DOCSLIB.ORG

2017 Proposed Final Budget Statutory Citation: Business and Professions Code Section 6140.1 Date of Report: February 15, 2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2017 Proposed Final Budget Statutory Citation: Business and Professions Code Section 6140.1 Date of Report: February 15, 2017 THE 180 HOWARD STREET STATE BAR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105-1639 OF CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE (415) 538-2000 Title of Report: 2017 Proposed Final Budget Statutory Citation: Business and Professions Code section 6140.1 Date of Report: February 15, 2017 The State Bar of California has submitted a report to the Legislature in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 6140.1. Business and Professions Code section 6140.1 requires the State Bar of California to submit a proposed baseline budget for the following year to the Legislature by November 15 and later a proposed final budget by February 15 so that the budget may be reviewed in conjunction with any bill that authorizes the State Bar’s imposition of membership fees on its members. In prior years the State Bar has presented three year budgets which are updated annually. In the current climate, there is significant uncertainty regarding the Bar’s budget outlook stemming from the absence of the 2017 fee bill. As a result, the Board of Trustees was asked to consider and approve a one-year budget only at its January meeting. This budget submission reflects the approved one-year budget for 2017. This 2017 Proposed Final Budget includes the State Bar’s budget overview, revenues and expenditures by fund, department and cost center. Expenditures on wages and salaries by department, indirect cost summary and a consolidated fund condition with projected reserve level are also included. Comparing the 2017 Proposed Final Budget to the proposed 2017 budget filed in November 2016, this Proposed Final Budget reflects the following factors, assumptions and principles: o The special regulatory assessment authorized by the California Supreme Court in lieu of a fee bill, setting the attorney licensing fee of $297, resulting in a 5.7% reduction in 2017 Unconsolidated General Fund Revenue. o A minimum investment of $1.67 million to bemade in the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel pursuant to the Supreme Court’s authorization order, with additional funding identified to support workforce planning and backlog reduction efforts. o Funding identified to support most programs not funded by the Court’s authorized assessment. o Reductions to travel, catering, professional services and temporary help initiated in 2016 will continue. o Eligible employees will receive step increases in 2017. o The new Discipline System CMS will be procured and the project will begin. This summary is provided under Government Code section 9795. The 2017 proposed baseline budget can be accessed at: http://www.calbar.ca.gov/AboutUs/Reports.aspx. A printed copy of the report may be obtained by calling 415-538-2157. 2017 State Bar Budget the State Bar OF CaliFOrnia FeBruary 14, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS COVER LETTER State Bar of California 2017 Budget Overview 2017 Budget ............................................................................................................... APPENDIX A Update on Workforce Planning Implementation ....................................................... APPENDIX B State Bar Organizational Chart .................................................................................. APPENDIX C The State Bar’s Budget Policy and Procedures Manual ............................................ APPENDIX D THE STATE BAR OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CALIFORNIA Elizabeth R. Parker, Executive Director 180 HOWARD STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-1639 Tel: (415) 538-2275 Fax: (415) 538-2305 E-mail: [email protected] February 15, 2017 Honorable Diane F. Boyer-Vine Honorable Daniel Alvarez Legislative Counsel Secretary of the Senate State Capitol, Room 3021 State Capitol, Room 3044 Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 Honorable Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Honorable Jerry Brown Chief Justice of California Governor of California Supreme Court of California State Capitol, Suite 1173 455 Golden Gate Avenue Sacramento, CA 95814 San Francisco, CA 94102-3660 Honorable Kevin de León Honorable Anthony Rendon Senate President Pro Tempore Speaker of the Assembly State Capitol, Room 205 State Capitol, Room 219 Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 Honorable Hannah-Beth Jackson Honorable Mark Stone Chair, Senate Committee on Judiciary Chair, Assembly Committee on Judiciary State Capitol Room 2032 State Capitol, Room 3146 Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Legislative Counsel Diane F. Boyer-Vine, Secretary of the Senate Daniel Alvarez, Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Governor Brown, President pro Tem DeLeon, Speaker Rendon, Senator Jackson, and Assemblymember Stone: I am pleased to provide you with the State Bar of California’s 2017 Budget. Since its statutory creation in 1927, the Bar’s mission has been to protect the public through the effective administration of its regulatory and discipline functions and promoting greater access to justice in California. To pursue this mission in 2017, the approved $165 million budget reflects a 13 percent increase from the Bar’s 2016 budget and is reliant on the use of $19 million in spending from the Bar’s reserves. This budget increase, produced in large part by planned capital expenditures, increased grant distribution, and staffing augmentations at the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel (OCTC), will enable the Bar to meet its operational objectives despite fiscal challenges that have