|
|
Opportunities for Public CommentOpportunities for Public Comment
LAAC is frequently asked to share information for public comment periods on issues that may impact the legal services community and clients. The following are items that are currently up for public comment. Please check back frequently for additional information and updates on the following items.
STATE BAR PROPOSALS
The Limited License Working Group of the State Bar seeks public comment as its members consider licensing non-attorneys to practice law. Two meetings have been scheduled for Wednesday, May 22, and Monday, June 17. The group held its first opportunity for public comment on April 11 (click here for an agenda from that meeting).
Currently, the California plan does not include any specific proposals. The Board of Trustees is looking primarily at the Washington model, but also reviewing other jurisdictions and other professions. LAAC is researching the Washington model as a likely proposal.
Resources: The Washington State Bar Journal published an article outlining the pros and cons of their new program. A link to information on the Washington program, currently limited to family law cases, may be found here. The Washington Supreme Court's order and rule are posted here. The State Bar has made all materials from the first hearing available electronically, and LAAC is happy to share them upon request to Salena (scopeland@laaconline.org). The highlights are 1) a memo to the Board of Trustees on the topic, 2) materials from the Washington State Bar Association, and 3) previous California State Bar work in this area.
- Practical Skills and Pro Bono Requirement Pre-Admission to the Bar - Tuesday, April 23 at 10 a.m. at the Los Angeles Offices of the State Bar; Tuesday, June 11 at 10 a.m. at the San Francisco Offices of the State Bar
A detailed agenda for the April 23 meeting may be found here, and the proposal may be found here. To provide comments, contact Teri Greenman at teri.greenman@calbar.ca.gov. For more information on the task force, click here.
- Potential changes to the rules governing Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)
The State Bar of California conducted public hearings on potential changes to the rules governing Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE), including the requirements for lawyers and the criteria for courses presented by providers certified by the State Bar.
The hearings wtook place at the State Bar offices on April 18 in Los Angeles and May 8 in San Francisco. The information gathered may ultimately be used to develop a proposal that will be submitted to the Board of Trustees.The agenda for the May 8 meeting was been posted here. If you wish to ssubmit comments, please contact Laila Bartlett at laila.bartlett@calbar.ca.gov. More information can be found in this article.
LAAC staff attended and heard some of the ideas under consideration.
- One is to increase the minimum hours from 25 to 36 hours every three years, reporting at the end of the three year cycle.
- Another idea is to increase the minimum to 36 hours every three years, but require a minimum in each of those years (preventing the practice of cramming right before the deadline).
- One early idea, which seems to have died, was to not allow attorneys to take classes outside of their expertise. We were happy to see that idea die, as many of our member programs use MCLE to bring in pro bono attorneys.
- The State Bar is also looking at clarifying the definitions for speciality MCLEs and perhaps renaming for clarification.
JUDICIAL COUNCIL PROPOSALS
-
Appellate Procedures: Reporter's Transcripts in Civil Appeals (PDF)
comment by 5 p.m. on June 19, 2013
This proposal is intended to generate revenue for trial courts and provide costs savings and efficiencies for trial courts and for litigants by establishing a fee to cover trial court costs associated with administering trust accounts for payment of reporter’s transcript costs in civil appeals, establishing a lower deposit amount for reporter’s transcripts of proceedings that have already been transcribed, allowing the submission of certified transcripts in lieu of a deposit for a reporter’s transcript only when the certified transcripts contain all of the designated proceedings and are in the required format for reporter’s transcripts, and making other changes to the rules relating to reporter’s transcripts in civil appeals.
-
Civil Practice and Procedure: Telephonic Appearances (PDF)
comment by 5 p.m. on June 19, 2013
The ability of parties and attorneys to appear by telephone at hearings and conferences in civil cases has increased access to the courts and reduced litigation costs. This proposal would amend rule 3.670 to clarify that the hearings, conferences, and proceedings at which a party may appear by telephone include all law and motion matters, to add ex parte applications to the types of proceedings at which a party may appear by telephone, and to clarify that a court should grant leave to appear by telephone on shortened notice if good cause exists. Rule 3.1207 (regarding ex parte appearances generally) and rule 5.324 (regarding telephonic appearances in certain child support proceedings) would also be amended to reflect the changes in the telephonic appearance rule.
-
Military Service: Optional Form for Notification of Party's Military Status (PDF)
comment by 5 p.m. on June 19, 2013
The proposed new optional form would be used to inform the court that a party in a criminal or juvenile dependency court case is in the military. Knowledge of a party’s status as a current or former member of the armed services or reserves will enable courts to address any legal issues for which military status is relevant and to better administer justice. It will also help courts comply with the sentencing requirements of Penal Code section 1170.9 and make it easier to identify when outside resources are available to military and former military court users. This proposal is responsive to Assembly Bill 2371 and a request to the Administrative Office of the Courts to amend Judicial Council forms to allow identification of court litigants who have a military affiliation.
Submit comments online here, or email invitations@jud.ca.gov.
OTHER PROPOSALS, including those with no deadlines
- Report from the 2011 Judicial Diversity Summit - No deadline
The State Bar of California seeks public comment on its report and recommendations following the 2011 Judicial Diversity Summit. The report can be accessed by clicking here, and the appendicies here. To provide comments, contact Patricia Lee at patricia.lee@calbar.ca.gov.
|
|
