The State Bar seeks public comment on a proposed modification to California Rules of Court to allow the State Bar Court to approve stipulations to modify probation conditions between the State Bar office that monitors disciplinary conditions and disciplined licensees. A new rule is sought to state that the Supreme Court may, but is not required to, order a respondent to pass a professional responsibility examination following an order suspending a respondent from the practice of law.
Deadline: April 14, 2025, 11:59 p.m. (45 days)
Comments should be submitted using the online Public Comment Form. The online form allows you to input your comments directly and can also be used to upload your comment letter and/or other attachments.
California Rules of Court, rule 9.10(c) confers authority on the State Bar Court to approve stipulations to modify terms of probation only between the respondent and Office of Chief Trial Counsel (OCTC). However, Office of Case Management & Supervision (OCMS), not OCTC, monitors respondents’ disciplinary conditions. As a result, modifications, even when OCMS and the respondent agree, can only be made through motion practice in the State Bar Court. Motion practice consumes valuable time and resources and is not efficient where the parties can agree to stipulate. The modification will allow changes to be made through the stipulation process.
Since a mid-1970's California Supreme Court case, almost every disciplined attorney who receives an actual or stayed suspension is required to take and pass a professional responsibility examination. That examination is the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE). The MPRE does not test specifically on California law. Rather, it is based on the law governing the conduct and discipline of lawyers and judges, including the disciplinary rules of professional conduct currently articulated in the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct, the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct, and controlling constitutional decisions and generally accepted principles established in leading federal and state cases and in procedural and evidentiary rules. More accessible and relevant alternatives now exist but because of the caselaw, they are ordered in addition to the MPRE, not instead of it. The new proposed Rule of Court would state that the Supreme Court may, but is not required to, order a respondent to take and pass a professional responsibility examination.
The first proposal is to change the California Rules of Court to confer authority on the State Bar Court to approve stipulations entered into by the Office of Case Management and Supervision and a respondent, to modify conditions of probation.
The second proposal is to add a new California Rule of Court to abrogate the California Supreme Court holding in Segretti v. State Bar (1976) 15 Cal.3d 878, 891, such that respondents with a suspension order, whether the suspension is actual or stayed, are no longer, as a matter of course, required to take a professional responsibility examination.
No longer requiring virtually all respondents to provide proof of passage of a professional responsibility examination may result in a net neutral impact on personnel work if respondents complete conditions in lieu of the MPRE; however, it may reduce personnel work in OCMS given that some respondents file motions for extension of time in relation to the MPRE, at least in part because the MPRE is only offered three times a year.
Permitting OCMS to stipulate with respondents is anticipated to result in less personnel work for both OCMS and State Bar Court because the parties would need to submit only one document for the State Bar Court’s review, instead of a motion and a response.
Board of Trustees, Sitting as the Regulation and Discipline Committee
April 14, 2025, 11:59 p.m.