LAO
The California State Bar: Assessment of Proposed Disciplinary Case Processing Standards
Read the report at Legislative Analyst's Office ↗
The California State Bar:
Assessment of Proposed Disciplinary
Case Processing Standards
GABRIEL PETEK | LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
JANUARY 2023
AN LAO REPORT
ii LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
AN LAO REPORT
Executive Summary
On October 28, 2022, the State Bar provided our office with its proposed (1) caseload
processing standards for resolving attorney discipline cases within its Office of Chief Trial Counsel
(OCTC), (2) establishment of a backlog goal and metrics to measure such a goal, and (3) staffing
requirements needed to achieve the new standards. As required by Chapter 723 of 2021 (SB 211,
Umberg), this report presents our assessment of the State Bar’s proposal.
State Bar Licenses Attorneys and Regulates Their Professional Conduct. The State Bar
functions as the administrative arm of the California Supreme Court for the purpose of admitting
individuals to practice law in California and regulating the professional conduct of attorneys by
adopting and enforcing rules of professional conduct. As of December 2022, there were more
than 286,000 members of the State Bar—of which about 196,000 (or 69 percent) have elected to
actively practice law in California.
State Bar Administers Own Disciplinary Process. The State Bar administers its own
disciplinary system primarily through OCTC and the State Bar Court (SBC). OCTC receives,
investigates, and prosecutes cases against attorneys, while the SBC adjudicates these cases.
Generally, the disciplinary process consists of four stages: (1) Intake, in which complaints
are received; (2) Investigation, in which cases are investigated; (3) Charging, in which OCTC
determines whether to formally file charges; and (4) Hearing, in which OCTC prosecutes cases in
the SBC. OCTC currently prioritizes the processing of cases based on potential risk to members
of the public. State law currently requires the State Bar to complete the first three stages of the
disciplinary process—specifically for OCTC to dismiss a complaint, admonish an attorney, or
file formal charges against an attorney—within 180 days after receipt of a written complaint for
“noncomplex” cases and 365 days for “complex” cases.
State Bar Proposal. In its report, the State Bar proposes the following changes related to its
attorney disciplinary process:
• New Case Processing Standards. The State Bar proposes that disciplinary cases be
prioritized based on both risk to members of the public as well as case complexity. It also
proposes average case processing time standards across six case categories based on
when a case is closed, the stage at which it is closed, and the case risk/complexity (such as
high-risk, complex cases closed in the Investigation Stage).
• Establishment of a Backlog Goal and Metrics. The State Bar proposes a backlog goal
of 10 percent or fewer cases as well as a backlog standard for each of the new case
processing standards.
• Defers Comprehensive Staffing Analysis. The State Bar defers a comprehensive
staffing analysis to 2023 in order to incorporate legislative direction on the proposed case
processing standards as well as various OCTC operational changes that are currently in
progress or are being considered. However, the State Bar preliminarily calculates that an
additional 78 to 119 additional OCTC staff could be needed, which would cost between
$10.6 million to $16.3 million.
www.lao.ca.gov 1
AN LAO REPORT
Analyst’s Review of State Bar Proposal. We reviewed the State Bar’s proposal and
identified key questions for legislative consideration on the overall proposal as well as its
three key components.
• Overarching Comments—Consider Whether Changes for Additional Oversight Are
Warranted. The State Bar’s proposal assumes that the existing disciplinary process is
generally reasonable. However, the Legislature will want to consider whether it believes
changes are warranted. Additionally, we note that the lack of legislative approval of the State
Bar budget can make oversight difficult. Accordingly, the Legislature will want to consider
what level of oversight it wants to exercise over State Bar processes and funding.
• New Case Processing Standards—Partially Reasonable, but Raises Several
Concerns. We found it reasonable to include both risk and complexity when prioritizing
cases. However, we identified several concerns related to the proposed standards.
For example, we find it unclear whether the aggressive time lines reflected in the standards
are reasonable. In light of these concerns, we raised five key questions for legislative
consideration. For example, the Legislature will want to consider how aggressive they
believe case processing standards should be.
• Establishment of Backlog Goal and Metrics—Partially Reasonable, but Also Raises
Several Concerns. We found that alternative definitions of backlog could also be
reasonable and identified several concerns with the State Bar’s proposal. For example,
the State Bar’s proposed backlog metrics measure closed, rather than pending, workload.
Based on our review, we identified three key questions for legislative consideration.
For example, the Legislature will want to consider how backlog should be defined
and calculated.
• Staffing Analysis—Makes Sense to Delay Analysis. We found that it was reasonable that
the State Bar report only provides a preliminary estimate of staffing and resource needs.
However, we are concerned with the State Bar’s plan to conduct a staffing analysis in 2023
given that the full impact of various operational changes will likely not be known at that
time. Based on our review, we identified two key questions for legislative consideration. For
example, the Legislature will want to consider when would be the most appropriate time for
the State Bar to conduct the staffing analysis.
