Existing law includes provisions that govern arbitration and conciliation proceedings for international commercial disputes. Existing law authorizes the parties in a conciliation proceeding to appear in person or be represented or assisted by any person of their choice, and provides that a person representing or assisting a party is not required to be a member of the legal profession or licensed to practice law in California.

This bill would permit an individual who is not admitted to practice law in California but who is a member in good standing of a recognized legal profession in the United States or a foreign jurisdiction and is subject to effective regulation and discipline by a duly constituted professional body or public authority to provide legal services in an international commercial arbitration or related proceeding, as specified. Additionally, the bill would subject an individual rendering legal services pursuant to this provision to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the State Bar, and it would direct the State Bar to annually report to the Supreme Court regarding the number and nature of any complaints that it has received against these attorneys and any actions it has taken in response to these complaints.

Existing law includes provisions that govern arbitration and conciliation proceedings for international commercial disputes. Existing law authorizes the parties in a conciliation proceeding to appear in person or be represented or assisted by any person of their choice, and provides that a person representing or assisting a party is not required to be a member of the legal profession or licensed to practice law in California.

This bill would permit an individual who is not admitted to practice law in California but who is a member in good standing of a recognized legal profession in the United States or a foreign jurisdiction and is subject to effective regulation and discipline by a duly constituted professional body or public authority to provide legal services in an international commercial arbitration or related proceeding, as specified. Additionally, the bill would subject an individual rendering legal services pursuant to this provision to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the State Bar, and it would direct the State Bar to annually report to the Supreme Court regarding the number and nature of any complaints that it has received against these attorneys and any actions it has taken in response to these complaints.

Existing law includes provisions that govern arbitration and conciliation proceedings for international commercial disputes. Existing law authorizes the parties in a conciliation proceeding to appear in person or be represented or assisted by any person of their choice, and provides that a person representing or assisting a party is not required to be a member of the legal profession or licensed to practice law in California.

This bill would permit an individual who is not admitted to practice law in California but who is a member in good standing of a recognized legal profession in the United States or a foreign jurisdiction and is subject to effective regulation and discipline by a duly constituted professional body or public authority to provide legal services in an international commercial arbitration or related proceeding, as specified. Additionally, the bill would subject an individual rendering legal services pursuant to this provision to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the State Bar, and it would direct the State Bar to annually report to the Supreme Court regarding the number and nature of any complaints that it has received against these attorneys and any actions it has taken in response to these complaints.

Existing law includes provisions that govern arbitration and conciliation proceedings for international commercial disputes. Existing law authorizes the parties in a conciliation proceeding to appear in person or be represented or assisted by any person of their choice, and provides that a person representing or assisting a party is not required to be a member of the legal profession or licensed to practice law in California.

This bill would permit by an individual authorized who is not admitted to practice law in California but who is a member in good standing of a recognized legal profession in the United States or a foreign jurisdiction and is subject to effective regulation and discipline by a duly constituted professional body or public authority to provide legal services in an international commercial arbitration or related proceeding, as specified. Additionally, the bill would subject an individual rendering legal services pursuant to this provision to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the State Bar, and it would direct the State Bar to annually report to the Supreme Court regarding the number and nature of any complaints that it has received against these attorneys and any actions it has taken in response to these complaints.

Existing law authorizes the issuance of bonds for the Sacramento and San Joaquin Drainage District if a majority of the votes cast at the bond election are in favor of the issuance of bonds.

This bill would make nonsubstantive changes in these provisions.

Date of Hearing: June 27, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 766

Author:(Monning) – As Amended Ver:January 11, 2018

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill explicitly allows an attorney who is licensed out of state or in a foreign jurisdiction to provide legal services in California in a commercial arbitration proceeding or a related proceeding, provided certain conditions are met.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Negligible state costs, if any.

COMMENTS:

Background and Purpose. Current law conflicts with itself regarding representation in matters related to commercial arbitration. On the one hand, statute clearly states that a party to such a proceeding may be “represented or assisted by any person of their choice” and that such a person or representative “need not be a member of the legal profession or licensed to practice law in California” (Civil Code of Procedure 1297.351). On the other hand, the California Supreme Court has denied attorney fee recovery in arbitration proceedings, in general, for legal representation provided by attorneys not licensed by the State Bar of California.

Subsequent to the court’s decision, the Legislature updated statute to ensure out-of-state attorneys could participate in domestic arbitration disputes in California. However, statutes regarding international arbitration remain unchanged. As a result, international arbitration generally does not occur in California.

In 2017, the California Supreme Court convened a working group to explore changes that might increase international commercial arbitration in California. The working group identified the state’s unclear rules about the use of out-of-state or foreign attorneys in such matters. As a remedy, the working group recommended the state adopt a modified version of the American Bar Association’s model rules for international arbitration. This bill would accomplish the remedy. The author intends this change in law to increase the use of California as a venue for international commercial arbitration.

Analysis Prepared by: Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: June 12, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Mark Stone, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 766

Author:(Monning) – As Amended Ver:January 11, 2018

PROPOSED CONSENT

SENATE VOTE: 39-0

SUBJECT: International commercial arbitration: representation

KEY ISSUE: SHOULD OUT-OF-STATE ATTORNEYS AND ATTORNEYS FROM FOREIGN JURISDICTIONS THAT MEET CERTAIN CONDITIONS BE PERMITTED TO PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES IN AN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION OR a PROCEEDING related to such arbitration proceedings IN CALIFORNIA?

SYNOPSIS

This non-controversial measure seeks to clarify the statutes regarding legal representation in international commercial arbitration. International commercial arbitration is a form of arbitration that, typically, involves two large multinational corporations in business-related disputes. Existing law provides that a party in an international commercial arbitration may be represented by any person of that party’s choosing whether or not that person is licensed by the State Bar of California. However, existing case law has denied an attorney the ability to recover attorney’s fees for cases in which a party was represented by out-of-state counsel in arbitration, unless the underlying statute expressly permits such representation. Accordingly, existing case law essentially forces parties to arbitrate disputes with only attorneys licensed by the State Bar of California.