significantly impacted 2017 revenue projections. State Bar of California Final Budget February 15, 2017 Page 2 In addition to the immediate fiscal pressures outlined below, an important context for the 2017 budget submission is the impending transition of the State Bar Sections to a stand-alone, independent entity. While the fiscal impact of this transition is not reflected in the 2017 budget, it will necessarily be a focal point of the Bar’s 2018 budget development process; we anticipate utilizing the same combination of discipline and careful scrutiny employed in the preparation of the 2017 budget to address these challenges in the new year. The past year brought a series of budgetary setbacks that the Bar has worked diligently to address with integrity and transparency. After the California State Legislature failed to pass a fee bill authorizing 2017 licensing fees, the Bar submitted a request for a special regulatory assessment to the California Supreme Court (Court) on September 30, 2016. The Bar’s 2017 proposed budget, submitted in November 2016, reflected the uncertainty of the time; given the pending assessment request, the Bar’s November submission reflected a status quo rollover of 2016 adopted budget figures, with the expectation that the numbers would be significantly revised once the Court issued its order regarding the 2017 attorney licensing assessment. The Court ultimately approved a 2017 licensing fee of $297, an $18 per attorney decrease from the 2016 authorized fee of $315. The decreased revenue—creating a revenue shortfall of $4.8 million—left the Access Commission, Center on Access to Justice, and Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation unfunded while significantly limiting funding for the Office of Communications and the California Young Lawyers Association. The Court’s order also required that $9 of the $297 authorized be used to support workforce planning implementation efforts in the OCTC, effectively redirecting $1.67 million of funding that otherwise might be generally available to increased funding specifically for that Office. These setbacks are important context for the 2017 budget. So too are the Bar’s 2016 accomplishments, which help mitigate these challenges. The Bar made sweeping cost reductions to travel, catering, temporary help, and professional services spending in its 2016 adopted budget; actual expenditures in these areas reflected $2 million in additional savings beyond those budgeted. In addition, the Bar reduced capital improvement spending and left personnel vacancies unfilled in 2016, resulting in an overall budget surplus of $8.5 million in the Bar’s Consolidated General Fund, which supports its core discipline functions. This surplus increased the Bar’s reserves; these reserves in turn are being used to address current year budget challenges. The Bar also met many non-budgetary goals during 2016: full implementation of all 17 of the State Auditor’s 2015 recommendations regarding accountability and efficiency, a comprehensive review of policy and regulatory mandates impacting the Bar, and development of a three-year technology plan represent just a few of the year’s accomplishments. State Bar of California Final Budget February 15, 2017 Page 3 Over the next year, the Bar is committed to building on its 2016 successes and to identifying creative means to ensure core programs impacted by the reduced attorney licensing fee remain intact, while increasing resources available to support key discipline system reform efforts. To address its budget shortfall, the Bar’s 2017 budget reflects an expansion of the professional service cost reductions first implemented during the 2016 budget process, reduced staffing for its Office of Communications and the Elimination of Bias and Legislative Activities Programs, and a discontinuation the Bar Relations Program. The Bar also plans to proceed with key initiatives essential to its mission in 2017: most significantly, the Bar will invest $3.4 million in OCTC to expand discipline-related initiatives, more than double the amount directed by the 2017 Court assessment level. Bar leadership believe this funding augmentation is imperative to ensure the success of OCTC’s workforce planning
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cal 2004-165
    THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND CONDUCT FORMAL OPINION NO. 2004-165 ISSUE: 1. What are the ethical responsibilities of a member of the California State Bar who uses outside contract lawyers to make appearances on behalf of the member’s clients? 2. What are the ethical responsibilities of the outside contract lawyer who makes the appearances? DIGEST: 1. To comply with his or her ethical responsibilities, a member of the California State Bar who uses an outside contract lawyer to make appearances on behalf of the member’s client must disclose to his client the fact of the arrangement between the member and the outside lawyer when the use of the outside lawyer constitutes a significant development in the matter. Whether the use of the outside lawyer constitutes a significant development will depend upon the circumstances in each situation. If, at the outset of the engagement, the member anticipates using outside lawyers to make appearances on behalf of the member’s client, the member should address the issue in the written fee agreement with the client. If the member charges the outside lawyer’s fees and costs to the client as a disbursement, the member must state the client’s obligations for those charges in the written fee agreement. In addition, the member remains responsible to the client, which includes responsibility for competently supervising the outside lawyer. Finally, the member must comply with the ethical rules concerning competence, confidentiality, advertising, and conflicts of interest that apply to his or her role in any such arrangement.
