AB2784 - State Bar of California.

Amended IN Senate June 25, 2026 Amended IN Senate June 11, 2026 Amended IN Assembly April 16, 2026 Amended IN Assembly April 08, 2026 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2025–2026 REGULAR SESSION Assembly Bill No. 2784 Introduced by Committee on Judiciary (Assembly Members Kalra (Chair), Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Stefani, and Zbur) March 11, 2026 An act to amend Sections 6007, 6026.7, 6046.7, 6049, 6070, 6091.3, 6091.4, 6092.5, 6101, 6102, 6140, 6140.5, and 6141 of, to amend the heading of Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 6055) of Chapter 4 of Division 3 of, to amend and repeal Sections 6031.5 and 6140.02 of, to amend, repeal, and add Section 6141.3 of, to add Section 6008.8 to, to repeal Section 6142 of, and to repeal and add Sections 6056 and 6141.3 Section 6056 of, the Business and Professions Code, relating to attorneys. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 2784, as amended, Committee on Judiciary. State Bar of California. Existing law, the State Bar Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California, a public corporation governed by a board of trustees. Existing law requires the State Bar Court to order the involuntary inactive enrollment of a licensee whose default has been entered pursuant to the State Bar Rules of Procedure, as specified, if a notice containing certain language is duly served on the licensee. This bill would include findings and declarations by the Legislature relating to the history, governance, and responsibilities of the State Bar, and would specify that these provisions, and other provisions relating to the State Bar, are declaratory of existing law. The bill would delete the requirement that the notice contain certain language and would instead require the notice to contain specified provisions in clear, easily understandable language, in at least 12-point font, and in capital letters. The bill would preclude specified provisions of law relating to the State Bar from being construed to affect or alter the status of the State Bar, as described. Existing law subjects the State Bar and its meetings to the requirements of the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act and provides that the State Bar may hold closed session meetings for various purposes, including, among other things, matters relating to the Committee of Bar Examiners’ consideration of moral character. This bill would expand the permissible grounds for a closed session meeting to include include, among other things, the Committee of Bar Examiners’ consideration of any matter that would disclose certain confidential information relating to an individual applicant, a disciplinary matter, or an individual licensee, as specified, or upon request by an applicant. information. Existing law requires the State Bar to collect, in conjunction with collection of its annual license fees, membership fees for the California Lawyers Association (CLA) if the Board of Trustees of the State Bar makes specified determinations. This bill would, until January 1, 2030, permit the State Bar to continue to collect fees for the CLA, provided that the Board of Trustees of the State Bar makes those specified determinations. The bill would also permit the State Bar Bar, until January 1, 2030, to assist the CLA in transitioning to collect its own membership fees, provided that the CLA reimburses the State Bar for the costs of this assistance. Existing law permits, in the conduct of investigations relating to attorneys, the chief trial counsel or their designee to compel, by subpoena, the attendance of witnesses and the production of books, papers, and documents pertaining to the investigation. This bill would permit the chief trial counsel or their designee to also compel, by subpoena, the attorney who is the subject of the investigation. Existing law requires the State Bar to assist the Sections of the State Bar, as specified, to incorporate as a private, nonprofit corporation, known as the CLA, a voluntary association that is not part of the State Bar. Existing law authorizes the State Bar to assist the CLA in gaining appointment to the American Bar Association House of Delegates. Existing law requires the State Bar and the CLA to enter into a memorandum of understanding regarding, among other things, providing low- and no-cost mandatory continuing legal education (MCLE), expertise and information to the State Bar, and educational programs and materials to licensees and the public. Existing law requires the CLA to provide low-cost programs and materials by which licensees may satisfy their MCLE requirements. This bill would delete those provisions. The bill would instead authorize the State Bar to assist a voluntary association of attorneys in gaining appointment to the American Bar Association Houses of Delegates, and would authorize the State Bar to enter into a memorandum of understanding with a voluntary association of attorneys to provide low- and no-cost mandatory continuing legal education, expertise, and information to the State Bar, and educational programs and materials to licensees and the public. The bill would require a voluntary association of attorneys to provide low-costs programs and materials by which licensees may satisfy their MCLE requirements. The bill would make conforming changes. Existing law authorizes the State Bar to establish an examining committee, also known as the Committee of Bar Examiners, and makes the Committee of Bar Examiners responsible for the approval, regulation, and oversight of degree-granting unaccredited law schools that award the juris doctor (J.D.) professional degree in California, including law schools California and that are not approved by the American Bar Association or the Committee of Bar Examiners. This bill would prohibit any person or entity from referring to itself as a law school, or any similar name, in any firm name, trade name, fictitious business name, or on any advertisement, letterhead, business card, or sign, unless the person or entity awards the juris doctorate professional degree in California and is either approved by the American Bar Association, accredited by the Committee of Bar Examiners, or registered with the Committee on Bar Examiners. Existing law requires financial institutions, on or before each March 1, to electronically provide to the State Bar certain information for every client trust account actually known to the financial institution associated with an attorney’s State Bar license number. This bill would expand those requirements to also include every interest on lawyer’s trust account (IOLTA). Existing law requires licensees of the State Bar, limited liability partnerships, or law corporations registered with the State Bar to provide to the State Bar all requested information pursuant to a request made as part of a compliance review or investigative audit. Existing law makes that information exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act. This bill would also make those provisions applicable to a request by the State Bar made as part of a disciplinary investigation. Existing law provides for an attorney to be disbarred or suspended for committing either a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. Existing law also requires the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel