Public Comment

Bar seeks opinion on 10 issues

Admissions rules

Proposed amendments to the Rules Regulating Admission to Practice Law in California recently circulating for public comment were recalled and revised to incorporate recent legislative changes to the Business & Professions Code (SB 1950, which was signed by the governor, and SB 1321, which is awaiting the governor's signature) scheduled to become effective Jan. 1, 1997. The additional proposed amendments go beyond the original proposed amendments by including language that: 1) permits law students required to take the First-Year Law Students' Examination three consecutive attempts to pass the examination within first becoming eligible and receive credit for their studies to the date they pass the examination, 2) eliminates the final late filing period for applying to take the bar examination, and 3) includes other minor editorial changes.

Source: State Bar Board Committee on Admissions & Competence and State Bar Committee of Bar Examiners

Deadline: Oct. 23, 1996

Contact: Gayle Murphy, Office of Admissions, 555 Franklin St., San Francisco 94102-4498; 415/561-8322

Attorney-client privilege

Under proposed amendments to Business & Professions Code §6202, the attorney-client privilege is waived for the purpose of the arbitration and post-arbitration proceedings, and any attorney-client communication or work product may be disclosed if it is relevant to the resolution of the fee dispute. The proposed amendment would clarify that the privilege is waived only between the parties to the arbitration, not the client and counsel representing the client in the arbitration and/or between the client and other counsel not involved in the arbitration.

Source: State Bar Board Committee on Client Relations & Assistance and State Bar Committee on Mandatory Fee Arbitration

Deadline: Oct. 23, 1996

Contact: Susie Mueller, Office of Fee Arbitration, 100 Van Ness Ave., 28th Flr., San Francisco 94102-5238; 415/241-2036

Statute of limitations

Proposed amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure §340.6 would clarify that the statute of limitations for filing an attorney malpractice action does not limit the time for filing a mandatory fee arbitration proceeding.

Source: State Bar Board Committee on Client Relations & Assistance and State Bar Committee on Mandatory Fee Arbitration

Deadline: Oct. 23, 1996

Contact: Susie Mueller, Office of Fee Arbitration, 100 Van Ness Ave., 28th Flr., San Francisco 94102-5238; 415/241-2036

Publication of opinions

The Review Department of the State Bar Court currently publishes the vast majority of its opinions in the California State Bar Court Reporter. The proposed addition of rules 1340 through 1343 of the Rules of Practice of the State Bar Court would expressly permit the review department to selectively publish or partially publish its opinions and would establish guidelines, similar to those set forth in rule 976 of the California Rules of Court, for the determination of whether an opinion qualifies for publication. The proposed rules would also establish a process for parties to request publication of an unpublished opinion or depublication of a published opinion.

Source: Executive Committee of the State Bar Court

Deadline: Nov. 29, 1996

Contact: Sabrina Johnson, Office of the State Bar Court, 100 Van Ness Ave., 28th Flr., San Francisco 94102-5238; 415/241-2019

Attorney advertising

Proposed new paragraph (E) of California Rule of Professional Conduct 1-400 (Advertising and Solicitation) would prohibit a member from sending an unsolicited communication seeking professional employment, relating to an accident or disaster, by mail or equivalent means to a person involved in such accident or disaster or a relative of that person less than 30 days after the accident or disaster. Comment is sought regarding whether attorneys' targeted mail advertising to accident and disaster victims and their relatives is a problem in California. In conjunction with the proposed rule, the board committee will consider the need for legislation to control insurance companies who contact accident and disaster victims less than 30 days after an accident or disaster.

Source: State Bar Board Committee on Admissions & Competence

Deadline: Dec. 2

Contact: Katherine McMahon, Office of Professional Competence, Planning & Development, 100 Van Ness Ave., 28th Flr., San Francisco, CA 94102-5238; 415/241-2157

CPRE will end

The State Bar intends to discontinue administration of the California Professional Responsibility Examination (CPRE), which is currently administered to disciplined attorneys, and return to the prior requirement that disciplined attorneys take and pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination. Disci-plined attorneys are also required to successfully complete State Bar ethics school. The proposed amendments to rules 321(c) and 665(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar would remove the specific reference in those rules to the CPRE and replace them with a more generic reference to "a professional responsibility examination." In addition, the proposed amendment to rule 665(a) would add a requirement for disbarred or resigned attorneys who seek reinstatement to the practice of law to successfully complete State Bar ethics school prior to applying for reinstatement.

Source: State Bar Board Committee on Discipline

Deadline: Dec. 5, 1996

Contact: Sabrina Johnson, Office of the State Bar Court, 100 Van Ness Ave., 28th Flr., San Francisco 94102-5238; 415/241-2019

Discipline assessments

Amend Business & Professions Code §§6086.10, 6092.5 and 6140.7 to: 1) require privately reproved lawyers to pay costs, 2) require disbarred or resigned lawyers to pay costs as a condition of applying for reinstatement, 3) require disciplined lawyers to reimburse the State Bar for the cost of expert witnesses, 4) authorize the State Bar to collect costs from respondents who enter voluntary agreements in lieu of disciplinary prosecution (ALDs) with the State Bar, and 5) permit the State Bar to collect disciplinary costs incurred in involuntary inactive enrollment proceedings.

Source: The Task Force on Discipline Costs

Deadline: Dec. 5, 1996

Contact: Mary Yen, deputy trial counsel, 555 Franklin St., San Francisco 94102-4498; 415/561-8258

Publicizing firm's name

Adopt a policy to 1) publish the name of the law firm or office where a disciplined attorney was affiliated at the time of the discipline violation, or 2) publish the size and type of the law firm or office where a disciplined attorney was affiliated at the time of the discipline violation.

Source: State Bar Board Committee on Discipline, Discipline Evaluation Committee/Office of the Chief Trial Counsel

Deadline: Dec. 5, 1996

Contact: Mary Yen, deputy trial counsel, 555 Franklin St., San Francisco 94102-4498; 415/561-8258

Pro bono/MCLE credit

Proposed new section 6.1.6 of MCLE rules and regulations would permit state and federal employees to provide pro bono legal services through a qualified legal services project (defined as one receiving IOLTA funds) without losing their exemption from the MCLE requirement. The sponsor of the pro bono project would be required to certify that the member received the necessary training or otherwise possessed the necessary skills to competently and ethically perform pro bono legal services under the sponsor's supervision.

Source: State Bar Board Committee on Admissions & Competence

Deadline: Dec. 5, 1996

Contact: Lorna Maynard, Office of Certification, 100 Van Ness Ave., 28th Flr., San Francisco 94102-5238; 415/241-2115 (phone), 415/241-2180 (fax), or maynard@ix.netcom.com

Mandatory fee arb

Under the Guidelines and Minimum Standards for the Operation of Mandatory Fee Arbitration Programs (§ V.1), any party who believes that a fair hearing is not possible through a local bar program may request that the matter be removed to the State Bar. Section V.1 requires the local bar to "release jurisdiction of the matter upon notification of the State Bar's acceptance." The proposed amendment would require the local bar program to stay the fee arbitration matter when a party seeks removal to the State Bar until the State Bar makes a determination whether to accept jurisdiction.

Source: State Bar Board Committee on Client Relations & Assistance and State Bar Committee on Mandatory Fee Arbitration

Deadline: Dec. 9, 1996

Contact: Susie Mueller, Office of Fee Arbitration, 100 Van Ness Ave., 28th Flr., San Francisco 94102-5238; 415/241-2036