2 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
AN LAO REPORT
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 723 of 2021 (SB 211, Umberg) required On October 28, 2022, the State Bar provided our
the State Bar to propose (1) case processing office with its proposed case processing standards.
standards for resolving attorney discipline cases This report presents our required assessment of
within the Office of Chief Trial Counsel (OCTC) in a these standards. Specifically, in this report, we
timely, effective, and efficient manner while allowing first provide background on the State Bar and the
for small backlogs of attorney discipline cases and attorney discipline system. We then summarize the
(2) the OCTC staffing requirements needed to achieve key provisions of the State Bar’s proposal. Finally,
these standards. Senate Bill 211 also required that we provide our assessment of the overall proposal,
the State Bar’s analysis and recommendations be as well as the individual provisions, and identify key
submitted to our office for review. Finally, SB 211 questions for legislative consideration.
required we report to the Senate and Assembly
Judiciary Committees on our review.
BACKGROUND
What Is the State Bar? programs administered by the State Bar. For example,
the fee collected for the Client Security Fund is used
Oversees the Practice of Law in California.
to reimburse clients who suffer financial losses due
The California Constitution requires attorneys to
to attorney misconduct. Other State Bar revenue
be members of the State Bar to practice law in the
sources include grants and lease revenue.
state. The California Supreme Court has the power
to regulate the practice of law in the state—including The State Bar’s adopted 2022 calendar year
establishing criteria for admission to the State Bar budget estimates total revenues of $244 million
and disbarment. The State Bar functions as the and total expenditures of $257 million, with the
administrative arm of the Supreme Court for the difference requiring the use of funds from its reserve.
purpose of admitting individuals to practice law in In its 2022 budget, the State Bar estimates that its
California and regulating the professional conduct General Fund will receive $91 million (or 37 percent)
of attorneys by adopting and enforcing rules of of total revenues. Remaining revenues will go to
professional conduct. The State Bar is established by various special funds. Of this amount, $84 million (or
the Constitution as a public corporation. The State 92 percent) will come from a portion of the mandatory
Bar currently is governed by a 13-member board of annual license fee. As shown in Figure 1 on the next
trustees. As of December 2022, there were more page, the 2023 maximum annual fee that can be
than 286,000 members of the State Bar—of which charged is $515 for active attorneys and $182.40 for
about 196,000 (or 69 percent) have elected to actively inactive attorneys. The majority of this amount—$415
practice law in California. of the fee paid by active attorneys and $117.40 of
the fee paid by inactive attorneys associated with
How Are State Bar Activities Funded? licensing and discipline—is deposited into the State
Fees Are Assessed to Support Activities. Bar’s General Fund. The General Fund, however,
State Bar activities are generally funded by various is used to support a major portion of State Bar
fees paid by attorneys—most notably the annual operations. For example, the State Bar estimates
mandatory licensing fee. These fees are deposited total 2022 personnel costs of $95 million—of which
into the State Bar’s General Fund—its main operating $81 million (or 86 percent) will be supported from the
account which can be used for various purposes—as General Fund.
well as various special funds that support specific
www.lao.ca.gov 3
AN LAO REPORT
entity’s operations as well as to
ensure that any approved funding is
Figure 1
used accountably and consistently
Summary of 2023 Maximum Annual License Fee
with legislative expectations.
Active Inactive
How Does the State
Mandatory Fees
Bar Oversee Attorney
Licensing $390.00 $92.40
Discipline 25.00 25.00 Conduct?
Client Security Fund 40.00 10.00
Attorneys Required to
Lawyer Assistance Program 10.00 5.00
Subtotals ($465.00) ($132.40) Meet Various Professional
and Ethical Requirements.
Voluntary Feesa
California—similar to other
Legal Services Trust Fund $45.00 $45.00
Lobbying activities 5.00 5.00 states—has various professional
Subtotals ($50.00) ($50.00) and ethical requirements for
Total Fees That May Be Charged $515.00 $182.40 attorneys practicing law in
a Attorneys are able to choose whether to pay these fees. the state. Examples of such
requirements include: providing
competent service to existing
Legislature Establishes Annual Fees, but
and former clients, prohibiting false or misleading
Does Not Approve State Bar’s Annual Budget.
communication or advertising of legal services,
Each year, the judiciary policy committees of the
keeping certain information provided by clients
Legislature set the license fees charged to members
confidential, and ensuring appropriate use of client
of the State Bar for the coming year through the
monies held in trust accounts. These requirements
annual “fee bill.” When a fee bill is not enacted,
are outlined in state law, California Rules of Court,
the California Supreme Court has authority to set
rules approved by the board, and the California
the license fees. Under current law, if either the
Rules of Professional Conduct. Claims of attorney
Legislature or the Supreme Court does not approve
misconduct—specifically, complaints that such
these fees for a given year, the State Bar does not
professional and ethical requirements were
have authority to levy fees on its members in that
violated—are adjudicated by the State Bar.
year. In contrast, the State Bar’s budget is approved
by the board and does not require approval by the State Bar Administers Own Disciplinary
Legislature. As such, the annual budget of the State Process. The State Bar administers its own
Bar is not reviewed by legislative budget committees disciplinary system primarily through OCTC and
through the annual state budget process. This is the State Bar Court (SBC). OCTC—consisting
different than the process for nearly all other state of teams of attorneys, investigators, and other
licensing entities that regulate other professions, legal administrative staff—receives, investigates,
which generally involves an entity’s fee structure and prosecutes cases against attorneys—which
(such as fee levels) and proposed expenditure we describe in more detail below. The SBC—
levels being approved by the Legislature and the consisting of judges, attorneys, and other legal
Governor. Moreover, these other entities generally and administrative staff—adjudicates these cases.
need to provide written budgetary justification for (We note that the Supreme Court reviews and
any substantive changes to existing budget levels issues the final order when SBC recommends the
(such as to cover increased costs of operations or suspension or disbarment of an attorney.) Various
to support new activities) as well as explain why other departments within the State Bar—such as
additional revenues in the form of higher fees are the Probation Department that supervises attorneys
needed to support these costs. Annual legislative who are required to comply with certain conditions
oversight of both revenues and expenditures allows set by the SBC or the Supreme Court—also support
the Legislature to conduct ongoing oversight of an the disciplinary system.