Proponents argue that limiting representation in international commercial arbitration to attorneys licensed by the State Bar of California has essentially removed California from the legal venues that parties consider using when negotiating international commercial arbitration provisions. Accordingly, in 2017, the Supreme Court of California convened an International Commercial Arbitration Working Group in order to study the issue and propose solutions to boost the rate of international commercial arbitration being conducted in California. The working group suggested that California adopt the American Bar Association’s model rules for international commercial arbitration which has successfully been adopted by several other states, including New York and Florida. The model rules, as proposed to be codified by this bill, permit out-of-state and foreign attorneys who are in good standing with their local licensing body to appear in a California-based international commercial arbitration for the limited purpose of representing a party to that proceeding. This bill would require all attorneys appearing in California to submit to the disciplinary oversight of the State Bar of California, limit international commercial arbitration’s scope in California to ensure consumers and employees cannot be subjected to this form of arbitration, and enable the State Bar of California to pass information regarding discipline or complaints against an attorney to that attorney’s licensing body.

This bill is supported by several attorney organizations including the California Lawyers Association and the Conference of California Bar Associations, as well as several arbitration practitioner organizations. The bill received overwhelming bi-partisan support in the California Senate and has no known opposition.

SUMMARY: Codifies the recommendations of the Supreme Court of California’s International Commercial Arbitration Working Group to permit out-of-state and foreign attorneys to represent clients in international commercial arbitrations in California. Specifically, this bill:

1. Authorizes a qualified attorney to provide legal services in an international commercial arbitration or related conciliation, mediation, or alternative dispute resolution proceeding, if any of the following conditions is satisfied:
2. The services are undertaken in association with an attorney who is admitted to practice in this state and who actively participates in the matter;
3. The services arise out of or are reasonably related to the attorney’s practice in a jurisdiction in which the attorney is admitted to practice;
4. The services are performed for a client who resides in or has an office in the jurisdiction in which the attorney is admitted or otherwise authorized to practice;
5. The services arise out of or are reasonably related to a matter that has a substantial connection to a jurisdiction in which the attorney is admitted or otherwise authorized to practice; or
6. The services arise out of a dispute governed primarily by international law or the law of a foreign or out-of-state jurisdiction.
7. Defines “qualified attorney,” for the purpose of this bill, to mean an individual who is not admitted to practice law in this state but is all of the following:
   1. Admitted to practice law in a state or territory of the United States or the District of Columbia or a member of a recognized legal profession in a foreign jurisdiction, the members of which are admitted or otherwise authorized to practice as attorneys or counselors at law or the equivalent;
   2. Is subject to effective regulation and discipline by a duly constituted professional body or public authority of that jurisdiction; and
   3. Is in good standing in every jurisdiction in which the attorney is admitted or otherwise authorized to practice.
8. Provides that the provisions of this bill do not apply to a dispute or controversy involving any of the following:
   1. An individual’s acquisition or lease of goods or services primarily for personal, family, or household use;
   2. An individual’s coverage under a health insurance plan or the interaction between an individual and a healthcare provider;
   3. Any application for employment in California; and
   4. The terms and conditions or right to employment in California unless the dispute involves intellectual property rights, trademarks, patents, or copyrights.
9. Requires any qualified attorney rendering legal services pursuant to the provisions of this bill to apply for and receive permission to appear as counsel pro hac vice pursuant to applicable California Rules of Court before appearing in a California court.
10. Requires that any qualified attorney rendering legal services pursuant to the provisions of this bill is subject to the jurisdiction of the California courts and disciplinary authority of the State Bar of California with respect to the California Rules of Professional Conduct and the laws governing the conduct of attorneys to the same extent as a member of the State Bar of California.
11. Permits, but does not require, the State Bar of California to report complaints and evidence of disciplinary violations against an attorney practicing pursuant to the provisions of this bill to the appropriate disciplinary authority of any jurisdiction in which the attorney is admitted or otherwise authorized to practice law.
12. Provides that the above provision does not limit the authority of the State Bar of California to report information about an attorney to authorities in any jurisdiction in which the attorney is admitted to practice law.
13. Requires the State Bar of California to submit a report to the Supreme Court annually that specifies the number and nature of any complaints that it has received against attorneys who provide legal services pursuant to these provisions and any actions it has taken in response to those complaints.
14. Authorizes the Supreme Court to issue rules implementing these provisions.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Prohibits any person from practicing law in California unless the person is an active member of the State Bar of California. (Business & Professions Code Section 6125.)
2. Provides that a written agreement to submit to arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter arising is valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.)
3. Provides that a party to a domestic arbitration agreement has the right to be represented by an attorney at any arbitration proceeding or hearing, as specified. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1282.4 (a).)
4. Authorizes an out-of-state attorney to appear on behalf of a client in a domestic arbitration as long as the out-of-state attorney files with the State Bar of California and serves upon other parties to the matter a certificate containing the following information:
   1. The case name and number, and the name of the arbitrator, arbitrators, or arbitral forum assigned to the proceeding in which the attorney seeks to appear;
   2. The attorney’s residence and office address;
   3. A list of the courts before which the attorney has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission;
   4. Certification that the attorney is currently a member in good standing of, and eligible to practice law before, the bar of those courts;
   5. Certification that the attorney is not currently on suspension or disbarred from the practice of law before the bar of any court;
   6. Certification that the attorney is not a resident of the State of California;
   7. Certification that the attorney is not regularly employed in the State of California;
   8. Certification that the attorney is not regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California;
   9. Affirmation that the attorney agrees to be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state with respect to the law of this state governing the conduct of attorneys to the same extent as a member of the State Bar of California;
   10. The title of the court and the cause of any action in which the attorney has filed an application to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this state or filed a certificate pursuant to this section in the preceding two years, the date of each application or certificate, and whether or not it was granted. If the attorney has made repeated appearances, the certificate shall reflect the special circumstances that warrant the approval of the attorney’s appearance in the arbitration; and
   11. The name, address, and telephone number of the active member of the State Bar of California who is the attorney of record. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1282.)
5. Provides that an out-of-state attorney participating in a domestic arbitration is subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the State Bar of California. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1282.4 (f).)
6. Provides that an arbitration or conciliation agreement is considered “international” if any of the following applies:
   1. The parties to an arbitration or conciliation agreement have, at the time of the conclusion of that agreement, their places of business in different states;
   2. If the place of arbitration or conciliation if determined in, or pursuant to, the arbitration or conciliation agreement, the place where a substantial part of the obligations of the commercial relationship is to be performed, or the place with which the subject matter of the dispute is most closely connected is situated outside the state in which the parties have their places of business;
   3. The parties have expressly agreed that the subject matter of the arbitration or conciliation agreement relates to commercial interests in more than one state; or
   4. The subject matter of the arbitration or conciliation agreement is otherwise related to commercial interests in more than one state. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1297.13.)
7. Provides that parties may appear in person or be represented or assisted by any person of their choice in a conciliation of an international commercial dispute, and that a person assisting or representing such a party need not be a member of the legal profession or licensed to practice law in California. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1297.351.)
8. An arbitration or conciliation agreement is commercial if it arises out of a relationship of a commercial nature including, but not limited to, a number of specified subjects, such as transaction for the supply or exchange of goods or services and professional services. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1297.16.)
9. Provides that the law governing international commercial arbitration explicitly supersedes the out-of-state attorney provisions related to domestic arbitration agreements described in 4), above. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1297.17.)
10. Provides that information concerning inquiries, complaints or investigations into attorneys in California is confidential. (Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California Rule 2302.)
11. Provides that at the discretion of the court upon written application, as specified, an out-of-state attorney may appear before a court as counsel pro hac vice provided that an active member of the State Bar of California is associated as attorney of record. (California Rules of Court Rule 9.40.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: The California Supreme Court, recognizing that despite the state’s economic prominence and strategic location, few international commercial arbitration matters choose to arbitrate their international commercial disputes in California, convened a working group to study how to promote such arbitration in California. The working group suggested that California adopt policy changes to ensure that the state’s international commercial arbitration statutes, generally, are based upon the American Bar Association’s model rules for international commercial arbitration. This bill would enact those changes.

