 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Attroney Discipline System12/3/1998
On October 14, 1998, this court issued an order soliciting public comment in response to a letter submitted to the court by Governor Pete Wilson and a "Request for a Special Regulatory Assessment" submitted by the State Bar of California.
In his letter, the Governor acknowledged that a problem with public protection had arisen because the State Bar's disciplinary system no longer was operating effectively, observed that " learly, the Court has inherent power over the discipline of attorneys," and requested that this court assume responsibility over the attorney discipline system pending a legislative solution. At the same time, however, the Governor asserted that this court's imposition of additional fees on members of the State Bar would invade the legislative prerogative, and argued that " he Court could direct that at least a portion of the existing Bar membership fees be used to fund a discipline system that ferrets out the most egregious offenders."
In its request, the State Bar asked that the court issue an order requiring active members of the State Bar to pay a fee of $171.44 in addition to $77 already authorized by existing statutes, for the purpose of funding the bar's disciplinary activities. The State Bar asserted that the court had the power to assess this fee under its inherent authority to regulate the admission and discipline of attorneys practicing in the state.
Citing the circumstance that "the legislative session has adjourned without the enactment of a measure to provide for the usual funding of the attorney disciplinary process in California and that there may be a substantial risk to the public resulting from the absence of an adequately functioning attorney disciplinary system," the court set a hearing on the requests submitted by the Governor and the State Bar for November 9, 1998, at its courtroom in Sacramento. In addition, the court solicited comments and briefs presenting legal analysis and supporting points and authorities on three specific questions, and invited interested individuals and organizations to submit requests to address the court. More than 50 written submissions were filed with the court, which granted the requests of 15 individuals to make an oral presentation at the hearing.
For the reasons explained below, we conclude that this court has authority to impose a regulatory fee upon attorneys for the purpose of supporting an attorney discipline system, and that it is incumbent upon this court to do so at this time, because the lack of a functioning attorney disciplinary system places at grave risk the public, the integrity of the legal profession, and the interests of the courts. The Legislature adjourned in September 1998 without authorizing an annual State Bar membership fee for either 1998 or 1999, leaving the State Bar with only a skeletal discipline system incapable of providing adequate public protection. The backlog of complaints is mounting, and the adverse effects of a nonfunctioning attorney disciplinary system are becoming more and more evident. Although the newly elected Legislature will be convening in December 1998 for organizational purposes, and Governor-elect Gray Davis will assume office early in January 1999, there are no assurances that a legislative solution to the impasse in Sacramento will be found in the near future, or, even if found, will become effective before January 1, 2000.
Furthermore, we conclude that this court has the authority to provide that the funds generated by its imposition of a regulatory fee on attorneys be used, under the supervision of a special master appointed by this court, to support the existing State Bar attorney discipline system. Such an approach represents
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|