    [Show full text]
  • The State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct Formal Opinion Interim No
    THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND CONDUCT FORMAL OPINION INTERIM NO. 08-0002 ISSUES: Does an attorney violate the duties of confidentiality and competence he or she owes to a client by using technology to transmit or store confidential client information when the technology may be susceptible to unauthorized access by third parties? DIGEST: Whether an attorney violates his or her duties of confidentiality and competence when using technology to transmit or store confidential client information will depend on the particular technology being used and the circumstances surrounding such use. Before using a particular technology in the course of representing a client, an attorney must take appropriate steps to evaluate: 1) the level of security attendant to the use of that technology, including whether reasonable precautions may be taken when using the technology to increase the level of security; 2) the legal ramifications to a third party who intercepts, accesses or exceeds authorized use of the electronic information; 3) the degree of sensitivity of the information; 4) the possible impact on the client of an inadvertent disclosure of privileged or confidential information or work product; 5) the urgency of the situation; and 6) the client‟s instructions and circumstances, such as access by others to the client‟s devices and communications. AUTHORITIES INTERPRETED: Rule 3-100 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California. Rule 3-110 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California. California Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (e)(1). STATEMENT OF FACTS Attorney is an associate at a law firm that provides a laptop computer for his use on client and firm matters and which includes software necessary to his practice.
    [Show full text]
  • The Regulation of Lawyer Referral Services: a Preliminary State-By-State Review
    THE REGULATION OF LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICES: A PRELIMINARY STATE-BY-STATE REVIEW Prepared by the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Lawyer Referral and Information Service I. Overview Lawyer Referral Service (LRS) programs across the country provide an efficient mechanism for providing attorneys with direct referrals of potential clients, while also providing access to legal services to typically middle-class Americans who may otherwise lack the knowledge or information necessary to independently seek out counsel. Every state has developed regulatory schemes defining these programs and the parameters for attorney involvement, and in some cases even dictating the operation of LRS programs themselves. A review of the LRS rules in all fifty states undertaken by the ABA Standing Committee on Lawyer Referral and Information Service reveals a broad continuum of regulation of LRS programs across the country. This report summarizes the preliminary findings of this review, with further research ongoing. II. Analysis of State LRS Regulatory Schemes There is a wide variation among the states in the manner in which LRS programs are regulated. The predominant approach involves defining the conditions under which lawyers may participate in LRS programs through court rule; specifically, rules of professional conduct. But there are also states that have court rules defining how LRS programs are to be operated (including two states that engage in regulation via statute in addition to court rule), and the applicability of LRS regulatory approaches are controlled, in part, on how states define “lawyer referral service,” and these definitions often vary. A. The Basis and Focus of LRS Regulation The approaches undertaken by the states in regulating LRS programs may be easily divided into two distinct areas of focus: a focus on regulation of attorney participation in LRS programs, and a focus on regulation of LRS programs themselves.
    [Show full text]
  • ATTORNEY FIRST AID KIT PROGRAM MATERIALS | February 15, 2019 Friday, February 15, 2019 ICLE: State Bar Series
    ICLE ATTORNEY FIRST AID KIT PROGRAM MATERIALS | February 15, 2019 Friday, February 15, 2019 ICLE: State Bar Series ATTORNEY FIRST AID KIT 5.5 CLE Hours including 1 Ethics Hour Sponsored By: Institute of Continuing Legal Education Copyright © 2019 by the Institute of Continuing Legal Education of the State Bar of Georgia. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of ICLE. The Institute of Continuing Legal Education’s publications are intended to provide current and accurate information on designated subject matter. They are off ered as an aid to practicing attorneys to help them maintain professional competence with the understanding that the publisher is not rendering legal, accounting, or other professional advice. Attorneys should not rely solely on ICLE publications. Attorneys should research original and current sources of authority and take any other measures that are necessary and appropriate to ensure that they are in compliance with the pertinent rules of professional conduct for their jurisdiction. ICLE gratefully acknowledges the eff orts of the faculty in the preparation of this publication and the presentation of information on their designated subjects at the seminar. The opinions expressed by the faculty in their papers and presentations are their own and do not necessarily refl ect the opinions of the Institute of Continuing Legal Education, its offi cers, or employees. The faculty is not engaged in rendering legal or other professional advice and this publication is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 33 No. 6 Nov/Dec 2020 Partner up with POWER Is Your Firm Concerned About Expenses in This Current Economic Cycle?