Author’s Statement. In support of adopting the American Bar Association’s model rules for international commercial arbitration and permitting out-of-state and foreign attorneys to conduct international commercial arbitrations in California, the author notes:

The bill’s purpose is to remove one of the principal impediments to foreign and out-of-state parties from choosing California as the location for their international commercial arbitrations and to allow California to compete with the other leading jurisdictions for international commercial arbitrations. These leading jurisdictions, including New York, Miami, London, Paris, Geneva, Hong Kong, and Singapore, allow a party to an international arbitration to be represented by any lawyer of its choice from anywhere in the world.

SB 766 is based on an American Bar Association model rule, modified to ensure that the authorization was limited to international business disputes and was subject to oversight. To that end, SB 766 requires the foreign and out-of-state attorney to be in good standing in the attorney’s home jurisdiction; to adhere to the California Rules of Professional Conduct and the laws of this state governing attorney conduct; subjects the foreign and out-of-state attorneys to the disciplinary authority of this State; and authorizes the California State Bar to report complaints and evidence of disciplinary violations to the appropriate disciplinary body of the jurisdiction that licensed the attorney subject to disciplinary action.

What is international commercial arbitration? Traditional arbitration (for the purposes of comparison referred to as domestic arbitration) typically involves a wide range of consumer and personal issues. Too frequently, domestic arbitration is the result of unfair contracts of adhesion that are foisted on California consumers or employees as a part of everyday transactions to purchase goods and services. To protect vulnerable parties in these types of arbitration, to the extent the party forced to sign the contract of adhesion can be protected, existing law requires that attorneys representing clients in domestic arbitration must be licensed by the State Bar of California or another state. Additionally, all attorneys in domestic arbitrations are subject to the full disciplinary authority of the State Bar of California, regardless of the attorney’s domicile.

Unlike domestic arbitration, international arbitration typically comes about as the result of a bargained for agreement between two sophisticated business entities. Commercial arbitration is typically limited to a range of business practices, and international arbitration only occurs between entities with business operations in multiple locations or the subject of arbitration impacts multiple jurisdictions. International arbitration agreements are the result of extensive two-way, arms-length negotiations, unlike domestic arbitration. Accordingly, the parties frequently pick the venue and governing law for their arbitration. While existing law provides that a party may be represented by any person in an international commercial arbitration, case law has undermined the existing statute. The California Supreme Court has denied attorney fee recovery in arbitration proceedings for legal representation provided by attorneys who are not licensed by the State Bar of California. (Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank PC v. Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal.4th 119.) Following the Birbrower decision, the out-of-state attorney provisions were added to the domestic arbitration statutes, but were not added to the international commercial arbitration statutes. Due to this ambiguity, parties rarely agree to utilize California as a venue for international commercial arbitration.

Ensuring that California companies can conduct international commercial arbitration at home. In February 2017, the California Supreme Court convened the International Commercial Arbitration Working Group to explore amendments to existing laws and attorney practice rules to increase the frequency of California being used as a venue for international commercial arbitration. The working group was comprised of experts in the field of international arbitration, representatives of the State Bar of California, and representatives of the California Supreme Court. The working group discovered that the primary reason why parties, including California-based businesses, opt not to use California as a venue for international commercial arbitration was existing law’s lack of clarity about the ability for out-of-state or foreign attorneys to participate in arbitrations. The working group noted that parties based outside of California were often reluctant to forego their ability to utilize their local counsel in exchange for being able to utilize California as a venue for arbitration.

