The Kopp bill should be defeated

by JEFFREY TIDUS

Sen. Quentin Kopp’s bill to eliminate the State Bar is not in the best interests of the legal profession and its members, the public or the judiciary. SB 1371 would transfer admissions, discipline, administration of the MCLE program and the Client Security Fund from the State Bar to the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC).

It eliminates the State Bar and purports to repeal the State Bar Act, but does not provide any mechanism for the transfer of functions nor specify what happens to bar functions the AOC does not assume.

The Kopp bill contains a number of inherent problems. First, Chief Justice Ron George has consistently opposed the idea of transferring the regulation of the legal profession to an already overburdened AOC. The bill does not clearly state who will pay the added administrative costs incurred by the AOC.

Second, the bill contains inherent potential conflicts of interest. For example, the chief trial counsel, a prosecutor whose office advocates before the Supreme Court, would report directly to that court. The Supreme Court has the final word on attorney discipline matters. The appearance of impropriety in having the chief prosecutor report to the court which makes the ultimate determination on attorney discipline seems apparent.

The Kopp bill also transfers control of administration of the MCLE program to the AOC. At present, the constitutionality of the program is pending before the California Supreme Court. Again, the appearance of impropriety in having the court both administer the MCLE program and adjudicate its constitutionality is clear.

Third, the trial counsel currently reports to a bar committee whose members are both elected attorneys and non-lawyers. This system provides some degree of oversight of the discipline process. The Kopp bill eliminates that oversight.

Finally, the State Bar performs a large number of statutorily and constitutionally mandated functions. Among the functions which will disappear if the Kopp bill passes are fee arbitration, legal specialization, Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation (JNE), court reform and research projects and the Legal Services Trust Fund (IOLTA).

The bill also does not provide any replacement for the following functions: maintenance of copies of all written agreements guaranteeing payment of clients’ claims established against attorneys; enforcement of California’s child support law and obligations against bar members; registering foreign attorneys to provide legal services in California under rule 988; and administering the require-ments for professional corporations and limited liability partnerships.

The Kopp bill seeks to eliminate not only the State Bar as an entity, but also many of the valuable functions it provides. It would add a tremendous administrative burden to the courts with no guarantee of adequate funding. The appearance of conflict raised by having the bar’s chief trial counsel directly subject to the Supreme Court does not enhance the credibility of the court or the discipline process. The Kopp bill should be defeated.

Jeffrey Tidus of Los Angeles is a vice president of the State Bar board.