4 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
AN LAO REPORT
Disciplinary Process Consists of Four If OCTC determines there is sufficient
Stages. The disciplinary system consists of four evidence to file charges against an accused
stages. We describe each of these stages in attorney, OCTC will notify the attorney in
greater detail below. writing of its intent to file formal charges
with SBC. Before the charges can be filed,
• First Stage: Intake. The Intake Stage (also
the accused attorney is entitled to request
known as the Inquiry Stage) generally begins
a confidential meeting(s)—also known as an
with a written complaint filed with OCTC
Early Neutral Evaluation Conference (ENEC)—
that an attorney has violated a professional
in which the attorney and OCTC appear
or ethical requirement. The State Bar also
before an SBC hearing judge to evaluate
may initiate its own investigations against
the facts and charges and potentially
attorneys. After an initial review and limited
try to resolve the case by negotiating a
information-gathering on the complaint,
settlement. Such meetings are mandatory
OCTC will either close the complaint (for
if requested by accused attorneys. If the
example, notifying the complainant that no
accused attorney does not request an
action is to be taken or issuing a warning
ENEC, informal negotiations may still occur
letter to the accused attorney) or refer the
between the accused attorney and OCTC.
case for investigation. The State Bar reports
The State Bar reports that about 4 percent of
that about 63 percent of complaints are
complaints processed by OCTC were closed
closed at this stage and require an average of
at the Charging Stage, reached negotiated
42 days to close.
settlement, or resulted in the filing of charges.
• Second Stage: Investigation. The
Such actions required an average of 449 days
Investigation Stage consists of OCTC
to achieve.
investigators, under the guidance and
• Hearing Stage. When disciplinary charges
supervision of OCTC attorneys, analyzing
are formally filed with the SBC, the Hearing
the case through interviews, subpoenas,
Stage begins. OCTC is responsible for filing
document review, and other activities
the changes and prosecuting the cases.
to determine whether there is clear
SBC adjudicates the case and imposes
and convincing evidence that attorney
the appropriate level of discipline—which
misconduct has occurred or if the case
can include case dismissal, public or
should be closed. Cases are closed in various
private reprovals, probation, suspension,
ways, such as notifying the complainant
and disbarment. (The SBC also reviews
and the accused attorney of the reasons
settlement terms reached at the end of
why no action is to be taken or reaching an
the Charging Stage.) For cases where the
agreement in lieu of discipline for low-level
proposed discipline involves the suspension
violations. The State Bar reports that about
or disbarment of the attorney, the California
33 percent of complaints are closed at the
Supreme Court reviews the SBC’s findings
Investigation Stage and require an average of
and recommended disciplinary action and
230 days to close.
issues a final order.
• Third Stage: Charging. The Charging
Stage (also known as the Pre-Filing Stage)
How Much Does the Disciplinary
begins with OCTC evaluating the evidence
System Cost to Operate?
collected in the Investigation Stage as well
as internally documenting potential charges System Costs About $89 Million. The State
and appropriate levels of discipline to Bar reports it cost $89 million (or 45 percent
seek. If the case is closed, the complainant of total expenditures) to operate its entire
and the accused attorney receive letters disciplinary system in 2021—most of which
explaining why no action is to be taken. came from its General Fund. As shown in
www.lao.ca.gov 5
AN LAO REPORT
Figure 2, $59 million (or 66 percent) of this total
amount supported about 279 positions in OCTC
Figure 2
and $14 million (or 15 percent) supported about
42 positions in SBC. The remaining 19 percent Two-Thirds of Disciplinary System
supported various other departments involved with
Costs Support OCTC
the disciplinary system.
2021 (In Millions)
How Much Disciplinary
Workload Is Processed Annually?
OCTC Workload. Total OCTC workload steadily
increased from 2017-18 through 2019-20. The total Other $17
number of cases opened peaked in 2019-20 with
20,979 cases. The cases opened decreased in the
subsequent years. In 2021-22, 16,355 cases were
opened—a decrease of 4,624 cases (or 22 percent)
from 2019-20. These opened cases are added to
SBC $14
OCTC workload that remained unresolved from
prior years. As shown in Figure 3, the number of
cases closed have not matched the number of
OCTC $59
cases opened annually. This generally resulted in
an increase in the number of the cases pending
at the end of the year. This increase has generally
slowed between 2019-20 (9,668 pending cases) and
2021-22 (10,054 cases).
OCTC = Office of Chief Trial Counsel and SBC = State Bar Court.