To promote California as a venue for international arbitration, the working group proposed that California adopt a modified version of the American Bar Association’s model rules for international arbitration. Those model rules permit out-of-state attorneys to practice in a jurisdiction for the limited purpose of participating in an international commercial arbitration. The model rules, as proposed to be adopted in this bill, would prohibit an attorney from conducting any legal work in California, other than the international arbitration proceeding, without obtaining pro hac vice status from a California court. In support of codifying the model rules, the working group noted the following:

Such a rule would put California on par with authorizations for foreign and out-of-state attorneys in New York, Florida, and the leading international venues for international commercial arbitration. It would also optimize California’s ability to capitalize on its west coast location to develop into an international commercial arbitration center and to expand legal and business opportunities within this state. The proposal implicitly recognizes that a more stringent regime for authorizing representation in international commercial arbitrations would continue the strong preference of parties and international arbitral tribunals to not select California as a venue for arbitrations, thereby subjecting California parties to the cost and inconvenience of litigating disputes in other states or foreign jurisdictions and to the procedural law of such non-California jurisdictions.

Limiting the scope of international commercial arbitration. As noted, international commercial arbitration is designed to resolve disputes between sophisticated, multi-jurisdictional business entities. To ensure that average Californians are not forced into commercial arbitration as the result of everyday transactions, this bill provides several critical exemptions. This bill, like the model rules, provides that an individual’s acquisition or lease of goods or services primarily for personal, family, or household use; an individual’s coverage under a health insurance plan or the interaction between an individual and a healthcare provider; any application for employment in California; and terms and conditions or right to employment in California are generally excluded from international commercial arbitration.

This bill seeks to ensure that all attorneys practicing in California behave in an ethical and competent manner. Unless otherwise provided by statute, any person practicing law in California without a license from the State Bar of California violates state law. This bill proposes to provide such an exemption for attorneys participating in international commercial arbitration. To ensure that the State Bar of California’s primary objective of protecting the public is achieved, this bill provides that any attorney participating in an international commercial arbitration is subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct of the California State Bar. Furthermore, attorneys must be in good standing with their local licensing entity in order to be eligible to practice in California to the extent authorized by this bill. Should an out-of-state attorney fail to adhere to these rules, they would be subject to the same disciplinary procedures that apply to a licensed California attorney.

Furthermore, the bill proposes to allow (but not require) the State Bar of California to notify an attorney’s local regulator of any complaints or evidence of disciplinary actions lodged against that attorney while practicing in California. Although this provides some discretion to the State Bar of California, the proponents of this measure note that such discretion is necessary to ensure that the State Bar of California can comply with its own Rules of Procedure governing attorney complaints which, generally, require most complaints to remain confidential, unless the interest in disclosing information outweighs the necessity for preserving confidentiality.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: A coalition of legal organizations representing attorneys and arbitrators support this measure. Representative of the supporters as a whole, the California Lawyers Association argues:

California is currently missing out on a valuable opportunity. Nineteen United States jurisdictions and fifty-three of fifty-five surveyed foreign countries currently permit lawyers from foreign jurisdictions to provide legal services to parties in international arbitrations in their jurisdictions. Some states, like New York and Florida, actively work to attract international commercial arbitration business. In California, in contrast, out-of-state attorneys and attorneys from foreign jurisdictions are not authorized to provide legal services in these arbitrations. This deters foreign parties from selecting California as a venue for arbitrating international commercial disputes, resulting in an adverse impact on California's legal business, the related economy, and California parties.

California is ideally situated to become a center of international commercial arbitration, with its robust concentration of businesses engaged in international commerce. By opening California as a venue for international arbitrations, SB 766 would increase business for California attorneys. Although some California attorneys currently represent clients in international commercial arbitrations, the attorneys are most often required to go to other states or countries to pursue these arbitrations. SB 766 would bring these arbitrations to California, providing new opportunities for California attorneys to act as lead counsel or as local counsel, often retained in the jurisdiction in which an international arbitration is held to assist the foreign or out-of-state attorneys and parties.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

American Arbitration Association

American Bar Association

Beverly Hills Bar Association

California Dispute Resolution Council

California Lawyers Association

Conference of California Bar Associations

International Centre for Dispute Resolution

International Court of Arbitration

Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center

6 individuals

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

 CONSENT  

Bill No: SB 766

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 1/9/18

AYES: Jackson, Moorlach, Anderson, Hertzberg, Monning, Stern, Wieckowski

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill authorizes out-of-state attorneys and attorneys from foreign jurisdictions that meet certain conditions to provide legal services in an international commercial arbitration or related conciliation, mediation, or alternative dispute resolution proceeding, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that no person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of the State Bar. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 6125.)
2. Governs (domestic) arbitrations, including enforcement of arbitration agreements and conduct of arbitration proceedings, among other things. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1280 et seq.)
3. Provides that a party to an arbitration has the right to be represented by an attorney at any arbitration proceeding or hearing, as specified. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1282.4(a).) It further authorizes an out-of-state attorney to appear on behalf of a client in arbitration as long as the out-of-state attorney files a certificate with specified information, approved by the arbitrator, filed with the State Bar of California, and served on all parties to the arbitration. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1282.4(b)-(e).) Existing rule of court provides that, at the discretion of the court upon written application, as specified, an out-of-state attorney may appear before a court as counsel pro hac vice provided that an active member of the State Bar of California is associated as attorney of record. (California Rules of Court, rule 9.40.)
4. Provides that an out-of-state attorney participating in an arbitration is subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the State Bar of California. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1282.4(f).) Such an attorney must be in good standing with the bar of the courts in the attorney’s jurisdiction. The attorney must further agree to be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state with respect to the law of this state governing the conduct of attorneys to the same extent as a member of the State Bar of California. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1284(c).)
5. Governs, through Title 9.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“Title 9.3”), the arbitration and conciliation of international commercial disputes, if the arbitration or conciliation is in California, subject to any agreement which is in force between the United States and any other state(s). (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1297.11 et seq.) Existing law specifies the circumstances under which an arbitration or conciliation agreement is considered “international.” (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1297.13.)
6. Provides that Title 9.3 shall not affect any other law in force in California by virtue of which certain disputes may not be submitted to arbitration or may be submitted to arbitration only in accordance with provisions other than those of this title. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Title 9.3 explicitly supersedes Sections 1280 to 1284.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inclusive, which relate only to domestic arbitrations not international commercial arbitrations and conciliations. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1297.17.)
7. Provides that parties may appear in person or be represented or assisted by any person of their choice in a conciliation of an international commercial dispute, and that a person assisting or representing such a party need not be a member of the legal profession or licensed to practice law in California. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1297.351.)

