Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Alright. Synergish Committee will come to order. Good evening. We're holding this committee hearing in Room 1200 of the O Street Building. I ask that all members of the committee be present in Room 1200 so we can establish a quorum and begin our hearing.

We have one, two, three, four members so we're short a few. Please please please present yourselves. We're gonna hear SB 561 by Senator Blake Spear pursuant to Senate rule 29.10 sub d and AB 540 by Assembly member Connolly pursuant to Senate rule 29.10, b as in bravo. Before I just begin, I'll lay out the ground rules. The ground rules today are exactly the same as they have been for the last eight years.

This committee will have two primary witnesses in support, two primary witnesses in opposition for each bill. Each primary witness will have two minutes total to speak. After the primary support, I will invite other speakers to come up and state their name, their affiliation, and their position. We'll do the exact same thing for the opposition. After we hear from support and opposition, we will then bring it back to committee.

For committee members to, ask questions and make comments. So let us begin as a subcommittee. Senator Blakesphere, the floor is yours.

Thank you to the Chair and the committee staff for your work on this bill. SB 561 adds accountability to the Public Guardian's investigation process for probate conservatorships. Specifically, the bill requires public guardians to complete investigations within a reasonable amount of time and provide status updates to referring parties. This will ensure vulnerable adults who lack decision making capacity are not lost in bureaucracy and receive the assistance they need in a timely manner.

Currently, when individuals or agencies, such as adult protective services, submit referrals to the Public Guardian's office, it can take months for investigations to be completed.

Additionally, referring parties often do not receive any notice of whether their referral was received and is being investigated. This has left many vulnerable adults without assistance to make important decisions about their medical care, finances, and basic needs. These delays can have serious consequences. For example, in one case documented in Santa Clara County, a person with disabilities died before the Public Guardian completed its conservatorship investigation.

SB 561 addresses this issue by requiring public guardians to acknowledge receipt of referrals and determine whether a conservatorship is warranted within a reasonable time period.

With me today in support, I have Paul Yoder on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists.

Welcome, Mister Yoder.

Members, thank you. Mister chairman, is this your last hearing?

It is not our last hearing.

Well, that's what he said at the last hearing.

Yeah. Well, I was gonna offer to gut and amend something too.

Yeah. No. I, I appreciate that consideration.

Yeah. You're—it's been a pleasure working with you over the years, regardless. Paul Yoder on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists. We're not trying to create a new process. We're trying to make the existing process better. We're just trying to make sure that people get referred, that they don't languish, that they don't die, after a conservatorship is, is been initiated. And so, that's—I'd urge your aye vote.

Alright. Thank you, Mister Yoder. Anyone else in support of SB 561, please approach the microphone. Going once, going twice, seeing no one approaching. Let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 561, now would be a very good time to approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching the microphone.

Thank you.

Alright. Let's bring it back, committee—for questions by committee members. Questions by committee members? Senator—okay.

First, Senator Niello, then Senator—Senator Laird. Senator Niello.

I'll preface this by saying that end of session last week got an amends, don't float my boat very much. So, I have concerns about it automatically. This one was gutted and amended some time ago. I will grant its importance. But let me ask you, what's so urgent about it now?

It was important a year ago. It was important two years ago, but.

Well, I mean, I, I wanna highlight that the changes were enough to warrant this type of hearing, but we had had it at 15 days, a specific amount of time that a response was required. But we've changed that to be a reasonable amount of time to remove opposition. And so, you know, bills emerge throughout the process.

If you're looking back to when this bill was first introduced, the Psychiatrist Association brought up a number of different issues that they have seen, and we basically work to implement those into bills. So, this isn't a new concept, in terms of the amount of time it's been in print.

It's not—we didn't just land in this hearing. So, this has been around.

Well, the gut and amend was back in July 2nd, so I'll grant that. But, but the, the, the issue didn't just come up on July 2nd. Yeah. So, so, that's why I'm asking. There, there have been other versions of this bill that have been worked on before?

I mean, this is a very specific process where there are two—there are somebody who doesn't have the capacity for to care for themselves. They have no family or friends who will care for them, and they're in between two processes of adult protective services and the Public Guardian.

And so, you know, that person who's falling through the cracks, I don't know if that's been widely identified as a major state problem, but the Psychiatrist Association has brought it to my attention as one of the things that needs fixing.

