The State Bar Act provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California, California (State Bar), a public corporation governed by a board of trustees. The act requires a person who has been admitted to practice law in specified jurisdictions outside of this state, including a sister state, in order to be certified to the Supreme Court for admission and a license to practice law in this state, to meet certain criteria, including having passed the general bar examination or Attorneys Examination, as applicable, given by the examining committee.

The act State Bar Act also provides for the investigation and discipline of a licensee of the State Bar and authorizes the Supreme Court to suspend or disbar an attorney for specified causes, including for a conviction under the laws of another state or territory of the United States that is deemed a felony. Existing law provides that specified evidence that a licensee committed professional misconduct in another jurisdiction is conclusive evidence that the licensee is culpable of professional misconduct.

This bill would provide that an excluded event shall not be grounds for disciplinary action or require an attorney or applicant to report the excluded event to the State Bar, supply evidence that an attorney is culpable of professional misconduct in this state, or serve as grounds to deny admission to the State Bar to an applicant. The bill would define excluded event to mean certain actions taken when based on the application of another states law that interferes with any persons right to receive, provide, recommend, enable, or advocate for sensitive services, as defined, that would be lawful in this state.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

The State Bar Act provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California, a public corporation governed by a board of trustees. The act requires a person who has been admitted to practice law in a sister state, law in specified jurisdictions outside of this state, including a sister state, in order to be certified to the Supreme Court for admission and a license to practice law in this state, to meet certain criteria, including having passed the general bar examination or Attorneys Examination, as applicable, given by the examining committee.

This bill would require the State Bar to transmit, on or before January 1, 2026, a proposal outlining a process for expediting the licensure to practice law in this state of an attorney who meets certain criteria, including that the attorney was employed by an agency of the federal government on January 20, 2025. The bill would define expediting the licensure to mean a licensing process that does not require an attorney to take the State Bar examination.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

The State Bar Act requires a person who has been admitted to practice law in a sister state, in order to be certified to the Supreme Court for admission and a license to practice law in this state, to meet certain criteria, including having passed the general bar examination given by the examining committee.

This bill would require the State Bar to transmit, on or before January 1, 2026, a proposal outlining a process for expediting the licensure to practice law in this state of an attorney who meets certain criteria, including that the attorney was employed by an agency of the federal government on January 20, 2025. The bill would define expediting the licensure to mean a licensing process that does not require an attorney to take the State Bar examination.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1522

Author:(Committee on Judiciary)

As Amended Ver:April 10, 2025

2/3 vote. Urgency

SUMMARY

Directs the State Bar of California to develop a program for expedited licensure of attorneys that previously worked in federal service and clarifies the disciplinary rules for attorneys providing advice related to sensitive services.

Major Provisions

1. Clarifies that in order to be certified to the Supreme Court for admission and a license to practice law, a person who has been admitted to practice law in a sister state, United States jurisdiction, possession, territory, or dependency the United States may hereafter acquire must:
   1. Be of the age of at least 18 years;
   2. Be of good moral character;
   3. Have passed the examination prescribed by the examining committee, unless that person has been an active licensee in good standing of the bar of an admitting sister state or United States jurisdiction, possession, or territory for at least four years immediately preceding their seeking admission and licensure, in which case the examining committee may provide an alternative means of receiving admission and licensure.
2. Requires, on or before January 1, 2026, the State Bar of California to transit to the Supreme Court a proposal for the expedited licensure of an attorney who meets the following criteria:
   1. The attorney was employed by an agency of the federal government on January 20, 2025;
   2. The attorney has been licensed to practice law by a sister state or United States jurisdiction, possession, or territory for a minimum of four years;
   3. The attorney does not have a record of discipline from the licensing authority of a sister state;
   4. The attorney can produce an attestation of professional competence by at least one licensee of the State Bar of California.
3. Defines, for the purpose of 2), "expedited licensure" to mean a licensing process that does not require an attorney to take the State Bar examination.
4. Defines for the purpose of 6) the following:
   1. "Attorney" means an attorney admitted to practice law in this state;
   2. "Applicant" means an applicant for admission to practice law in this state;
   3. "Sensitive Services" means all health care services related to mental or behavioral health, sexual and reproductive health, sexually transmitted infections, substance use disorder, gender-affirming care, and intimate partner violence, obtained by a patient at or above the minimum age specified for consenting to the service, as specified; and
   4. "Excluded event" means the entry of a judgment, imposition of sanctions, filing of an indictment or criminal charges or implementation of professional discipline against an attorney or applicant that is based on the application of another state's law that interferes with any person's right to receive, provide, recommend, enable, or advocate for sensitive services that would be lawful in this state, regardless of the location in which the event takes place and regardless of the location of the attorney or applicant.
5. Prohibits an excluded event from being grounds for suspension, disbarment, or other disciplinary action.
6. Provides that no attorney or applicant is required to report the excluded event to the State Bar, supply evidence that an attorney is culpable of professional misconduct in this state, and that an excluded event cannot serve as grounds to deny admission for any applicant for admission to practice law.
7. Provides that the provisions of 4) through 6) do not apply to events that would subject an attorney or applicant to a similar claim, charge, or action under the laws of this state.
8. Adopts an urgency clause and makes associated findings.