This bill:

1. Authorizes a qualified attorney to provide legal services in an international commercial arbitration or related conciliation, mediation, or alternative dispute resolution proceeding, if any of the following conditions is satisfied:
   • the services are undertaken in association with an attorney who is admitted to practice in this state and who actively participates in the matter;
   • the services arise out of or are reasonably related to the attorney’s practice in a jurisdiction in which the attorney is admitted to practice;\
   • the services are performed for a client who resides in or has an office in the jurisdiction in which the attorney is admitted or otherwise authorized to practice;
   • the services arise out of or are reasonably related to a matter that has a substantial connection to a jurisdiction in which the attorney is admitted or otherwise authorized to practice; or
   • the services arise out of a dispute governed primarily by international law or the law of a foreign or out-of-state jurisdiction.
2. Defines “qualified attorney” to mean an individual who is not admitted to practice law in this state but is all of the following:
   • admitted to practice law in a state or territory of the United States or the District of Columbia or a member of a recognized legal profession in a foreign jurisdiction, the members of which are admitted or otherwise authorized to practice as attorneys or counselors at law or the equivalent;
   • subject to effective regulation and discipline by a duly constituted professional body or public authority of that jurisdiction; and
   • in good standing in every jurisdiction in which the attorney is admitted or otherwise authorized to practice.
3. Makes clear that it does not affect the right of an attorney admitted to practice law in this state to provide legal services in an international commercial arbitration or related conciliation, mediation, or alternative dispute resolution proceeding, or the right of representation established in Section 1297.351. This bill also clarifies that it does not apply to certain specified disputes or controversies.
4. Requires a qualified attorney rendering legal services pursuant to these provisions to apply for and receive permission to appear as counsel pro hac vice pursuant to applicable California Rules of Court before appearing in a court of this state.
5. Provides that a qualified attorney rendering legal services pursuant to these provisions is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts and disciplinary authority of this state with respect to the California Rules of Professional Conduct and the laws governing the conduct of attorneys to the same extent as a member of the State Bar of California.
6. Authorizes the State Bar of California to report complaints and evidence of disciplinary violations against an attorney practicing pursuant to these provisions to the appropriate disciplinary authority of any jurisdiction in which the attorney is admitted or otherwise authorized to practice law. However, it makes clear it does not limit or affect the authority of the State Bar to report information about an attorney to authorities in any jurisdiction in which the attorney is admitted or otherwise authorized to practice law.
7. Requires the State Bar of California to submit a report to the Supreme Court annually that specifies the number and nature of any complaints that it has received during the prior calendar year against attorneys who provide legal services pursuant to these provisions and any actions it has taken in response to those complaints on or before May 1 each year.
8. Authorizes the Supreme Court to issue rules implementing these provisions.

Background

In 1985, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law adopted a model law on International Commercial Arbitration (UNCITRAL model law) to provide a framework for the resolution of commercial disputes involving multiple nations from varying legal traditions. Three years later, with the passage of AB 2667 (Killea, Ch. 23, Stats. 1988), California enacted specific statutes governing the arbitration and conciliation of international commercial disputes according to the standards of that UNCITRAL model law. As described in this Committee’s analysis of that bill, the legislation sought “to permit the arbitration [and conciliation] of international commercial disputes in California according to accepted international standards, thereby rendering foreign nationals more amenable to negotiating their disputes in this State.” (See Sen. Judiciary Com., analysis of AB 2667 (1987-1988 Reg. Session), p.2.)

Located at Title 9.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“Title 9.3”), these statutes specify the form of the arbitration agreement, delineate judicial involvement in aid of arbitration, provide for the composition and jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals, establish the manner and conduct of arbitrations, govern the making of awards and termination of proceedings, and specify the conduct and effect of conciliation procedures. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1297.11 et seq.) The issue of who can represent parties in such proceedings is left to some ambiguity.

Section 1282.4 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides “notwithstanding any other law, including Section 6125 of the Business and Professions Code [governing the unlawful practice of law], an attorney admitted to the bar of any other state may represent the parties in the course of, or in connection with, an arbitration proceeding in this state” provided the attorney satisfies certain conditions. However, Title 9.3 specifically supersedes this provision and negates the provision’s application to international commercial arbitration and conciliation. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1297.17.)

Within Title 9.3, Section 1297.351 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that “the parties may appear in person or be represented or assisted by any person of their choice. A person assisting or representing a party need not be a member of the legal profession or licensed to practice law in California.” However, this provision falls under the chapter pertaining to international commercial conciliations, and only applies to such proceedings. Therefore, current law does not authorize out-of-state attorneys or attorneys from foreign jurisdictions to provide legal services in an international commercial arbitration or related proceeding.

This bill clearly authorizes out-of-state attorneys and attorneys from foreign jurisdictions to provide legal services in an international commercial arbitration or related conciliation, mediation, or alternative dispute resolution proceeding, as specified. This bill tracks a proposal recommended by a specially convened working group of the California Supreme Court, which in turn is based on the American Bar Association (“ABA”) Recommendation for a Model Rule of Temporary Practice by Foreign Lawyers.

Comments

The author writes:

SB 766 authorizes foreign and out-of-state attorneys to represent parties in international commercial arbitrations in California. Under this bill, California will be able to compete with other venues in selecting where to engage in commercial arbitration and showcase that jurisdiction’s local economy, including its hospitality, restaurant and legal industries.