    Utah Bar® JOURNAL Volume 33 No. 6 Nov/Dec 2020 Partner Up With POWER Is your firm concerned about expenses in this current economic cycle? Concerned insurance carriers or corporate defendants will try to “lowball” or stall your contingency cases? In need of an aggressive team to get top value for your clients and get it done without more delays? Eisenberg, Cutt, Kendell & Olson are here to help you. Our full-time business is working with lawyers and firms to co-counsel larger contingency fee injury, tort and insurance cases. We have the staff and financial resources to aggressively prosecute cases even in the hardest economic times. We can do it all or work side by side with you. If needed, we can also help with case expenses and costs. We’d like to talk to you about getting the most for your cases. 801.366.9100 | www.eckolaw.com The Utah Bar Journal Published by the Utah State Bar | 645 South 200 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 | 801-531-9077 | www.utahbar.org BAR JOURNAL EDITORIAL BOARD Editor-in-Chief Utah Law Developments Editor Editor at Large Alisha Giles LaShel Shaw Todd Zagorec Managing Editor Judicial Advisor Young Lawyer Representative Andrea Valenti Arthur Judge Gregory K. Orme Alex Sandvik Articles Editors Copy Editors Paralegal Representative LaShel Shaw Hal Armstrong Greg Wayment Victoria Luman Paul Justensen Jacqueline Carlton Bar Staff Liaison Editors Emeritus Christine Critchley Departments Editor William D. Holyoak Ryan Beckstrom Judge Catherine E. Roberts (Ret.) Advertising/Design Manager Laniece Roberts MISSION & VISION OF THE BAR: The lawyers of the Utah State Bar serve the public and legal profession with excellence, civility, and integrity.
    [Show full text]
  • Rules of Professional Conduct
    California Rules of Professional Conduct 2021 California Rules of Professional Conduct and Other Related Rules and Codes Volume 1 Rules of Professional Conduct State Bar Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 6000 et seq.) “1992” Rules of Professional Conduct “1989” Rules of Professional Conduct “1975” Rules of Professional Conduct Rules Cross-Reference Tables Published by the State Bar of California Office of Professional Competence Pub. No. 250 2021 PRODUCTION STAFF LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH EDITOR Mimi Lee Randall Difuntorum Lauren McCurdy Andrew Tuft PRODUCTION EDITOR Lauren McCurdy DISTRIBUTION Angela Marlaud ASSISTANT EDITOR WEB PRODUCTION Mimi Lee Mimi Lee TABLE OF CONTENTS RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Rule 1.8.6 Compensation from One Other than Client CROSS-REFERENCE TABLES 17 Current Rules to the “1992” Rules iii Rule 1.8.7 Aggregate Settlements 18 “1992” Rules to the Current Rules vii Rule 1.8.8 Limiting Liability to Client 18 RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Rule 1.8.9 Purchasing Property at a Foreclosure or a Sale Subject to Judicial Review 18 Rule 1.0 Purpose and Function of the Rules of Professional Conduct 1 Rule 1.8.10 Sexual Relations with Current Client 18 Rule 1.0.1 Terminology 2 Rule 1.8.11 Imputation of Prohibitions Under Rules 1.8.1 to 1.8.9 19 CHAPTER 1. LAWYER-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP 3 Rule 1.9 Duties to Former Clients 19 Rule 1.1 Competence 3 Rule 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts of Interest: General Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation and Allocation of Rule 20 Authority 4 Rule 1.11 Special Conflicts of Interest for Former and Rule 1.2.1 Advising
    [Show full text]
  • State Bar of California Acting Executive Director: Jeffrey T
    LEGAL/ACCOUNTING REGULATORY AGENCIES State Bar of California Acting Executive Director: Jeffrey T. Gersick ♦ (415) 538-8200 ♦ (213) 765-1000 ♦ To ll-Free Complaint Hotline: 1-800-843-9053 ♦ Ethics Hotline: l-800-2ETHJCS ♦ Internet: www.calbar.org he State Bar of California was created by legislative of investigators and prosecutors. The act in 1927 and codified in the CaliforniaConstitution Bar recommends sanctions to the at Article VI, section 9. The State Bar was established California Supreme Court, which makes final discipline de­ asT a public corporation within the judicial branch of govern­ cisions. However, Business and Professions Code section ment, and membership is a requirement for all attorneys prac­ 6007 authorizes the Bar to place attorneys on involuntary in­ ticing law in California. Over 165,000 California lawyers are active status if they pose a substantial threat of harm to cli­ members of the State Bar. ents or to the public, among other reasons. The State Bar Act, Business and Professions Code sec­ On March 1, State Bar Executive Director Steve Nissen tion 6000 et seq., designates a Board of Governors to run the announced his resignation in order to accept a position within Bar. The Board President is usually elected by the Board of Governor Gray Davis' administration. Nissen, who officially Governors at its June meeting and serves a one-year tenn left on March 19, had served at the Bar for only 16 months, beginning in September. Only governors who have served on arrivingjust prior to then-Governor Wilson's veto of the Bar's the Board for three years are eligible to run for President.