COMMENTS

As America's political divisions become increasingly fraught, attorneys are being targeted as a part of the country's culture wars in ways that have never been seen before. From the indiscriminate firing of federal attorneys to targeting of massive law firms for retribution, the legal profession is under attack. This bill seeks to provide some reprieve for members of the legal profession.

Upon reassuming office in January 2025, President Donald Trump unleashed Elon Musk, a private citizen, and his "Department" of Government Efficiency on the federal workforce. Although the "Department" of Government Efficiency is not an official government agency, its "staff" was assigned to enter federal agencies and begin dismantling programs and terminating staff. Workforce reductions first targeted all employees with "voluntary" deferred resignations. (Meg Kinnard, A comprehensive look at DOGE's firings and layoffs so far, Associated Press (Feb. 21, 2025) available at: https://apnews.com/article/doge-firings-layoffs-federal-government-workers-musk-d33cdd7872d64d2bdd8fe70c28652654.) When an apparently insufficient number of federal employees agreed to accept the legally questionable resignation offer, the Musk-Trump effort turned its aim to probationary employees who lacked full civil service protection. As a result, approximately 220,000 probationary employees were terminated. (Ibid.) Although the government's data does not indicate how many of these employees were attorneys, given the large role that attorneys play at many government agencies, particularly the quasi-independent regulatory agencies that are a particular focus of the "Department" of Government Efficiency's efforts, one can assume thousands of federal attorneys were terminated.

Furthermore, the Trump administration's targeting of large law firms with a heavy presence in the Washington DC area for retribution is making it more difficult for these federal attorneys to find positions around the nation's capital. Having launched investigations into the hiring practices of 15 major law firms, the current administration is making it clear that law firms seeking to hire those that the administration perceives as insufficiently loyal will have consequences. (Clifford Winston, DOGE Is a Wakeup Call for Economists and Attorneys, The Regulatory Review (Mar. 17, 2025) available at: https://www.theregreview.org/2025/03/17/winston-doge-is-a-wakeup-call-for-economists-and-attorneys/.) As unfortunate as the federal government's treatment of dedicated civil servants is, the "Department" of Government Efficiency is presenting an opportunity for California. Indeed, buried in Governor Newsom's highly unpopular Executive Order mandating most of the state workforce return to the office, were provisions promoting the hiring of former federal workers into state service. (Executive Order N-22-25.) However, because existing law requires attorneys, even those with years of experience, to sit for the state's bar exam, the law is preventing the state from hiring former federal attorneys, as many experienced former federal attorneys are unlikely to study and sit for another licensing exam while simultaneously needing to provide for their families.