Recommendation of the International Commercial Arbitration Working Group

In February 2017, the Supreme Court of California created a Supreme Court International Commercial Arbitration Working group to study the possibility of allowing out-of-state attorneys and attorneys from foreign jurisdictions to represent parties in international commercial arbitrations situated in this state. Included in the working group was a group of lawyers and academics the Supreme Court deemed knowledgeable regarding international commercial arbitration as well as liaisons for both the State Bar of California and the Supreme Court itself.

The group was tasked with analyzing the question of whether out-of-state attorneys and attorneys from foreign jurisdictions should be permitted to participate in international commercial arbitrations. The group was directed to develop and submit a report identifying possible issues and analyzing existing laws and regulations relevant thereto. The group was to formulate recommendations for various regulatory options for allowing such representation and detailing the strengths and weaknesses of each possible approach.

In April 2017, the group submitted its final report “outlining regulatory proposals that would permit foreign and out-of-state attorneys to represent businesses in contractually agreed upon arbitrations of their transnational commercial disputes in California.” The group provided several proposals, but recommended one that is based on the American Bar Association’s Recommendation for a Model Rule for Temporary Practice by Foreign Lawyers. In support of the recommendation, the report states:

Such a rule would put California on par with authorizations for foreign and out-of-state attorneys in New York, Florida, and the leading international venues for international commercial arbitration. It would also optimize California’s ability to capitalize on its west coast location to develop into an international commercial arbitration center and to expand legal and business opportunities within this state. The proposal implicitly recognizes that a more stringent regime for authorizing representation in international commercial arbitrations would continue the strong preference of parties and international arbitral tribunals to not select California as a venue for arbitrations, thereby subjecting California parties to the cost and inconvenience of litigating disputes in other states or foreign jurisdictions and to the procedural law of such non-California jurisdictions.

Allowing attorneys from foreign jurisdictions to provide legal services in connection with these international commercial disputes brings California in line with a number of other states and countries. The International Bar Association published a Country Guide surveying fifty-five different nations regarding arbitration. Fifty-three of the surveyed countries authorize attorneys from foreign jurisdictions to represent clients in international arbitrations seated in their jurisdictions, including England, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Italy, and Mexico. Domestically, nineteen U.S. jurisdictions permit lawyers from foreign jurisdictions to provide legal services to parties in international arbitration in their jurisdictions.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT: (Verified 1/16/18)

American Arbitration Association

Conference of California Bar Associations

International Bar Association Arbitration Committee

International Centre for Dispute Resolution

Silicon Valley Arbitration and Mediation Center

Four individuals

OPPOSITION: (Verified 1/16/18)

None received

Prepared by:

1/17/18 13:17:52

**** END ****

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair

2017-2018 Regular Session

Bill No: SB 766 (Author:Monning)

Version: June 26, 2017

Hearing Date: January 9, 2018

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: CK

SUBJECT

International commercial arbitration: representation

DESCRIPTION

This bill would authorize out-of-state attorneys and attorneys from foreign jurisdictions that meet certain conditions to provide legal services in an international commercial arbitration or related conciliation, mediation, or alternative dispute resolution proceeding, as specified.

BACKGROUND

In 1985, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law adopted a model law on International Commercial Arbitration (UNCITRAL model law) to provide a framework for the resolution of commercial disputes involving multiple nations from varying legal traditions. Three years later, with the passage of AB 2667 (Killea, Ch. 23, Stats. 1988), California enacted specific statutes governing the arbitration and conciliation of international commercial disputes according to the standards of that UNCITRAL model law. As described in this Committee’s analysis of that bill, the legislation sought “to permit the arbitration [and conciliation] of international commercial disputes in California according to accepted international standards, thereby rendering foreign nationals more amenable to negotiating their disputes in this State.” (See Sen. Judiciary Com., analysis of AB 2667 (1987-1988 Reg. Session), p.2.)

Located at Title 9.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“Title 9.3”), these statutes specify the form of the arbitration agreement, delineate judicial involvement in aid of arbitration, provide for the composition and jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals, establish the manner and conduct of arbitrations, govern the making of awards and termination of proceedings, and specify the conduct and effect of conciliation procedures. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1297.11 et seq.) The issue of who can represent parties in such proceedings is left to some ambiguity.

Section 1282.4 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides “notwithstanding any other law, including Section 6125 of the Business and Professions Code [governing the unlawful practice of law], an attorney admitted to the bar of any other state may represent the parties in the course of, or in connection with, an arbitration proceeding in this state” provided the attorney satisfies certain conditions. However, Title 9.3 specifically supersedes this provision and negates the provision’s application to international commercial arbitration and conciliation. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1297.17.)

Within Title 9.3, Section 1297.351 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that “the parties may appear in person or be represented or assisted by any person of their choice. A person assisting or representing a party need not be a member of the legal profession or licensed to practice law in California.” However, this provision falls under the chapter pertaining to international commercial conciliations, and only applies to such proceedings. Therefore, current law does not authorize out-of-state attorneys or attorneys from foreign jurisdictions to provide legal services in an international commercial arbitration or related proceeding.

This bill would clearly authorize out-of-state attorneys and attorneys from foreign jurisdictions to provide legal services in an international commercial arbitration or related conciliation, mediation, or alternative dispute resolution proceeding, as specified. This bill tracks a proposal recommended by a specially convened working group of the California Supreme Court, which in turn is based on the American Bar Association (“ABA”) Recommendation for a Model Rule of Temporary Practice by

Foreign Lawyers.

CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW

Existing law provides that no person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of the State Bar. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 6125.)

Existing law, Title 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure governs (domestic) arbitrations, including enforcement of arbitration agreements and conduct of arbitration proceedings, among other things. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1280 et seq.)