As reported by the State Bar, Figure 4
shows the number of cases that are opened and
closed by OCTC as well as the number
of cases that resulted in the filing of Figure 3
charges. State law allows OCTC to
Total OCTC Workload Between 2017-18 and 2021-22
exclude certain types of workload
(such as resolving complaints related Number of Cases
to the unauthorized practice of law)
when reporting certain workload data. 35,000
Cases Pending at Beginning of Year
Accordingly, Figure 4 excludes such
Cases Opened During Year
data, which means that the workload 30,000
Cases Closed During Year
numbers will not be the same as those
25,000
shown in Figure 3, which reflects
total workload. As shown in Figure 4, 20,000
the number of cases opened and
15,000
closed have fluctuated in recent years.
In 2021-22, the State Bar reports
10,000
opening 14,989 cases and closing
14,409 cases. Of the cases closed, 5,000
13,979 cases (or 97 percent) were
closed without charges being filed 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
and 430 case (or 3 percent) resulted
OCTC = Office of Chief Trial Counsel.
in charges being filed in the SBC.
Less than 4 percent of OCTC cases
closed annually resulted in charges filed in SBC
between 2017-18 and 2021-22.
6 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
AN LAO REPORT
SBC Workload. As shown in
Figure 5, the number of cases received
Figure 4
and resolved annually by SBC has
fluctuated in recent years. In 2021-22, Less Than 4 Percent of OCTC Closed Cases
SBC received a total of 430 cases Result in Charges Filed in SBC
and closed 514 cases. Of the cases
Number of Cases
closed, about 89 percent were closed
with SBC imposing disciplinary New Cases
action. The number of cases closed Cases Filed in SBC
20,000
has generally exceeded the number Cases Closed by OCTC Without
18,000 Charges Filed in SBC
of cases opened in recent years.
16,000
This has resulted in a steady reduction
14,000
in the number of cases pending at
12,000
the end of the year. Specifically, SBC
10,000
had 637 cases pending at the end
8,000
of 2021-22—a decrease of nearly
6,000
22 percent from 2017-18.
4,000
Case Processing Time Frame
2,000
Established by Statute for OCTC
Workload. State law currently 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
requires the State Bar to complete the
first three stages of the disciplinary OCTC = Office of Chief Trial Counsel and SBC = State Bar Court.
process—specifically, for OCTC
to dismiss a complaint, admonish
an attorney, or file formal charges
Figure 5
against an attorney—within six months
(or 180 days) after receipt of a written SBC Pending Workload Has Steadily Declined
complaint for “noncomplex” cases and Number of Cases
12 months (or 365 days) for “complex”
or “complicated” cases. The Chief of 1,600 Cases Pending at Beginning of Year
OCTC determines which cases are Cases Filed in SBC
complex or complicated. 1,400 Cases Resolved by SBC
The majority of OCTC closed
1,200
cases are designated as noncomplex.
In 2021-22, OCTC closed 1,000
14,409 cases—10,593 noncomplex
800
cases (or 74 percent) and
3,816 complex cases (or 27 percent). 600
However, as shown in Figure 6 on the
next page, the proportion of total cases 400
closed that are designated as complex
200
has increased in recent years. In
2017-18, the State Bar reports closing a
2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
total of 15,052 cases—which included
2,241 complex cases (or 15 percent). SBC = State Bar Court.
This means that the proportion of
complex closed cases has increased
by 12 percentage points since 2017-18.
www.lao.ca.gov 7
AN LAO REPORT
The State Bar reports that the
majority of its closed cases meet
Figure 6
the time frames specified in statute
for the first three stages of the Proportion of Total Closed Cases
disciplinary process. Specifically, Designated as Complex Increasing
in 2021-22, the State Bar reports
that 12,444 closed cases (or
100%
86 percent) met these time frames
90
and 1,965 closed cases (or
80
14 percent) did not. The number
70
of noncomplex closed cases
60
not meeting these time frames
50
has decreased in recent years.
40
Specifically, 865 noncomplex
30
cases (or 8 percent) closed in
20
2021-22 did not meet these
10
time frames—a decrease from
the 1,938 noncomplex cases 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
(or 15 percent) closed in 2017-18
Noncomplex Cases
that did not meet these time
Complex Cases
frames. In contrast, as shown in
Figure 7, the number of complex
closed cases not meeting these
time frames increased in recent
Figure 7
years. Specifically, the number of
closed complex cases not meeting Increase in Complex Cases
such time frames increased
Failing to Meet Statutory Time Frames
from 536 cases (or 24 percent)
Number of Cases
in 2017-18 to 1,344 cases (or
33 percent) in 2020-21, before
2,500
decreasing slightly to 1,100 cases
(or 29 percent) in 2021-22.
2,000
How Does OCTC Operate? Noncomplex Cases
OCTC Generally Structured 1,500
Around Teams. In 2021, OCTC
reported 280 staff positions. This
1,000
amount consisted of 96 attorneys
(34 percent); 82 investigators Complex Cases
500
(29 percent); 73 support staff
(26 percent), such as paralegals;
and 29 other administrative
2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
staff (10 percent). The majority
of attorneys, investigators, and
support staff are organized by
teams, with each team reporting
to a single supervising attorney.
Staff physically located in the
State Bar’s San Francisco and Los Angeles
offices are fully integrated within these teams.