    [Show full text]
  • THE FLORIDA BAR, Complaintant, V. VITO TORCHIA, JR., Respondent
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) THE FLORIDA BAR, Supreme Court Case Complaintant, No. SC-16-1267 v. The Florida Bar File No. 2016-00,163 (2A) VITO TORCHIA, JR., Respondent. _____________________________/ ANSWER TO FORMAL COMPLAINT FOR RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE Vito Torchia, Jr., Respondent, files this Answer to Formal Compliant for Reciprocal Discipline filed by The Florida Bar, Complaintant, pursuant to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar and answers: 1. Respondent admits the averment in paragraph 1 of the Complaint. 2. Respondent admits the averment in paragraph 2 of the Complaint. 3. Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to respond to the averment in paragraph 3, and on that basis, denies the averment in paragraph 3. Respondent further responds that the document speaks for itself. 4. Respondent denies the averments in paragraphs 4 A. through 4 CC. 5. Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to respond to 1 the averments in paragraphs 4 DD. and 4 EE, and on that basis, denies the averments in paragraphs 4 DD. and 4 EE. Respondent further responds that each document speaks for itself. 6. Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to respond to the averment in paragraph 5, and on that basis, denies the averment in paragraph 5. WHETHER RECIPROCOL DISCIPLINE IS APPROPRIATE This Court, in Florida Bar v. Kandekore , 932 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 2000), held that “[u]nder Rule Regulating The Florida Bar 3-4.6, when an attorney is adjudicated guilty of misconduct by the disciplinary agency of another jurisdiction, the adjudication serves as conclusive proof of commission of the misconduct charged.
    [Show full text]
  • 2001-2002 Annual Report Georgia State University College of Law
    Georgia State University College of Law Reading Room Annual Reports Historical Materials October 2002 2001-2002 Annual Report Georgia State University College of Law Janice C. Griffith Follow this and additional works at: https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/annual Institutional Repository Citation Georgia State University College of Law and Griffith,a J nice C., "2001-2002 Annual Report" (2002). Annual Reports. 24. https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/annual/24 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Historical Materials at Reading Room. It has been accepted for inclusion in Annual Reports by an authorized administrator of Reading Room. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ANNUAL REPORT 2001 - 2002 GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY ANNUAL REPORT FY02 COLLEGE OF LAW w September, 2002 College of Law 2001-2002 Annual Report Section A. Summary of Major Accomplishments Planning for the Future The most important accomplishment among the many notable achievements this past year was the adoption by the faculty of a new strategic plan to guide the College of Law in the years ahead. The new plan was the result of several years of diligent effort on the part of many among the faculty and administration. The new plan integrates the college's future goals with the university's strategic plan and goals. Coupled with strategic planning was the development of a more specific plan of improvement arising out of the university's academic program review. Together these documents gives clear direction and specific goals for the college to achieve in the years ahead. Interdisciplinary Programs More interdisciplinary activities are an important goal in the new strategic plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Georgia Lawyer Legacies
    GBJ Feature GeorgiaGeorgia LawyerLawyer LegaciesLegacies by Sarah I. Coole, Jennifer R. Mason and Johanna B. Merrill Illustration by Marc Cardwell ith a Bar membership as diverse as (admitted to the Bar in 1982) knows what it means to honor the profession. She follows in the footsteps of Georgia’s—where people relocate to members of the Abbot-Hardeman family, dating back to the 1800s. On the Hardeman side, her mater- our cities from the other 49 states and nal great-great-great-grandfather Robert Vines W Hardeman served as lawyer, state representative countries as far away as China—it may be easy to for- and Superior Court judge in the Ocmulgee Circuit. Other Hardeman