Recognizing that attorneys with prior federal service are highly trained professionals, this bill directs the State Bar of California to develop a program whereby former federal attorneys can obtain a law license in California without having to sit for an exam. The bill requires the program to apply to attorneys with a minimum of four years of practice experience, a clean disciplinary record, and only to those who can obtain attestation from a California attorney regarding their professional competence. Recognizing that the California Constitution, and applicable case law, reserve sole oversight over attorney licensure to the State Supreme Court (See Pell v. Nunez (9th Cir. 2024) 99 F.4th 1128), the bill simply requires the State Bar to submit the proposed licensing program to the California Supreme Court. Out of respect to the court's inherent power of attorney licensure, the bill acknowledges that the Supreme Court retains the ultimate discretion to adopt the expedited licensing program or to maintain the state's current rules requiring attorneys licensed in other states to sit for portions of the bar exam.

Unfortunately, the federal government is not the only governmental entity targeting the legal profession for political gain. Following the United States Supreme Court's overturning of constitutional protections to abortion services (Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2021) 597 U.S. 215), a number of states have enacted draconian criminal and civil statutes targeting those who assist women in need of abortion services. For example, following the enactment of the Texas' civilly enforced "fetal heartbeat" law that targets those who "aid and abet" a person seeking an abortion (Texas Health and Safety Code Section 171.208), several Texas law firms were targeted by the state legislature and the state's Attorney General. For example, after the law firm of Sidley Austin, LLP offered staff in its Houston and Dallas offices time off to seek reproductive healthcare services, the Freedom Caucus of the Texas Legislature threatened to sue the firm under the fetal heartbeat law. (Jacqueline Thomsen, Texas lawmakers target law firms for aiding abortion access, Reuters (July 8, 2022) available at: https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/texas-lawmakers-target-law-firms-aiding-abortion-access-2022-07-08/.) Similar threats were made against other large law firms, including Vinson & Elkins; Morgan, Lewis & Bockius; and McDermott, Will & Emery. (Ibid.)

Under existing California law (Business and Professions Code Section 606877 (o)), an attorney is required to notify the State Bar of California of criminal and civil charges files against the attorney in another jurisdiction, as well as any professional misconduct charges levied against the attorney by a sister state's regulatory body. Although it does not appear that any lawsuits or criminal charges were ever filed against the Texas firms, or their managing partners, should such actions have taken place, and if those attorneys were simultaneously licensed in California, the attorneys would have a duty to report the information to the State Bar, which would then be obligated to investigate.

Recognizing that the actions of these Texas law firms and their senior managing attorneys are wholly legal in California, this bill seeks to protect California licensed attorneys from discipline in this state for their actions in another state related to sensitive services that are legal in California, if another jurisdiction seeks to discipline the attorney. Building on existing protections for medical professionals offering sensitive services, this bill provides that an attorney is not obligated to inform the State Bar of out-of-state charges related to legal advice provided, or other actions taken, related to the provision of sensitive services that are legal in California. The bill clarifies that even if the State Bar learns of such discipline, the State Bar is precluded from taking action, unless the claim would be sustainable under California law. These provisions should protect California attorneys who provide valid legal advice regarding the laws of this state and ensure that the State Bar is not forced to utilize its limited resources pursuing claims that lack merit under California law.

According to the Author

As a new administration has taken hold in Washington, dedicated legal professionals are finding themselves targeted for retaliation, retribution, and job losses. From unfairly laid off federal attorneys to large law firms being cowered by threats of loss of business and legal sanctions. However, these challenges provide unique opportunities for California. First, California can make sure that the federal government's loss becomes a gain for California's legal profession by permitting former-federal attorneys who are currently practicing in good standing to obtain licensure in California without having to sit for California's notorious bar examination. Second, this bill protects California attorneys who provide legitimate legal advice to clients even if another jurisdiction believes such advice violates laws preventing a person from assisting another in seeking specified medical care. Jointly, these proposals will strengthen and protect the legal profession in California from attacks from outside of the state.

