California Supreme Court Rejects State Bar Rule Changes
The California Supreme Court has made a significant decision by rejecting proposed rule changes by the State Bar of California. These rule changes had far-reaching implications for the moral character application process and the structure of the Law Office Study (LOS) and Practical Training for Law Students (PTLS) programs.
In a letter dated September 20, 2023, the court expressed its concerns about the proposed rule alterations, stating that the State Bar had not provided sufficient justifications for the revisions regarding the moral character determination process. The court emphasized the need for a more comprehensive rationale behind these proposed modifications.
One of the main concerns raised by the court was the potential ethical dilemmas arising from the suggested adjustments to the LOS and PTLS programs. The State Bar's proposal aimed to expand these programs, allowing LOS students to concurrently participate in PTLS. However, the court highlighted a significant issue, pointing out the possibility of LOS students, under the supervision of a judge, appearing before the same judge in their PTLS capacity. This could raise doubts about the court's impartiality and create the appearance of impropriety, according to Jorge E Navarrete, Clerk and Executive Officer of the Supreme Court.
The court's letter emphasized the critical importance of addressing these ethical concerns and called for further contemplation of rule amendments to provide additional safeguards for both the public and the judicial system. While recognizing the State Bar's efforts in responding to previous directives, the court indicated that further examination and adjustments were necessary to address these pressing issues.
In a separate development, the California Supreme Court approved the State Bar's petition to amend Rule 9.22 of the Rules of Court, although with some modifications. These modifications now require the State Bar to report on delinquent attorneys twice per year, a notable shift from the previous annual reporting requirement. Attorneys who have faced license suspension due to failure to pay child or family support will also be obligated to attest under perjury that they did not practice law during their suspension. Additionally, attorneys suspended under Rule 9.22 must now inform their clients, the courts, and adverse parties of their suspension.
This decision by the California Supreme Court marks a crucial moment in the ongoing evolution of legal standards and ethics within the state. It has significant implications for aspiring lawyers and the legal community as a whole.