8 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
AN LAO REPORT
For example, a couple members of a team may of cases not closed in the Intake Stage. Priority
be physically located in San Francisco while the rest Three cases consist of all other cases. Irrespective
are located in Los Angeles. of their priority designation, some cases may be
In general, there are two different types of designated as “major” cases—typically cases those
OCTC teams based on their responsibilities—intake that meet certain criteria such as those alleging
teams and trial teams. Intake teams are responsible significant public harm, likely to generate publicity,
for the Intake Stage. OCTC maintains two intake or likely to be of special interest to the public.
teams that each consist of around seven to nine Cases Referred for Investigation Prosecuted
attorneys and four to five support staff. Trial teams Vertically. OCTC’s two intake teams typically
are responsible for the Investigation, Charging, review submitted complaints, resolve those that can
and Hearing Stages. OCTC maintains 13 trial be closed, and assign case prioritization to those
teams that each generally consist of around 4 to being referred to the trial teams. Cases are typically
6 attorneys, 6 investigators, and 3 to 4 support assigned to trial teams based on the size of the
staff. The one exception is the trial team designated team. When a case is assigned to a specific trial
as an “expeditor team” responsible for addressing team, the supervising attorney of the team typically
complaints OCTC believes can be resolved quickly. assigns both an investigator and attorney to the
This expeditor trial team consists of four attorneys, case in a vertical prosecution model—meaning
eight investigators, and one support staff. Of the assigned staff stay with a case from the case
13 trial teams, three of them each respectively initiation to resolution. (In contrast, a horizontal
specialize in addressing immigration, unlawful prosecution model has different staff assigned to
practice of law, and client trust account matters. specific activities or stages of the case.) During
(The team specializing in client trust account the Investigation Stage, the investigator generally
matters is currently a pilot program.) The remaining obtains necessary evidence, while the attorney
trial teams (including the expeditor trial team) are approves documents (such as investigative plans
typically generalists capable of processing nearly all and closing memos) and provides legal advice on
complaint types. the case. During the Charging Stage and Hearing
Cases Prioritized Based on Potential Public Stage, the attorney typically determines whether
Risk. OCTC currently prioritizes cases into three additional investigation is needed, files charges
categories based on the risk of potential impact and/or settles the case, and prosecutes the case
on members of the public. Priority One cases in the SBC.
involve serious misconduct or other behavior with Workload Formula Developed and Used to
the potential for significant or ongoing harm to Identify OCTC Staffing Need. In 2018, the State
members of the public. According to the State Bar, Bar implemented a workload study to identify
the number of cases referred to the trial teams for the staffing needs for its disciplinary system.
investigation that can be designated as Priority Specifically, for OCTC, the State Bar used a random
One is capped at 20 percent due to the availability time-study methodology—similar to one used by
of resources. Priority Two cases are those that the judicial branch—to identify all staff activities
can be easily resolved or have been identified required to process a case as well as the amount of
as needing quick (or “expedited”) investigation staff time associated with these activities. The State
to determine if significant harm could occur. Bar then used these data to calculate one set of
According to the State Bar, Priority Two cases are “case weights” for all case types that represent
expedited by assigning them specifically to the the average amount of staff time each component
expeditor trial team and eliminating certain OCTC of a case is expected to take. For example, the
tasks. For example, formal investigation plans, State Bar calculated that intake activities average
investigator reports, and closing memos prepared 110 minutes per case while enforcement activities
by investigators and approved by attorneys may average 3,332 minutes per case. The State Bar
be waived for such cases. The State Bar estimates then used (1) historical data to identify patterns
that Priority Two cases represent about 20 percent between the number of filled investigator positions
www.lao.ca.gov 9
AN LAO REPORT
and the median amount of time required to close Senate Judiciary Committees. The specific
a case and (2) staffing ratios (such as a staffing requirements included in statute have been
ratio of 1.4 attorneys for every investigator) to modified over time to reflect legislative
calculate the number of staff needed to meet the oversight needs.
existing statutory time frame of 180 days to dismiss • State Auditor Performance Audits. State
a complaint, admonish an attorney, or file formal law requires the State Bar to contract with
charges against an attorney after receipt of a CSA to conduct a performance audit of
written complaint for noncomplex cases. the State Bar’s operations every two years.
In 2021, the State Bar reviewed the workload State law can require certain information be
formula and identified potential areas of refinement. included in particular years. For example, state
For example, the State Bar examined six broad law requires the 2023 CSA audit (currently
categories of case types—such as the notification in progress) to evaluate the operations of
from banks about insufficient funds in client trust each program—such as OCTC—supported
accounts and certain general complaints filed by by the annual licensing fees and whether
members of the public—and identified that the there are appropriate program performance
number of staff and resources needed to process measures in place. The 2023 audit is also
cases could differ by case types. required to evaluate how the State Bar
administers discipline cases that require an
How Does the Legislature Conduct
outside investigator or prosecutor and how
Oversight of the Disciplinary Process? that process can be improved, including the
Legislature Has Various Tools Available. cost-effectiveness and timeliness of such
The Legislature has various tools to conduct investigations and prosecutions. The audit
oversight of the disciplinary process. This includes in progress shall be presented by April 2023
conducting policy hearings, confirming the to the State Bar Board of Trustees, the Chief
appointment of the Chief of OCTC, imposing Justice, and to the Assembly and Senate
reporting or other requirements on the State Bar Judiciary Committees.