Arguments in Support

This bill is supported by the Legal Aid Association of California. They write:

AB 1522 would require the State Bar to put together a proposal articulating a process to expedite the licensure of specific attorneys, including those who worked for the federal government. With this, the attorneys would not need to take the Bar examination. We support this bill because it would enable the legal community in our state to utilize the skills and know-how of this group of attorneys and would do so in the urgent way it is needed. It would not only provide our state with talented attorneys to work in government and other locations, but could, hopefully, provide an influx into all manner of public interest-oriented positions. Expediting the licensure and bringing these attorneys in is a smart move for our state and legal community, with little to no downside.

Arguments in Opposition

None on file

FISCAL COMMENTS

None

VOTES

ASM JUDICIARY: 9-3-0

YES: Kalra, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Harabedian, Pacheco, Lee, Stefani, Zbur

NO: Dixon, Macedo, Sanchez

UPDATED

VERSION: April 10, 2025

CONSULTANT: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0000253

Date of Hearing: April 22, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1522

Author:(Committee on Judiciary) – As Amended Ver:April 10, 2025

SUBJECT: State Bar Act: expedited licensure: federal attorneys

KEY ISSUES:

1. Should the state bar of California offer expedited licensure to attorneys who worked for the federal government at the start of the current federal administration?
2. Should California attorneys be protected from discipline for engaging in conduct that is protectED under California law, but may violate another state’s laws prohibiting specified sensitive services?

SYNOPSIS

As professionals sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, attorneys frequently take on legal cases to defend the rights of others. Accordingly, the profession is ever-present on the front lines of America’s seemingly endless culture wars. Of late, a troubling trend is developing whereby attorneys are being targeted for punishment for taking on causes and clients, or giving legal advice, that runs counter to certain group’s attitudes and beliefs. Most recently, the Trump administration has sought to eliminate large swaths of the federal government’s attorney workforce and punish law firms that draw the President’s ire. Additionally, states that have enacted strict laws related to reproductive and gender affirming healthcare services are now targeting attorneys who provide accurate and competent legal advice to vulnerable citizens seeking healthcare.

This bill seeks to protect and uphold the dignity of the legal profession in two ways. First, in the wake of mass layoffs of the federal workforce, this bill directs the State Bar of California to develop a program to fast-track licensure for former federal attorneys who were terminated through no fault of their own. Second, this bill seeks to protect the law license of California attorneys who are targeted by other jurisdictions for providing legal advice and other services related to the provision of sensitive medical services that are legal in California.

This committee-sponsored bill is supported by the Legal Aid Association of California who support the measure’s efforts to bring more attorneys with government and public interest experience into California to provide much needed legal services to lower and middle income clients. This bill has no registered opposition.

SUMMARY: Directs the State Bar of California to develop a program for expedited licensure of attorneys that previously worked in federal service and clarifies the disciplinary rules for attorneys providing advice related to sensitive services. Specifically, this bill:

1. Clarifies that in order to be certified to the Supreme Court for admission and a license to practice law, a person who has been admitted to practice law in a sister state, United States jurisdiction, possession, territory, or dependency the United States may hereafter acquire must:
   1. Be of the age of at least 18 years;
   2. Be of good moral character;
   3. Have passed the examination prescribed by the examining committee, unless that person has been an active licensee in good standing of the bar of an admitting sister state or United States jurisdiction, possession, or territory for at least four years immediately preceding their seeking admission and licensure, in which case the examining committee may provide an alternative means of receiving admission and licensure.
2. Requires, on or before January 1, 2026, the State Bar of California to transit to the Supreme Court a proposal for the expedited licensure of an attorney who meets the following criteria:
   1. The attorney was employed by an agency of the federal government on January 20, 2025;
   2. The attorney has been licensed to practice law by a sister state or United States jurisdiction, possession, or territory for a minimum of four years;
   3. The attorney does not have a record of discipline from the licensing authority of a sister state;
   4. The attorney can produce an attestation of professional competence by at least one licensee of the State Bar of California.
3. Defines, for the purpose of 2), “expedited licensure” to mean a licensing process that does not require an attorney to take the State Bar examination.
4. Defines for the purpose of 6) the following:
   1. “Attorney” means an attorney admitted to practice law in this state;
   2. “Applicant” means an applicant for admission to practice law in this state;
   3. “Sensitive Services” means all health care services related to mental or behavioral health, sexual and reproductive health, sexually transmitted infections, substance use disorder, gender-affirming care, and intimate partner violence, obtained by a patient at or above the minimum age specified for consenting to the service, as specified; and
   4. “Excluded event” means the entry of a judgment, imposition of sanctions, filing of an indictment or criminal charges or implementation of professional discipline against an attorney or applicant that is based on the application of another state’s law that interferes with any person’s right to receive, provide, recommend, enable, or advocate for sensitive services that would be lawful in this state, regardless of the location in which the event takes place and regardless of the location of the attorney or applicant.
5. Prohibits an excluded event from being grounds for suspension, disbarment, or other disciplinary action.
6. Provides that no attorney or applicant is required to report the excluded event to the State Bar, supply evidence that an attorney is culpable of professional misconduct in this state, and that an excluded event cannot serve as grounds to deny admission for any applicant for admission to practice law.
7. Provides that the provisions of 4) through 6) do not apply to events that would subject an attorney or applicant to a similar claim, charge, or action under the laws of this state.
8. Adopts an urgency clause and makes associated findings.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the State Bar Act and provides for the licensure and regulations of attorneys practicing in California. (Business and Professions Code Section 6000 et seq.)
2. Requires that in order to be certified to the Supreme Court for admission, and a license to practice law, a person who has been admitted to practice law in a sister state, United States jurisdiction, possession, territory, or dependency the United States may hereafter acquire must:
   1. Be of the age of at least 18 years;
   2. Be of good moral character;
   3. Have passed the general bar examination given by the examining committee, unless that person has been an active licensee in good standing of the bar of the admitting sister state or United States jurisdiction, possession, or territory for at least four years immediately preceding the first day of the examination applied for, they may elect to take the Attorneys’ Examination rather than the general bar examination, as specified;
   4. Have passed an examination in professional responsibility or legal ethics as the examining committee may prescribe. (Business and Professions Code Section 6062 (a).)
3. Provides that a willful disobedience or violation of an order of the court requiring any attorney to do or forbear an act connected with or in the course of their profession, which they ought in good faith to do or forbear, and any violation of the oath taken by them or of their duties as such attorney, constitute causes for disbarment or suspension. (Business and Professions Code Section 6103.)
4. Provides that the commission of any act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, whether the act is committed in the course of their relations as an attorney or otherwise, and whether the act is a felony or misdemeanor or not, constitutes a cause for disbarment or suspension. (Business and Professions Code Section 6106.)
5. Requires a licensee of the State Bar of California to report to the State Bar of California, within 30 days the licensee gaining knowledge of any of the following:
   1. The filing of three or more lawsuits in a 12-month period against the attorney for malpractice or other wrongful conduct committed in a professional capacity;
   2. The entry of judgment against the attorney in a civil action for fraud, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, or gross negligence committed in a professional capacity;
   3. The imposition of judicial sanctions against the attorney, except for sanctions for failure to make discovery or monetary sanctions of less than one thousand dollars ($1,000);
   4. The bringing of an indictment or information charging a felony against the attorney;
   5. The conviction of the attorney, including any verdict of guilty, or plea of guilty or no contest, of a felony, or a misdemeanor committed in the course of the practice of law, or in a manner in which a client of the attorney was the victim, as specified;
   6. The imposition of discipline against the attorney by a professional or occupational disciplinary agency or licensing board, whether in California or elsewhere; and
   7. Reversal of judgment in a proceeding based in whole or in part upon misconduct, grossly incompetent representation, or willful misrepresentation by an attorney. (Business and Professions Code Section 60686 (o).)
6. Defines “sensitive services” as means all health care services related to mental or behavioral health, sexual and reproductive health, sexually transmitted infections, substance use disorder, gender-affirming care, and intimate partner violence, obtained by a patient at or above the minimum age specified for consenting to the service, as specified. (Civil Code Section 56.05 (s).)