family lawyers include Abbot’s get that for a number of Georgia lawyers, the roots of great-grandfather, Robert Northington “R.N.” Hardeman (1894) and her grandfather, Robert their legal careers run deep. For some, they are but the Northington Hardeman Jr. (1915). Two paternal great-great uncles, Judge William Little Phillips and second generation: the beginning of a legal legacy that John Robert Phillips both practiced in Jefferson County. According to Judge Abbot, “If you were to may stretch for generations to come. Others, however, take a look at the cases on appeal out of the courts in Jefferson County, you would see that many are con- can find their last names in Georgia Bar Association nected with an Abbot, Phillips or Hardeman.” Judge Abbot’s view of lawyers and the legal profes- rosters from before the Civil War. sion was integrally shaped by how her father, James Carswell “Jim” Abbot (1951), and grandfather, William We asked the Bar’s membership to let us know if they Wright Abbot Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • Cal. Bar. Formal Opinion No. 2020-202
    THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND CONDUCT FORMAL OPINION NO. 2020-202 ISSUES: May a lawyer provide advice and assistance to a client with respect to conduct permitted by California's cannabis laws, despite the fact that the client's conduct, although lawful under California law, might violate federal law? DIGEST: Under the Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer may ethically advise a client concerning compliance with California's cannabis laws and may assist the client in conduct permitted by those laws, despite the fact that the client's conduct may violate federal law. Such advice and assistance may include the provision of legal services to the client that facilitate the operation of a business that is lawful under California law (e.g., incorporation of a business, tax advice, employment advice, contractual arrangements, and other actions necessary to the lawful operation of the business under California law). However, a lawyer may not advise a client to violate federal law or provide advice or assistance in violating state or federal law in a way that avoids detection or prosecution of such violations. The lawyer must also inform the client of the conflict between state and federal law, including the potential for criminal liability and the penalties that could be associated with a violation of federal law. Where appropriate, the lawyer must also advise the client of other potential impacts on the lawyer-client relationship, including on the attorney-client privilege, that could result from the fact that the client’s conduct may be prohibited under federal law.
    [Show full text]
  • STATE BAR ACT § 6009 City Or County Registration of Attorneys Who Qualify As Lobbyists; CHAPTER 4
    ϮϬϮ1 TABLE OF CONTENTS THE STATE BAR ACT § 6009 City or County Registration of Attorneys Who Qualify as Lobbyists; CHAPTER 4. ATTORNEYS Lobbyist Information That May be Required to be Disclosed 8 ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS § 6009.3 Attorney to Inform Client in § 6000 Short Title 1 Writing Concerning Voluntary § 6001 State Bar; Perpetual Succession; Contributions 8 Seal; Revenue; Powers; Laws § 6009.5 Collection and Reporting of Applicable 1 Demographic Data–Procedures § 6001.1 State Bar–Protection of the Public and Limitations 8 as the Highest Priority 2 ARTICLE 2 ADMINISTRATION § 6001.2 State Bar Governance in the Public § 6010 Board of Trustees in General 9 Interest Task Force 2 § 6001.3 Legislative Intent, Findings, and § 6011 Number of Members 9 Declarations; Development, Report, § 6013.1 State Bar Board of Trustees– and Implementation of Goals 2 Appointment of Attorney Members § 6001.4 State Bar Employee Compensation by the Supreme Court; State Bar Administrative Responsibilities for and Benefits 3 Appointment Process 9 § 6002 Licensees 3 § 6013.3 State Bar Board of Trustees– § 6002.1 Official Licensing Records 3 Appointment of Attorney Members by the Senate Committee on Rules § 6003 Classes of Licensees 4 and by the Speaker of the Assembly 9 § 6004 Active Licensees 4 § 6013.5 Public Members; Appointment; § 6005 Inactive Licensees 4 Qualifications; Term 10 § 6006 Retirement from Practice; § 6013.5.5 Public Members Appointment or Privileges of Inactive Licensees 4 Reappointment to the State Bar Board of Trustees–Applicable § 6007
    [Show full text]