through statute, and directing other state entities— • One-Time Evaluations. Statute has been
particularly the California State Auditor’s Office enacted in recent years to require one-time
(CSA) and our office—to conduct evaluations evaluations related to aspects of the State
and assessments. Key reporting or evaluation Bar’s disciplinary process. For example,
requirements in recent years include: SB 211 required CSA to submit a report by
April 2022—which has been completed—
• Annual Discipline Report. State law requires
evaluating whether the disciplinary process
the State Bar to submit an annual report by
adequately protects the public from attorney
October 31 describing the performance of the
misconduct, including whether the State
disciplinary system for the most recent fiscal
Bar takes reasonable steps to determine the
year. State law requires the report to include
existence and extent of alleged misconduct.
a range of information—such as the number
Additionally, our office was directed to
of inquiries received and their disposition,
conduct an evaluation of the State Bar’s
the median and average processing times,
proposed fee increase in 2019, since a portion
and formal disciplinary outcomes. The
of the increase would support additional
statistical information must be presented
OCTC disciplinary staff.
in a consistent manner for year-to-year
comparison and, if available, must include Reports Consistently Raised Concerns With
the required information for the preceding Disciplinary Process and Level of Resources
five years. This annual report is presented Needed. Various CSA reports have regularly
to the Chief Justice, the Governor, the raised concerns with the efficacy of the disciplinary
Speaker of the Assembly, the President pro process, the reporting of data, and the use
Tempore of the Senate, and the Assembly and and/or level of resources. Similarly, our office also
10 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
AN LAO REPORT
raised some concerns in 2019. Key findings determine appropriate backlog goals, and
and recommendations from these recent determine the level of resources needed to
reports include: meet such backlog goals.
• Some Attorneys Not Held Accountable • Annual Discipline Report Needs
for Misconduct. The April 2022 CSA report Improvement. The April 2021 CSA report
found that (1) some cases were prematurely also found that the State Bar’s lack of
closed that warranted further investigation adequate monitoring has hampered its
and potential discipline, (2) weak processes ability to detect problems in its disciplinary
allowed attorneys who engaged in misconduct system. CSA also raised concerns with
in other states to continue practicing in the annual discipline report submitted by
California, and (3) information that the State the State Bar, including that the report
Bar provided its staff limits their ability to does not fully and consistently provide
identify patterns of complaints. The report information about the disciplinary system.
also found that weak safeguards have To address these concerns, CSA made
hampered the State Bar’s ability to prevent various recommendations, including
repeated violations associated with client trust requiring appropriate State Bar review and
accounts. To address these concerns, CSA approval of the annual discipline report to
presented various recommendations including ensure information is accurate, complete,
directing the State Bar revise policies to and consistent.
(1) define specific criteria for the closure of • Request for Additional Resources
cases using nonpublic disciplinary measures, Premature. In 2019, the State Bar proposed
(2) begin using complaint type categories increasing the annual licensing fee by $40
when determining whether to investigate a for active attorneys to support 58 additional
complaint in order to more easily identify OCTC staff to improve disciplinary case
patterns of similar complaints against an processing times. Both the April 2019 CSA
accused attorney, and (3) require staff take report and our June 2019 report found that
certain actions when investigating client trust this request was premature since recently
account complaints. implemented operational changes—such as
• Organizational Changes Decreased to the existing organizational structure and
Operational Efficiency. In April 2021, CSA case prioritization methodology—were still in
found that the State Bar’s changes to its the process of being implemented and would
disciplinary system—specifically, converting not be reflected in the workload study used to
OCTC trial teams from specialist teams that calculate the additional resources requested.
handle particular case types to generalist As such, both offices recommended a fewer
teams who generally handle all case types and number of positions until the impact of the
promoting some of its most senior attorneys recently implemented changes were known.
to full-time supervisors in 2017—significantly This resulted in a lower fee increase than
reduced the efficiency of the system by originally proposed.
significantly increasing case processing times • Workload Formula May Require Revision.
and the backlog of cases even with attorneys In 2019, both CSA and our office raised
being disciplined at a significantly lower concerns that the State Bar’s workload study
rate. To address these concerns, the report may not accurately identify staffing needs.
made various recommendations, including Our office specifically found that (1) the case
directing the State Bar to (1) assess how weights capture the average amount of time it
OCTC’s current organizational structure has takes for OCTC to process a case with existing
impacted its ability to efficiently resolve cases staffing levels, rather than the time that would
and determine whether additional changes be needed to process cases within existing
are needed and (2) establish a backlog metric, statutory time frames; (2) different case
www.lao.ca.gov 11
AN LAO REPORT
weights may be needed for different complaint beneficial and suggested various options for
types or priority categories to the extent they legislative consideration—including potentially
require different levels or combinations of including the State Bar in the annual state
disciplinary tasks; and (3) fewer staff could budget process or approving a fee specifically
be required if the Legislature changed the to support the disciplinary process.
statutory time frames.