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

COMMENTS: As America’s political divisions become increasingly fraught, attorneys are being targeted as a part of the country’s culture wars in ways that have never been seen before. From the indiscriminate firing of federal attorneys to targeting of massive law firms for retribution, the legal profession is under attack. This bill seeks to provide some reprieve for members of the legal profession. First, recognizing the extensive training provided to employees of the federal government, especially attorneys in federal service, this bill would task the State Bar of California with developing a means of permitting former federal attorneys to obtain a license to practice law in California without sitting for the bar exam. Additionally, building on similar protections for medical professionals, this bill prevents attorneys from being disciplined in California when another jurisdiction takes legal action against an attorney for providing advice or services that are legal in this state. In support of the bill the Committee states:

As a new administration has taken hold in Washington, dedicated legal professionals are finding themselves targeted for retaliation, retribution, and job losses. From unfairly laid off federal attorneys to large law firms being cowered by threats of loss of business and legal sanctions.

However, these challenges provide unique opportunities for California. First, California can make sure that the federal government’s loss becomes a gain for California’s legal profession by permitting former-federal attorneys who are currently practicing in good standing to obtain licensure in California without having to sit for California’s notorious bar examination. Second, this bill protects California attorneys who provide legitimate legal advice to clients even if another jurisdiction believes such advice violates laws preventing a person from assisting another in seeking specified medical care. Jointly, these proposals will strengthen and protect the legal profession in California from attacks from outside of the state.

Federal workforce reductions provide an opportunity to strengthen the legal profession in California. Upon reassuming office in January 2025, President Donald Trump unleashed Elon Musk, a private citizen, and his “Department” of Government Efficiency on the federal workforce. Although the “Department” of Government Efficiency is not an official government agency, its “staff” was assigned to enter federal agencies and begin dismantling programs and terminating staff. Workforce reductions first targeted all employees with “voluntary” deferred resignations. (Meg Kinnard, A comprehensive look at DOGE’s firings and layoffs so far, Associated Press (Feb. 21, 2025) available at: https://apnews.com/article/doge-firings-layoffs-federal-government-workers-musk-d33cdd7872d64d2bdd8fe70c28652654.) When an apparently insufficient number of federal employees agreed to accept the legally questionable resignation offer, the Musk-Trump effort turned its aim to probationary employees who lacked full civil service protection. As a result, approximately 220,000 probationary employees were terminated. (Ibid.) Although the government’s data does not indicate how many of these employees were attorneys, given the large role that attorneys play at many government agencies, particularly the quasi-independent regulatory agencies that are a particular focus of the “Department” of Government Efficiency’s efforts, one can assume thousands of federal attorneys were terminated.

Furthermore, the Trump administration’s targeting of large law firms with a heavy presence in the Washington DC area for retribution is making it more difficult for these federal attorneys to find positions around the nation’s capital. Having launched investigations into the hiring practices of 15 major law firms, the current administration is making it clear that law firms seeking to hire those that the administration perceives as insufficiently loyal will have consequences. (Clifford Winston, DOGE Is a Wakeup Call for Economists and Attorneys, The Regulatory Review (Mar. 17, 2025) available at: https://www.theregreview.org/2025/03/17/winston-doge-is-a-wakeup-call-for-economists-and-attorneys/.)

As unfortunate as the federal government’s treatment of dedicated civil servants is, the “Department” of Government Efficiency is presenting an opportunity for California. Indeed, buried in Governor Newsom’s highly unpopular Executive Order mandating most of the state workforce return to the office, were provisions promoting the hiring of former federal workers into state service. (Executive Order N-22-25.) However, because existing law requires attorneys, even those with years of experience, to sit for the state’s bar exam, the law is preventing the state from hiring former federal attorneys, as many experienced former federal attorneys are unlikely to study and sit for another licensing exam while simultaneously needing to provide for their families.

