The state bar of California omitted information in its 2019 disciplinary report to the legislature, which limits the ability of lawmakers or the public to determine how effectively they are administering the discipline system, according to the office of the California State Auditor.
The disciplinary information that was omitted includes matters reported by outside organizations, number of inquiries, complaints and their disposition, disciplinary charges and formal disciplinary outcomes, former and non-attorneys engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, disposition of attorney felony allegations, and a backlog of cases within the disciplinary system, according to the report entitled The State Bar of California: It Is Not Effectively Managing Its System for Investigating and Disciplining Attorneys Who Abuse the Public Trust.
The report further states that case backlog spiked by 87% in five years.
“It’s important information,” said Margarita Fernández, chief of public affairs and quality assurance for the California State Auditor. “It goes to the legislature, which approves the fees that are set out to be a member of the bar.”
In response, the auditor’s office is recommending that future state bar discipline reports present complete and consistent information as state law requires.
“In some cases, the chief or the state bar said their interpretation of the law is different than what the law says so that was one of the reasons they gave for not including certain information or including other information,” Fernández told the Southern California Record. “There was definitely information that was missing, which means there is no good oversight over the whole approval process.”
A second recommendation is that the state bar should assess the impact of its discipline system reorganization, including how the changes affected its ability to efficiently resolve cases and fulfill its mandate to protect the public.
“The state bar agreed with the recommendation that they need to conduct the assessment to determine what they need to do and what they need to improve,” Fernández said. “We will know at the 60-day mark where they're at, what they're doing and whether they're making progress on it.”
A third recommendation is that the state bar should ensure it receives the best value for the money it spends and establish documentation, standards, and templates for contract managers to follow when selecting vendors for the administration of the bar exam.
“When you're not following the contract policies sometimes you’re not ensuring that the dollar amount is reasonable, that you truly have the best interests of the state in mind as far as resources,” Fernández said. “We found some issues with their noncompliance there.”
In one case, the bar entered a $3.8 million contract with ExamSoft without justifying value, according to media reports.
The state bar told the ABA Journal in a statement that the contract was special as a result of consolidation and a sudden requirement to acquire a virtual exam on the web that only ExamSoft was available to complete.
“Nonetheless, the auditor is correct that best practices must be followed at all times,” the reply stated.
The California State Bar has until June 29 before an update to the auditor’s office is due.
“They do need to monitor performance, they need to monitor to make sure that they're meeting their goals, that the processes they've implemented or the restructure improvements are in fact working towards their goal,” Fernández added.