Get Ready, California Lawyers, to Pay More in Annual Fees
Pending legislation would hike licensing fees next year, but not as high as the state bar wanted.
May 24, 2019 at 03:03 PM
3 minute read
Active California lawyers would pay $535 in annual licensing fees next year under reworked legislation expected to be voted on by the state Senate during the final week of May.
The fee amount, included in amendments to the annual fee bill, SB 176, hews closely to recommendations made in an April report by state Auditor Elaine Howle, who found that the state bar's original proposed bill of more than $800 was too high.
The revised bill language, if approved by the full Legislature, would charge inactive members $149 in 2020. Currently, active members of the bar pay $383 in annual fees.
“We are satisfied that the fee bill reflects a much-needed increase for the State Bar, after two decades of a static licensing fee,” Leah Wilson, the state bar's executive director, said in a prepared statement. “We hope that the Legislature proceeds with this increase while also acknowledging the rest of the state Auditor's recommendations—that a new, more stable and predictable fee-setting approach, one which allows for supported increases over reasonable time increments, is needed.”
The $535 bill for lawyers includes a $460 fee authorized by SB 176. That charge comprises a $379 base fee, an extra $40 for an account that aids victims of attorney misconduct, $22 for technology projects, $16 for bar capital improvements and $3 to beef up reserves. Add on existing statutorily mandated charges for the bar's discipline work, the victims fund and a program that helps lawyers and law students with mental health and substance abuse issues, and the total comes to $535.
SB 176 would also provide a 25% fee discount to licensees with gross annual incomes of less than $60,478. The current discount threshold is $40,000.
Separate legislation that would have made mandatory a $40 fee for legal aid programs that's currently optional for bar members was shelved by its author, Assemblyman Adam Gray, D-Merced, earlier this week.
The bar had originally sought significantly more money in the 2020 bill for construction projects and to increase its reserves, but the auditor found those requests unwarranted.
The amended bill is expected to pass easily in the Senate, where it's author, Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, chairs the Judiciary Committee.
Its fate, at least in its current form, is less certain in the Assembly. Members in that house in recent years have been more critical of the bar's operations, the lack of diversity among California bar members and historically low pass rates on bar exams.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLawsuit Asks California Supreme Court to Expand Use of Electronic Case Recording
4 minute read'We Will Sue ... Immediately': AG Bonta Says He's Ready to Spend $25M Battling Trump
4 minute readDeception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250