Recognizing that attorneys with prior federal service are highly trained professionals, this bill directs the State Bar of California to develop a program whereby former federal attorneys can obtain a law license in California without having to sit for an exam. The bill requires the program to apply to attorneys with a minimum of four years of practice experience, a clean disciplinary record, and only to those who can obtain attestation from a California attorney regarding their professional competence. Recognizing that the California Constitution, and applicable case law, reserve sole oversight over attorney licensure to the State Supreme Court (See Pell v. Nunez (9th Cir. 2024) 99 F.4th 1128), the bill simply requires the State Bar to submit the proposed licensing program to the California Supreme Court. Out of respect to the court’s inherent power of attorney licensure, the bill acknowledges that the Supreme Court retains the ultimate discretion to adopt the expedited licensing program or to maintain the state’s current rules requiring attorneys licensed in other states to sit for portions of the bar exam.

This bill would protect the license of California attorneys who provide valid legal advice or other professional assistance regarding sensitive services. Unfortunately, the federal government is not the only governmental entity targeting the legal profession for political gain. Following the United States Supreme Court’s overturning of constitutional protections to abortion services (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2021) 597 U.S. 215), a number of states have enacted draconian criminal and civil statutes targeting those who assist women in need of abortion services. For example, following the enactment of the Texas’ civilly enforced “fetal heartbeat” law that targets those who “aid and abet” a person seeking an abortion (Texas Health and Safety Code Section 171.208), several Texas law firms were targeted by the state legislature and the state’s Attorney General. For example, after the law firm of Sidley Austin, LLP offered staff in its Houston and Dallas offices time off to seek reproductive healthcare services, the Freedom Caucus of the Texas Legislature threatened to sue the firm under the fetal heartbeat law. (Jacqueline Thomsen, Texas lawmakers target law firms for aiding abortion access, Reuters (July 8, 2022) available at: https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/texas-lawmakers-target-law-firms-aiding-abortion-access-2022-07-08/.) Similar threats were made against other large law firms, including Vinson & Elkins; Morgan, Lewis & Bockius; and McDermott, Will & Emery. (Ibid.)

Under existing California law (Business and Professions Code Section 606877 (o)), an attorney is required to notify the State Bar of California of criminal and civil charges files against the attorney in another jurisdiction, as well as any professional misconduct charges levied against the attorney by a sister state’s regulatory body. Although it does not appear that any lawsuits or criminal charges were ever filed against the Texas firms, or their managing partners, should such actions have taken place, and if those attorneys were simultaneously licensed in California, the attorneys would have a duty to report the information to the State Bar, which would then be obligated to investigate.

Recognizing that the actions of these Texas law firms and their senior managing attorneys are wholly legal in California, this bill seeks to protect California licensed attorneys from discipline in this state for their actions in another state related to sensitive services that are legal in California, if another jurisdiction seeks to discipline the attorney. Building on existing protections for medical professionals offering sensitive services, this bill provides that an attorney is not obligated to inform the State Bar of out-of-state charges related to legal advice provided, or other actions taken, related to the provision of sensitive services that are legal in California. The bill clarifies that even if the State Bar learns of such discipline, the State Bar is precluded from taking action, unless the claim would be sustainable under California law. These provisions should protect California attorneys who provide valid legal advice regarding the laws of this state and ensure that the State Bar is not forced to utilize its limited resources pursuing claims that lack merit under California law.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: This bill is supported by the Legal Aid Association of California. They write:

AB 1522 would require the State Bar to put together a proposal articulating a process to expedite the licensure of specific attorneys, including those who worked for the federal government. With this, the attorneys would not need to take the Bar examination. We support this bill because it would enable the legal community in our state to utilize the skills and know-how of this group of attorneys and would do so in the urgent way it is needed. It would not only provide our state with talented attorneys to work in government and other locations, but could, hopefully, provide an influx into all manner of public interest-oriented positions. Expediting the licensure and bringing these attorneys in is a smart move for our state and legal community, with little to no downside.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Legal Aid Association of California

Opposition

None on file

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