Existing law provides that a party to an arbitration has the right to be represented by an attorney at any arbitration proceeding or hearing, as specified. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1282.4(a).) Existing law authorizes an out-of-state attorney to appear on behalf of a client in arbitration as long as the out-of-state attorney files a certificate with specified information, approved by the arbitrator, filed with the State Bar of California, and served on all parties to the arbitration. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1282.4(b)-(e).) Existing rule of court provides that, at the discretion of the court upon written application, as specified, an out-of-state attorney may appear before a court as counsel pro hac vice provided that an active member of the State Bar of California is associated as attorney of record. (California Rules of Court, rule 9.40.)

Existing law provides that an out-of-state attorney participating in an arbitration is subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the State Bar of California. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1282.4(f).) Such an attorney must be in good standing with the bar of the courts in the attorney’s jurisdiction. The attorney must further agree to be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state with respect to the law of this state governing the conduct of attorneys to the same extent as a member of the State Bar of California. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1284(c).)

Existing law, Title 9.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“Title 9.3”), governs the arbitration and conciliation of international commercial disputes, if the arbitration or conciliation is in California, subject to any agreement which is in force between the United States and any other state(s). (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1297.11 et seq.) Existing law specifies the circumstances under which an arbitration or conciliation agreement is considered “international.” (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1297.13.)

Existing law provides that Title 9.3 shall not affect any other law in force in California by virtue of which certain disputes may not be submitted to arbitration or may be submitted to arbitration only in accordance with provisions other than those of this title. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Title 9.3 explicitly supersedes Sections 1280 to 1284.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inclusive, which relate only to domestic arbitrations not international commercial arbitrations and conciliations. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1297.17.)

Existing law provides that parties may appear in person or be represented or assisted by any person of their choice in a conciliation of an international commercial dispute, and that a person assisting or representing such a party need not be a member of the legal profession or licensed to practice law in California. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1297.351.)

This bill would authorize a qualified attorney to provide legal services in an international commercial arbitration or related conciliation, mediation, or alternative dispute resolution proceeding, if any of the following conditions is satisfied:

• the services are undertaken in association with an attorney who is admitted to practice in this state and who actively participates in the matter;
• the services arise out of or are reasonably related to the attorney’s practice in a jurisdiction in which the attorney is admitted to practice;
• the services are performed for a client who resides in or has an office in the jurisdiction in which the attorney is admitted or otherwise authorized to practice;
• the services arise out of or are reasonably related to a matter that has a substantial connection to a jurisdiction in which the attorney is admitted or otherwise authorized to practice; or
• the services arise out of a dispute governed primarily by international law or the law of a foreign or out-of-state jurisdiction.

This bill would define “qualified attorney” to mean an individual who is not admitted to practice law in this state but is all of the following:

• admitted to practice law in a state or territory of the United States or the District of Columbia or a member of a recognized legal profession in a foreign jurisdiction, the members of which are admitted or otherwise authorized to practice as attorneys or counselors at law or the equivalent;
• subject to effective regulation and discipline by a duly constituted professional body or public authority of that jurisdiction; and
• in good standing in every jurisdiction in which the attorney is admitted or otherwise authorized to practice.

This bill would make clear that it does not affect the right of an attorney admitted to practice law in this state to provide legal services in an international commercial arbitration or related conciliation, mediation, or alternative dispute resolution proceeding, or the right of representation established in Section 1297.351. This bill would also make clear that it does not apply to a dispute or controversy concerning any of the following:

• an individual’s acquisition or lease of goods or services primarily for personal, family, or household use;
• an individual’s coverage under a health insurance plan or an interaction between an individual and a healthcare provider;
• an application for employment in California; or
• the terms and conditions of, or right to, employment in California, unless the dispute or controversy primarily concerns intellectual property rights, including those involving trademarks, patents, copyright, and software programs.

This bill would require a qualified attorney rendering legal services pursuant to these provisions to apply for and receive permission to appear as counsel pro hac vice pursuant to applicable California Rules of Court before appearing in a court of this state.

This bill would provide that a qualified attorney rendering legal services pursuant to these provisions is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts and disciplinary authority of this state with respect to the California Rules of Professional Conduct and the laws governing the conduct of attorneys to the same extent as a member of the State Bar of California.

This bill would authorize the State Bar of California to report complaints and evidence of disciplinary violations against an attorney practicing pursuant to these provisions to the appropriate disciplinary authority of any jurisdiction in which the attorney is admitted or otherwise authorized to practice law. The State Bar of California would be required to submit a report to the Supreme Court annually that specifies the number and nature of any complaints that it has received against attorneys who provide legal services pursuant to these provisions and any actions it has taken in response to those complaints.

This bill would authorize the Supreme Court to issue rules implementing these provisions.

COMMENT

1. Stated need for the bill

According to the author:

SB 766 authorizes foreign and out-of-state attorneys to represent parties in international commercial arbitrations in California. Under this bill, California will be able to compete with other venues in selecting where to engage in commercial arbitration and showcase that jurisdiction’s local economy, including its hospitality, restaurant and legal industries.

2. Recommendation of the International Commercial Arbitration Working group

In February 2017, the Supreme Court of California created a Supreme Court International Commercial Arbitration Working group to study the possibility of allowing out-of-state attorneys and attorneys from foreign jurisdictions to represent parties in international commercial arbitrations situated in this state. Included in the working group was a group of lawyers and academics the Supreme Court deemed knowledgeable regarding international commercial arbitration as well as liaisons for both the State Bar of California and the Supreme Court itself.

The group was tasked with analyzing the question of whether out-of-state attorneys and attorneys from foreign jurisdictions should be permitted to participate in international commercial arbitrations. The group was directed to develop and submit a report identifying possible issues and analyzing existing laws and regulations relevant thereto. The group was to formulate recommendations for various regulatory options for allowing such representation and detailing the strengths and weaknesses of each possible approach.