And in many ways, you know, asking government to do better, to say why is it that when there is an effort to, to hand someone off to a different agency that they're being ghosted, essentially, that they're not getting a response, and we're, we're just falling down as, as government when we're doing that. So, this bill is trying to shine a light on it and say this—we need to do better here.

In many ways, and this is true of many bills we do, it could be solved without a legislation if it could get solved, but it didn't. Right? So, so, here we are.

Okay. What if we don't act on it today?

It's possible that the agency will proceed to make the changes anyway because there'll be some sort of internal culture change. Who knows? But it, it could, you know, be something that doesn't happen.

Or the bill could come back in January.

Right. That's true. But there's really no reason to do that.

Alright. Other questions or comments? Senator Laird. Yes, Senator Laird.

I was just gonna say, I think this bill addresses a good problem. Thank you for bringing it. Whenever we have three or four more people, I will be happy to move it.

Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Blakespear. I urge an aye vote as well. And if you're heading over to where others are gathered, I would encourage you to encourage them to come and visit us here.

Okay.

Okay. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Now we're...

Thank you.

And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Oh, you get close.

I respectfully ask for your aye.

Got it. Okay. So, we're now waiting for Assemblymember Connolly. If we could see if we could round him up.

He's what? I'm sorry. He's presenting in a more important committee right now? Right. Okay.

If we adjourn.

Alright. Okay.

Alright. Thank you. Assemblymember Connolly is here and I urge other members of Senate Judiciary Committee to visit Room 1200 in the swing space... Alright. Assemblymember Connolly.

Thank you, Chair and senators.

AB 540.

Absolutely. Proud to present AB 540, a straightforward bill to address issues currently found in civil law and improve the, process for everyone involved. The goal of this bill is to resolve three related issues in California civil practice to promote clarity, efficiency, and protect protection of litigants' privacy. First, AB 540 simply care clarifies that easeervice of certain motions does not trigger additional time applicable to other methods of service eliminating unnecessary confusion.

Second, the bill makes clear that attorneys actively representing clients are not operating a lawyer referral service merely because incidental to their practice, they refer a potential client to another attorney when the matter falls outside their expertise, exceeds their capacity, or does not meet their criteria for representation.

Finally, AB 540 creates a voluntary, and I want to emphasize this, entirely voluntary first look procedure, which allows sensitive records to be reviewed for privacy and relevance before they are provided to the requesting party. Excuse me. First look agreements are already allowed under current law. This bill simply creates a template that can be used and edited only when stipulated to you by all parties involved. The language in the bill has been carefully negotiated and reviewed over two years to improve civil procedure in California.

I'd like to thank all the parties involved, for coming together and working in good faith. And with me to testify is Sabina, Takar with Consumer Attorneys of California and Mike Belote on behalf of California Defense Council.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members. Mike Belote on behalf of California Defense Council. This was a collaborative process, between us and the consumer attorneys And I'd like to speak to the first look procedure, which as Mr. Connolly indicated is 100% voluntary. Right now lawyers can do this by agreement, but this bill will add a template.

And we worked hard to refine and put the parameters in it. But here's the simple use case. We might be defending a case involving a healthcare provider and we will be subpoenaing the records of the plaintiff. The healthcare providers say, look, we do healthcare. We don't parse through records.

So they're gonna send the whole records out. It might be a case involving a broken ankle, and there will be records in there that are sensitive. They may relate to reproductive rights or to gynecological records. Who knows? This gives the plaintiff's lawyer a chance to take a look at them and say, we're fine with these, but these we're going to put on a privilege log and exclude.

All the bill does, and it really has been refined over time, is put in a template for that process to work, thereby protecting people's records. The bill says, the bill the following shall define the first look procedure in a civil action upon stipulation by all parties to the action. Every lawyer in California knows what that means. It means upon consent of all parties. So we think it's a good product.

Give it a chance to work. Let's see if it works. And then it could be refined. Everyone hates discovery disputes, especially the Chair, and this may help resolve some. Thank you.

Thank you. You're right. It's my jam. Alright. Miss Tucker.

Good evening, Mister Chair and members.

Before we have your testimony, let's establish a quorum. Okay. Committees committee assistant. Order, please call the roll for purposes of establishing a quorum.

Umberg?

Here.

Umberg here. Nilo?

Here.

Nilo here. Allen? Here. Ashby here. Caballero?

Here. Caballero here. Juraso? Here. Juraso here.

Laird?

Here.

Laird here. Reyes?

Here.