The Legislature has used these various reports
• Proposal for Annual Inflationary
in different ways—including changing existing
Adjustment Lacked Justification. In 2019,
state law, determining the appropriate fee level
the State Bar requested the authority to
to approve, and informing discussions with the
annually adjust the annual licensing fee,
State Bar. For example, as recommended by CSA,
including the existing $25 disciplinary fee
the Legislature amended state law to change the
(as shown in Figure 1 above), to account for
due date for submission of the State Bar’s annual
inflation. Our office found that there was a lack
discipline report from April 30 to October 31 of
of justification for the proposed authority and
each year in order to provide the Legislature with
that the request could severely limit legislative
sufficient time to review the discipline report before
oversight over State Bar operations. Our
considering action on the annual fee bill.
overall review of State Bar programs indicated
that increased legislative oversight could be
STATE BAR PROPOSAL
Analysis Required by SB 211. Senate Bill 211 from the State Bar include the staffing requirements
expressed the Legislature’s intent to codify new needed to achieve the new case processing
case processing standards (or time frames) to standards being proposed.
replace the existing statutory time frames for OCTC The State Bar provided its report on
to dismiss a complaint, admonish an attorney, or October 28, 2022. In this section, we summarize
file formal charges against an attorney. To assist the key components of the report: (1) new case
with this, SB 211 required the State Bar to propose processing standards, (2) the establishment of a
case processing standards by October 31, 2022 backlog goal and metrics for measuring it, and
for review by our office. Specifically, the legislation (3) a staffing analysis.
directed the State Bar to propose standards with
the goals of (1) resolving cases in a timely, effective, New Case Processing Standards
and efficient manner within OCTC; (2) allowing for Prioritizes Cases Based on Both Risk and
only small backlogs of attorney discipline cases; Complexity. As discussed earlier, cases are
and (3) protecting the public. Certain case types— currently prioritized based on risk to members
such as the unauthorized practice of law—would be of the public. The State Bar proposes to instead
excluded from these standards. The new standards prioritize cases based on both risk and case
should also consider all relevant factors—including complexity. Higher-risk cases would include those
the mechanics of the discipline process, public risk, where the alleged attorney’s behavior has caused,
reasonable public expectations for the resolution or has the potential to cause, significant harm to
of cases, and the complexity of cases. In preparing clients and members of the public. Such cases
the standards, the State Bar was required to review could include those where clients may have been
attorney disciplinary system case processing misled when settling cases, misappropriation of
standards in at least five states with strong and client funds for which restitution has not been
effective systems, consult with experts on attorney paid, or allegations of misconduct to vulnerable
discipline, and review relevant CSA and LAO populations (such as immigrants and seniors).
reports. Finally, SB 211 required that the report
12 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
AN LAO REPORT
It could also include cases in which there are Across all six categories, the State Bar proposes
multiple complaints or recurring complaints against to reduce average case processing times by
the same attorney. The State Bar estimates that 24 percent to 33 percent. Times in which cases
30 percent to 40 percent of cases not closed in are deferred (or suspended) pending separate
Intake would be designated as higher-risk cases. criminal or civil litigation are excluded from the case
Higher-complexity cases tend to require longer processing standards.
investigation. For example, such cases could The State Bar calculated the proposed average
include those cases (1) where multiple charges case processing standards by taking current case
against an attorney arise from multiple events, processing times for cases closed or filed between
(2) designated as “major cases,” (3) requiring 2018 to 2021 (four years) and adjusting them in
subpoenas to banks or other third-party entities; various ways. First, the State Bar did not include
(4) where analysis of a large number of documents the number of days between case processing
(such as bank records) may be needed; or (5) where events—meaning from the end of one processing
an accused attorney is unresponsive. According to event to the start of the next processing event—if
the State Bar, these are the same factors it currently the number of days exceeded 59 days. Specifically,
uses to designate cases as complex. if the time period between two different events was
Proposes Average Case Processing Times 60 days or more, the entire time period would be
in Six Categories. The State Bar proposes removed before average processing times were
six case categories based on when a case is calculated. For example, if a case took 300 days
closed, the stage at which it is closed, and the but had a 65 day time period between processing
case risk/complexity. Specifically, the six case events, the case processing time for that case
categories are: (1) closed in Intake; (2) high-risk, would be adjusted to 235 days. According to
noncomplex cases closed after Investigation; the State Bar, 44 percent of cases closed or
(3) low-risk, noncomplex cases closed after filed between 2018 to 2021 were impacted by
Investigation; (4) high-risk, complex cases closed this adjustment. Second, the processing times
after Investigation; (5) low-risk, complex cases were adjusted to be more similar to the caseload
closed after Investigation; and (6) cases closed processing standards of six other states: Arizona,
or filed in Charging. As shown in Figure 8, for Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, and Texas.
each case category, the State Bar proposes an The times were further adjusted based on the State
average case processing standard. For example, Bar’s consultation with three experts on attorney
the State Bar proposes a 120-day average discipline and the State Bar’s review of reports
case processing standard for closing high-risk, by CSA and our office related to the disciplinary
noncomplex cases after Investigation—a decrease system. Finally, the State Bar conducted five
of 47 days (or 28 percent) from the current average. internal focus groups of OCTC attorneys and
investigators to solicit feedback on the proposed
Figure 8
State Bar Proposed Average Case Processing Times Compared to
Current Average Case Processing Times
Average Case Processing Times
Proposed Current Percent
Case Category (in Days) (in Days) Difference Difference
1: Closed in Intake 30 42 -12 -29%
2: Closed After Investigation—High-Risk, Noncomplex Cases 120 167 -47 -28
3: Closed After Investigation—Low-Risk, Noncomplex Cases 150 197 -47 -24
4: Closed After Investigation—High-Risk, Complex Cases 180 248 -68 -27
5: Closed After Investigation—Low-Risk, Complex Cases 210 307 -97 -32
6: Closed or Filed in Charging 300 449 -149 -33
www.lao.ca.gov 13
AN LAO REPORT
standards, compared the proposed standards to the above, the State Bar proposes a calculated backlog
standards used by Department of Consumer Affairs time standard. Specifically, the State Bar proposes
(DCA) licensing boards and bureaus, and solicited backlog standards that are 150 percent of the
public feedback. proposed average case processing time for each
Changes Definition of “Filing Charges” for case category. For example, as shown in Figure 9,
Case Processing Standards. The State Bar the State Bar proposes an average case processing
proposes to change the definition of filing charges standard of 120 days for high-risk, noncomplex
for the purpose of the case processing standards. cases closed in the Investigation Stage and a
(This impacts the proposed case category: “Closed backlog standard of 180 days. This means that
or Filed in Charging.”) As discussed above, if high-risk, noncomplex cases that take longer than
requested by the accused attorney, at least one 180 days to close in the Investigation Stage would
ENEC is mandatory before charges can be filed. be deemed to be “closed in backlog” or “not meeting
Since such meetings require coordination with both goals.” The number of such cases in each case
the accused attorney and the SBC, the State Bar category would be added together to calculate a
asserts that OCTC loses control over the timeliness single backlog measure.