In April 2017, the group submitted its final report “outlining regulatory proposals that would permit foreign and out-of-state attorneys to represent businesses in contractually agreed upon arbitrations of their transnational commercial disputes in California.” The group provided several proposals, but recommended one that is based on the American Bar Association’s Recommendation for a Model Rule for Temporary Practice by Foreign Lawyers. In support of the recommendation, the report states:

Such a rule would put California on par with authorizations for foreign and out-of-state attorneys in New York, Florida, and the leading international venues for international commercial arbitration. It would also optimize California’s ability to capitalize on its west coast location to develop into an international commercial arbitration center and to expand legal and business opportunities within this state. The proposal implicitly recognizes that a more stringent regime for authorizing representation in international commercial arbitrations would continue the strong preference of parties and international arbitral tribunals to not select California as a venue for arbitrations, thereby subjecting California parties to the cost and inconvenience of litigating disputes in other states or foreign jurisdictions and to the procedural law of such non-California jurisdictions.

Implementing this recommendation and allowing attorneys from foreign jurisdictions to provide legal services in connection with these international commercial disputes would bring California in line with a number of other states and countries. The International Bar Association published a Country Guide surveying fifty-five different nations regarding arbitration. Fifty-three of the surveyed countries authorize attorneys from foreign jurisdictions to represent clients in international arbitrations seated in their jurisdictions, including England, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Italy, and Mexico. Domestically, nineteen U.S. jurisdictions permit lawyers from foreign jurisdictions to provide legal services to parties in international arbitration in their jurisdictions.

3. This bill will not impact domestic arbitrations

This bill would expressly authorize the use of out-of-state attorneys and attorneys from foreign jurisdictions in arbitrations and related conciliation, mediation, or alternative dispute resolution proceedings of international commercial disputes. Under existing law, arbitrations and conciliation agreements are considered “international” only under specified circumstances, such as where: (1) the parties to the arbitration or conciliation agreement have, at the time of the conclusion of that agreement, their places of business in different states (i.e. countries); (2) the parties have expressly agreed that the subject matter of the arbitration or conciliation agreement relates to commercial interests in more than one state; or (3) the subject matter of the arbitration or conciliation agreement is otherwise related to commercial interests in more than one state. (See Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1297.13.) This bill would not affect existing law related to domestic arbitrations.

In fact, existing law expressly states that the statutes governing arbitrations and conciliations of international commercial disputes “shall not affect any other law in force in California by virtue of which certain disputes . . . may be submitted to arbitration only in accordance with provisions other than those of this title” and that these statutes only “supersede[ ] Sections 1280 to 1284.2, inclusive, with respect to international commercial arbitration and conciliation.” (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1297.17; Sections 1280-1284.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure govern arbitrations in California generally, including the enforcement of arbitration agreements and the conduct of arbitration proceedings.) Accordingly, this bill would not impact existing requirements that attorneys representing parties in domestic arbitrations in California either be licensed to practice in California in accordance with Section 6125 of the Business and Professions Code, or otherwise be admitted to the bar of another (U.S.) state in compliance with the requirements of the Out of State Attorney Arbitration Counsel (OSAAC) Program. (See Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1282.4.) In other words, those protections for domestic arbitration are unaffected by this bill.

4. Proper protections are in place to oversee the provision of these legal services

This bill would ensure that any attorneys providing legal services pursuant to it are in good standing with their home jurisdiction and are clearly subject to the jurisdiction of the courts and the disciplinary authority of this state. Therefore, such attorneys would be subject to the California Rules of Professional Conduct and those laws governing members of the State Bar of California. These latter protections were added to the ABA’s model rule to further ensure an adequate oversight mechanism. In addition, the State Bar would be required to report annually on the number and nature of any complaints received in connection with legal services provided pursuant to this bill. These provisions ensure proper checks are in place on the provision of these legal services within California.

While the important consumer protections afforded by Section 6125 of the Business and Professions Code and the OSAAC program do not govern these disputes, given the nature of the international commercial disputes that would be arbitrated, the parties involved are arguably sophisticated entities that are able to select properly qualified persons to represent their interests and to heavily negotiate any agreement to arbitrate their disputes.

This bill would also grant permission to the State Bar to report complaints about and disciplinary violations of these attorneys to the authorities in the jurisdictions in which the attorneys are authorized to practice law. While it is sound policy to so communicate such complaints and violations, there is nothing in existing law that would prevent such reports by the State Bar. Including such an authorization in this bill may be misinterpreted to restrain such communications by the State Bar in other contexts, such as when the State Bar has complaints related to immigration attorneys who are licensed attorneys in other states, but practicing law in California.

The author may wish to address this issue by inserting the following clause into this provision to ensure it does not hinder the ability and willingness of the State Bar to report misconduct by attorneys to authorities in other jurisdictions in which they are admitted or otherwise authorized to practice:

Committee Amendment:

On page 4, line 3, after “law.” insert the following:

Nothing herein shall be interpreted to limit or affect the authority of the State Bar to report information about attorneys to authorities in any jurisdiction in which the attorney is admitted or otherwise authorized to practice law.

5. Author’s Amendment

In order to clarify the content of the report the State Bar would have to submit each year, the author offers the following amendment:

Author’s Amendment

On page 4, line 6, after “received” insert “during the prior calendar year”

Support: Conference of California Bar Associations; Silicon Valley Arbitration and Mediation Center; Four individuals

Opposition: None Known

HISTORY

Source: Author

Related Pending Legislation: None Known

Prior Legislation:

SB 907 (Monning, 2014) would have provided that, in any proceeding or procedure conducted pursuant to Title 9.3, governing the arbitration and conciliation of international commercial disputes, the parties may appear in person or be represented or assisted by any person of their choice. It would have provided that a person representing or assisting a party need not be a member of the legal profession or licensed to practice law in California. This bill died in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

SB 624 (Steinberg, 2013) would have, among other things, provided that a person representing or assisting a party in an international commercial dispute proceeding need not be a member of the legal profession or licensed to practice law in California.

This bill died in the Senate Rules Committee.

AB 2667 (Killea, Ch. 23, Stats. 1988) See Background.

**************