
must include the information specified in Business and Professions Code section 6002.1 and 6064 and other information as directed by the Supreme Court.
A member record contains public information, including the following: . . . (F) places and dates of admission in other jurisdictions before admission in California;
Section 6002.1(a)(3) provides that the official membership records include any other jurisdictions in which the member is admitted but the State Bar Rule applies only to admission in other jurisdictions before admission in California. The rule and statute should be made consistent by deleting “before admission in California” from the rule.
2. Minimum Continuing Legal Education (Title 2, Division 4, Rules 2.54(A)(3) and (A)(4))
Business and Professions Code section 6070(c) provides the following MCLE exemption for state employees:
Full-time employees of the State of California, acting within the scope of their employment, shall be exempt from the provisions of this section.
those employed full-time by the State of California as attorneys or administrative law judges on a permanent or probationary basis, regardless of their working hours, who do not otherwise practice law;
full-time employee of the United States Government, its departments, agencies, and public corporations, acting within the scope of his or her employment.
Rule 2.54(A)(4) provides the following MCLE exemption federal employees:
those employed full-time by the United States government as attorneys or administrative law judges on a permanent or probationary basis, regardless of their working hours, who do not otherwise practice law.
Rule 2.54(A)(3) is inconsistent with the statute and Rule 2.54(A)(4) is inconsistent with the rule of court for the same reason. The statute and rule of court provide an exemption for all full-time employees, but the State Bar rule restricts that exemption to those who are employed as attorneys or administrative law judges. The situation should all be clarified, simplified, and made consistent with the language of the statute and rule of court by amending Rules 2.54(A)(3) and 2.54(A)(4) to delete the statement that full-time employees be employed “as attorneys or administrative law judges.”
3. Providers of Continuing Education Services (Title 3, Division 5, Chapter 1, Rule 3.604)
The certification may be revoked only by majority vote of the board, after notice and hearing, and for good cause shown.
The State Bar may suspend or revoke a provider’s approval at any time for failure to comply with these rules or the terms of any applicable State Bar agreement.
The rule is inconsistent with the statute because:
(1) The statute refers only to revocation, while the rule gives the State Bar the power to suspend or revoke a provider’s approval. (2) The statute states that certification may be revoked only by majority vote of the board, after notice and hearing, and for good cause shown, while the rule states that the MCLE provider approval can be revoked at any time and does not provide for majority vote of the board, after notice and hearing, and for good cause shown.
(2) The statute states that certification may be revoked only by majority vote of the board, after notice and hearing, and for good cause shown, while the rule states that the MCLE provider approval can be revoked at any time and does not provide for majority vote of the board, after notice and hearing, and for good cause shown.
As proposed to be amended, the language of State Bar Rule 3.604 would follow the language of Business and Professions Code section 6070(b).
None
Admissions and Education Committee
Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2017
Proposed Amendments to State Bar Rules