Reyes here. Stern, Valadares, Wahab, Weber Pearson, Weiner. Present. Weiner present. You have a quorum.

Alright. Thank you very much. Miss Tucker.

Sabina Tucker with the Consumer Attorneys of California, co sponsor of this bill speaking to the piece on certified referral services as the author mentioned. I know you know this piece well, Chair. This was your bill from last year, S P 37, where we worked hard to make sure that there is private rights of action for anyone that's violating California's ethical attorney advertising rules. And one piece that we were very put a lot of emphasis into was referral services.

And under the current law, they have to be certified with the state bar.

But the only enforcer is the state bar, so we added a private right of action to that existing law. However, there was ambiguity as to what happens if you're just referring something to another counsel. For example, if I'm, you know, given a med mal case, but I don't do med mal, can I refer it to someone else and not violate the statute? So all this bill does is clarify that piece.

We worked with the state bar and try to make it as narrow and surgical as possible.

May we drive up?

Thank you very much. Others in support of, AB 540. Please approach the microphone going once, going twice. Alright. Let's turn the opposition.

If you're opposed AB 540, please come forward. Seeing no one coming forward, let's bring back committee for questions by committee members. Questions by committee members, yes. Senator Niello? I bet I can guess.

Yes. The how we're gonna bet on how quickly the word gut and amend comes out.

Yeah. The word the words. I am not a fan of last minute gut and amend bills. I said that before. So I I see the importance of it by the testimony, but what's the urgency?

This was just, gutted and amended on the twenty first of this month. The issue has existed before. If we don't move on it today, it'll be existing January. What's the urgency?

Well, it's it's been a long time coming. I can attest to we've been working through these issues for a couple years now. We have a moment in time where the parties who are most affected have come together. They don't always agree on things they have here. So we think it's a a good moment to actually bring the item forward.

I don't know if the witnesses have any elaboration but

Well, I'd also ask what's what would be the consequence of not passing this today?

On the referral section, there's ambiguity in the law that the state bar has recognized and they take some time to get feedback to us. They had to administer the bar exam through the end of July, so they're a little bit difficult to reach. That's why the amendments came a little bit later, and we wanted to make sure we got it right. So if we leave the statute as is, that ambiguity is gonna exist next year.

Whereas, we can fix it now with the solution that's been agreed upon and very, you know, analyzed carefully and then have no ambiguity next year.

Alrighty. Thank you. Other questions or comments? Seeing no other questions or comments, is there a motion? Senator D'Orazo has moved the bill.

Alright. Would you like to close?

And again, thank you to the stakeholders for coming together and coming up with a really good work product and would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Committee's supporter, please call the roll.

This is file item number 2 AB 540. The motion is that the measure be returned to the Senate floor for consideration. Humbergh? Aye. Humbergh, Aye.

Nilo? Aye. Nilo, Aye. Allen Ashby? Aye.

Ashby, Aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, Aye. Durazo?

Durazo, Aye. Laird. Aye. Laird, Aye. Reyes.

Reyes, Aye. Stern. Valadares. Wahab. Weber Pearson.

Aye. Weber Pearson, Aye. Weiner. Aye. Weiner, Aye.

920.

920. We'll put that on call just for a little while. Alright. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Assemblymember Connolly. Let's now turn to the other bill that was before us and that is SB 561. Is there

I would move that bill.

Senator Laird has moved the bill. Alright. Committee Assistant Porter, please call the roll.

This is file item number 1, SB561. The motion is that the Assembly amendments be concurred in.

[roll call]

9-0. We will put that on call for exactly two minutes and then we're gonna close down the committee. But before we go, I'm gonna this is not the last hearing. I'm willing it such. But Senator Niello has asked and I think it's a good idea that I prefer that I confer an honorary degree, Juris Doctorate on Senator Niello for his long standing service on the Senate Judiciary Committee by authority of no one.

I've now conferred upon him the degree of Juris Doctor of the California State Senate. So alright. Thank you. Thank you very much. Alright.

We will we'll stay for another 90 seconds.

And then we're gonna close down the committee.

Okay. We're gonna open the roll now, and we're gonna call the roll. Committee assistant Porter, please call the roll, on both items that are on the agenda.

File item number 1, SB561.

[roll call]

9-0. That bill is out.

File item number 2, AB 540.

[roll call]

9-0. That bill is out. Alright. So, I'm gonna pretend like we're gonna have one more hearing. So thank you all and we'll see you next time.

Thanks.

We are