A legacy of change, equity, and fairness
The Ad Hoc Commission on the Discipline System was established in January 2021. The commission was tasked with conducting a comprehensive review of the discipline system to assess the efficacy of existing reforms and identify additional measures needed to enhance fairness and effectiveness, with a particular focus on addressing any disparities that may exist based on race or gender.
The commission completed its work and submitted its final report to the State Bar Board of Trustees in January 2023.
See the State Bar’s progress and actions on the commission's final recommendations (last updated 7/14/2025):
| Recommendations and Related Board Action
|
Status
|
Description
|
| Reevaluate the current discipline cost model with a
focus on reducing costs. This includes, but is not limited to, restructuring
the costs structure so that attorneys are not penalized for going to trial or
review and scaling fees when charges are dismissed.
|
Completed
|
At its July 18-19 2024, meeting, the Board of Trustees
adopted a new discipline cost methodology. The new methodology is outlined
here.
|
| Seek a statutory amendment to eliminate disciplinary
sanctions.
|
Closed
|
At its January 19-20 2023,
meeting, the Board of Trustees decided that a rule change would be pursued
instead of a statutory amendment. At its
November 2024 meeting, the Board of Trustees approved proposed changes to Title 5, Division 2,
Chapter 6, Rule 5.137 of the State Bar Rules. The changes are outlined
here. The proposed rule changes have been submitted
to the Supreme Court of California for review and approval. The rule changes will become effective
on July 1, 2025, or 60 days after approved by the Supreme Court, whichever
occurs later.
|
| Adopt timelines for removal of attorney discipline
from the website attorney profile page and for expungement of attorney
discipline records.
|
Pending
|
At its November 14-15,
2024, meeting, the Board of Trustees approved new rule 9.33 of the California Rules
of Court which would enable one-time expungement of non disbarment discipline
from a licensee’s public record. The Board of Trustees put a parallel policy
that would allow for removal of certain discipline records from attorney
profile pages on hold pending a Supreme Court decision on proposed new rule 9.33.
The adopted changes to Rule 9.33 are outlined
here.
On July 7, 2025, the State Bar submitted a Rule of Court 9.33 Petition as well as Appendix of Exhibits Volume 1 and Volume 2 to the Supreme Court for review and approval.
|
| Develop a proposal that addresses the website posting of discipline history for attorneys who resign with or without charges pending and the implications of future reinstatement.
|
Pending
|
Expungement of nondisbarment discipline history for all current active and voluntarily inactive licensees and all former licensees (licensees who resigned their license to practice law in california), regardless of whether they resigned with or without charges pending, is included in proposed new rule 9.33.
On July 7, 2025, the State Bar submitted a Rule of Court 9.33 Petition as well as Appendix of Exhibits Volume 1 and Volume 2 to the Supreme Court for review and approval.
|
| Develop a timeline and procedure for removing administrative inactive enrollments from attorney profiles on the State Bar website.
|
Completed
|
At its November 14-15 2024, meeting, the Board of Trustees approved a policy regarding removal of administrative suspensions from the attorney profile . That policy directs that administrative suspensions, including administrative inactive enrollments, be removed from an attorney's public profile page on the State Bar website after certain requirements are met. On April 29, 2025, the State Bar implemented these changes.
|
| Explore the removal of criminal conviction transmittals and discipline from the profile page where the sole underlying basis for discipline was a criminal conviction that was expunged pursuant to penal code section 1203.4.
|
Pending
|
The website removal policy on nondisbarment discipline will govern website removal of discipline resulting from criminal convictions. That policy is on hold pending finalization of proposed new rule 9.33 of the California Rules of Court. If the rule is approved, a criminal conviction transmittal would be removed from the website within 6 months of a licensee providing proof of relief granted under penal code section 1203.4.
On July 7, 2025, the State Bar submitted a Rule of Court 9.33 Petition as well as Appendix of Exhibits Volume 1 and Volume 2 to the Supreme Court for review and approval.
|
| Update website removal policy to include removal of “resigned with charges pending” notation.
|
Pending
|
The website removal policy on nondisbarment discipline will govern website removal of the resigned with charges pending notation. That policy is on hold pending finalization of proposed new rule 9.33 of the California Rules of Court. If the rule is approved, the notation will be removed pursuant to the policy.