to, within a specified time, transmit to the California Supreme Court the record of any conviction of an attorney involving moral turpitude. This bill would expand the grounds for disbarment or suspension to include the conviction of any felony or of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. felony. The bill would also make conforming changes, including to the responsibilities of the Office of Chief Trial Counsel to transmit evidence of the relevant convictions to the California Supreme Court. Existing law requires the California Supreme Court, upon receipt of a certified copy of a record of certain convictions, to suspend an attorney until the time of appeal has elapsed, or the judgment of conviction has been affirmed on appeal, the judgment or has otherwise become final, or the court further orders. and until the further order of the court. This bill would require the California Supreme Court, upon receipt of a certified copy of a record of certain convictions, as specified, to suspend an attorney until the conviction has become final or until the court otherwise orders. and until the further order of the court. The bill would also expand the scope of convictions under the laws of another state or territory that would constitute a felony for the purposes of these provisions. Existing law, until January 1, 2027, requires the board to charge an annual license fee of up to $400 for active licensees for 2026. Existing law, until January 1, 2027, and except as specified, requires the board to charge an annual license fee of up to $100 for inactive licensees. This bill would require the board to charge an annual license fee of up to $400 for active licensees for 2027. The bill would require the board to charge an annual license fee of up to $100 for inactive licensees for 2027. licensees. The bill would also require the State Bar to permit attorneys to file for inactive status through December 31 of the calendar year prior to becoming inactive. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2028. Existing law requires the board to administer a Client Security Fund to relieve or mitigate pecuniary losses caused by the dishonest conduct of licensees of the State Bar, among others. Existing law requires any licensee whose actions have caused the payment of funds to an applicant from the Client Security Fund to reimburse the Client Security Fund for all moneys paid out as a result of the licensee’s conduct, plus interest and costs, as specified. Existing law requires the reimbursed amount, plus applicable interest and costs, to be added to the license fee of a publicly reproved or suspended licensee. This bill would remove the limitation that those provisions are applicable only to publicly reproved or suspended licensees and would thereby require the reimbursed amount, plus applicable interest and costs, to be added to the license fee of any licensee required to reimburse the Client Security Fund. The bill would make a failure to pay the Client Security Fund as part of the license fee a basis for suspension from the practice of law and would make payment to the Client Security Fund a condition of transfer of a licensee’s status to an active status from a suspension, involuntary inactive enrollment, or voluntary inactive status. Existing law requires the CLA to adopt a dues schedule by October 1 of each year and to provide that schedule to the State Bar. Bar by October 1 of each year. Existing law specifies that membership in the CLA is voluntary and that the CLA is not part of the State Bar, however, existing law requires the State Bar to collect, in conjunction with its annual license fees, the membership fees for the CLA. This bill would repeal those provisions on January 1, 2030. Existing law requires the State Bar to provide offers of discounts and other benefits to licensees, including insurance and noninsurance affinity programs. Existing law authorizes the State Bar, if approved by the board, board and other specified entities, to transfer administration of those programs to Cal Bar Affinity, and specifies the manner of distribution of the revenue received from insurance and noninsurance affinity programs. This bill bill, commencing January 1, 2028, would instead authorize the State Bar, if approved by the board, to transfer financial administration of the programs offering discounts and other benefits to licensees to CalBar Connect, would require CalBar Connect to distribute revenue received from insurance and noninsurance affinity programs to California ChangeLawyers, and would require California ChangeLawyers to distribute a certain amount of that revenue in accordance with specified requirements. Existing law, upon the payment of the annual license fee, including any required costs and penalties, as specified, requires the board to direct the issuance of a certificate evidencing the payment to each licensee. This bill would delete those provisions relating to the issuance of a certificate evidencing the required payment. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. Digest Key Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: NO Local Program: NO Bill Text The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares the following: (a) In 1927, the Legislature created the State Bar of California through the passage of the State Bar Act, and, in 1966, the people of the State of California approved a constitutional amendment placing the State Bar within the judicial article of the State Constitution. (b) The State Bar is a state regulatory agency within the judicial branch of California government. (c) Throughout its existence, the State Bar has served as the administrative arm of the California Supreme Court in the exercise of the court’s inherent and plenary authority over the admission, regulation, and discipline of attorneys in this state. The Supreme Court has authority and control over admission, regulation, and discipline of attorneys, and the power to review and direct any step in the State Bar’s work in these areas. In carrying out its responsibilities as the administrative arm of the Supreme Court, the State Bar performs functions essential for the Supreme Court to exercise its admissions, regulation, discipline authority, such as conducting the California Bar Examination, investigating moral character, developing proposed rules of professional conduct, investigating complaints about attorney misconduct, and hearing attorney misconduct matters and issuing recommendations on discipline based on the evidentiary record. (d) The Legislature has shared authority over the regulation of the practice of law, including attorney admissions and discipline, subject to the Supreme Court’s inherent and primary authority. (e) Pursuant to Senate Bill 36 (enacted as Chapter 422 of the Statutes of 2017), effective January 1, 2018, the Legislature reformed the governance structure of the State Bar to clearly establish the State Bar as a regulatory entity of the judicial branch and to put a renewed focus on its regulatory and public protection obligations as a state regulatory agency. Changes made to the regulatory structure of the State Bar at the time included, but are not limited to: (1) Eliminating elected members of the board of trustees and establishing the Supreme Court of California, the [Text truncated for display. Full text available on Congress.gov.]