On July 7, 2025, the State Bar submitted a Rule of Court 9.33 Petition as well as Appendix of Exhibits Volume 1 and Volume 2 to the Supreme Court for review and approval.
|
| Seek a statutory amendment to extend the deadline for the transmission of criminal conviction matters in misdemeanor cases to allow for an early neutral evaluation conference.
|
Closed
|
This recommendation was not adopted by the Board of Trustees.
|
| Work with stakeholders to study possible revisions to all applicable rules to determine the feasibility of conducting a pre-transmittal meeting similar to an early neutral evaluation conference in misdemeanor conviction matters subject that would determine whether or not the facts and circumstances underlying the misdemeanor conviction involve moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline, and if appropriate, evaluate a potential disposition of the matter.
|
Completed
|
At its February 26, 2024, meeting, the Board of Trustees adopted amendments to rules 5.30 and 5.341 of the rules of the State Bar of California as outlined in the proposed amendments document. The effective date of the adopted amendments was July 1, 2024.
|
| Work with stakeholders to study and clarify all applicable rules involving referrals to the alternative discipline program (adp), specifically concerning whether or not moral turpitude has resulted in significant harm to a client(s) or the administration of justice.
|
Pending
|
At its May 22, 2025, meeting, the Board of Trustees approved for circulation rule revisions that would eliminate the bar on participation for attorneys whose misconduct involved moral turpitude, set minimum disciplinary sanctions for ADP participants in those cases, and make other changes to clarify the rules and give the court greater flexibility to control the timing of the evaluation process.
|
| Work with stakeholders to propose revisions to all applicable rules to promote the use of early neutral evaluation conferences as a mechanism for arriving at pre-filing settlements of State Bar disciplinary proceedings.
|
Completed
|
At its February 26, 2024, meeting, the Board of Trustees adopted amendments to rules 5.30 and 5.341 of the rules of the State Bar as outlined in the proposed amendments document. The effective date of the adopted amendments was July 1, 2024.
|
| Analyze and consider modifying standards 1.6 and 1.8 to permit the greater exercise of judicial discretion with regards to progressive discipline.
|
Completed
|
At its July 18-19 2024, meeting, the Board of Trustees adopted amendments to standard 1.8 of the standards for attorney sanctions for professional misconduct as outlined in attachment b . The effective date of the amendments was January 1, 2025.
|
| Implement a State Bar appointed counsel program.
|
Hold
|
On hold for lack of funding.
|
Commission’s original purpose and charter
Purpose
Over the last several years, the State Bar has implemented dozens of initiatives, policies, and procedures to improve access to and efficiency and effectiveness of the attorney discipline system and to enhance protection of the public. The Office of Chief Trial Counsel (OCTC) has taken steps to focus resources on protecting the most vulnerable victims. As the prosecuting arm of the discipline system, OCTC bears special responsibility for identifying attorney misconduct and fraud by those who hold themselves out to be attorneys and prey on those seeking justice. In addition to the State Bar’s work to improve organizational capacity and effectiveness, the Board of Trustees has taken a proactive approach to identify disproportionate discipline and has directed staff to develop, implement, and evaluate several reforms that address findings related to the disproportionate discipline imposed in particular on black male attorneys. Another key component of the attorney discipline system is the State Bar Court, the only professional court of its kind in the nation. The State Bar Court has also implemented changes to improve access, effectiveness, and efficiency.
Given these myriad efforts, the Board determined that the attorney discipline system could benefit from a comprehensive examination of its policies and procedures. This review will examine and evaluate completed efforts as well as work currently in progress. The review will build upon existing initiatives and integrate them into a coherent whole to develop additional insight into ways the discipline system could be further improved. To ensure a keen focus on the State Bar’s public protection mission, the review will evaluate fairness and equity in an ongoing effort to understand and address disparities that may exist based on race or gender.
Charter
The Ad Hoc Commission on the Discipline System will take inventory of the changes that have been proposed and implemented in the Office of Chief Trial Counsel since 2016 and evaluate their impact on public protection. The evaluation will focus on the impact of these reforms on a number of key aspects of the discipline system, including:
- Procedural justice and the experiences and perceptions of the system by complaining witnesses and respondents;
- Workload and operational efficiency of case processing;
- Case prioritization and differentiated case-flow management; and
- The efficacy of the system for preventing future attorney misconduct.
In particular, this commission will:
- Review the full catalog of reforms OCTC has implemented and identify one or more sets of processes, policies, and procedures to focus on;
- Evaluate if these processes, policies, and procedures had their intended effect; and
- Based on this evaluation, recommend additional or revised reforms.
Read more
Composition
The commission consists of 26 members appointed by the Board of Trustees. Members represent key institutional entities that focus on public protection and reflect the state’s diversity, both demographic and geographic.
Timeline
The commission held its first meeting on April 30, 2021. The group is scheduled to make a final report to the Board of Trustees on its findings and recommendations no later than June 30, 2022, with periodic status updates to be provided to the Board of Trustees.
Additional Information
Ad Hoc Commission on the Discipline System fact sheet