of the charging process at that time. As such, the
Staffing Analysis
State Bar proposes to change the definition of “Filed
in Charging” to mean the date the accused attorney Defers Comprehensive Staffing Analysis
is notified of their right to request an ENEC—if one is to 2023. Senate Bill 211 required that the State
Bar provide a staffing analysis to identify the
ultimately conducted. If an ENEC is not conducted,
resources needed to achieve the proposed case
the definition remains the date on which OCTC files
processing standards. The State Bar states that a
charges or negotiated resolution with the SBC. If this
comprehensive final staffing study will be deferred
proposed definition is not adopted, the State Bar
and instead initiated in 2023. The reasons for this
recommends increasing the proposed average case
delay are to incorporate legislative direction on the
processing standard for “Cases Closed or Filed in
proposed case processing standards as well as
Charging” from 300 to 330 days.
various OCTC operational changes that are currently
Establishment of Backlog Goal and in progress or are being considered. Examples of
Metrics to Measure Goal such operational changes include:
Proposes Backlog Goal of 10 Percent or Less. • Potential changes related to OCTC’s generalist
The State Bar proposes defining an appropriate teams after analyzing various opinions and
backlog goal of 10 percent or fewer cases. concerns raised by employees, stakeholders,
According to the State Bar, this means that no more and others about these teams.
than 10 percent of cases should be in backlog status • Potential changes to reduce or simplify
at any time. unnecessary steps, as well as use the
Proposes Backlog Standards for Each appropriate staff for certain tasks (for example,
Proposed Case Processing Standard. For each of whether certain tasks are best conducted by
the proposed case processing standards discussed attorneys or support staff).
Figure 9
State Bar Proposed Backlog Standards
Average Case Processing Times Backlog Standard
Case Category (in Days) (in Days)
1: Closed in Intake 30 45
2: Closed After Investigation—High-Risk, Noncomplex Cases 120 180
3: Closed After Investigation—Low-Risk, Noncomplex Cases 150 225
4: Closed After Investigation—High-Risk, Complex Cases 180 270
5: Closed After Investigation—Low-Risk, Complex Cases 210 310
6: Closed or Filed in Charging 300 450
14 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
AN LAO REPORT
• Distribution of fliers to all accused attorneys the State Bar. The workload formula calculated
advising them of the importance of having a need for an additional 119 positions (or a
counsel in State Bar disciplinary proceedings 44 percent increase in staff based on filled
in January 2022. (We note that this change positions)—47 attorneys, 25 investigators,
resulted from a State Bar contracted study 40 support staff, and 7 supervisors.
on racial disparities in attorney discipline An estimated $16.3 million would be needed to
that found accused Black attorneys were support these additional positions. To support
less likely to be represented by counsel than this increased cost, an estimated $83 increase
white attorneys.) in the annual licensing fee paid by active
• Deployment of operational reports to track attorneys would be required.
key performance measures in 2022 and plans • Mathematical Calculation. This method
on continuing to develop and test new data mathematically compares the changes in
reports to help OCTC staff improve efficiency. the current and proposed case processing
standards, and assumes that a similar increase
The State Bar indicates that the comprehensive
in staffing levels would be needed to achieve
staffing analysis will consider a range of factors.
them. Specifically, the State Bar noted that the
These include: risk and complexity to ensure that
proposed caseload standards would result in
different cases receive case weights; staffing
the reduction of the average case processing
needs, responsibilities, and expertise (such as the
times by 29 percent. The State Bar then
impact experience, turnover, and training has on
assumed that a similar percentage increase in
workload processing speed and the amount of
investigator staffing levels would be needed
time available for work); the appropriate ratios of
to achieve the proposed caseload processing
staff types (such as attorneys versus administrative
standards. Increases to other positions, such
support staff); and the allocation of staff time across
as attorneys, were based on ratios similar
complaint types and case processing activities.
to the workload formula. For example, the
Provides Preliminary Estimates of Staffing
calculation included a staffing ratio of one
and Resource Need. To meet the requirements of
attorney for every investigator. In total, this
SB 211, the State Bar provides preliminary estimates
method calculated a need for an additional
of the level of staffing and resources needed to
78 positions (or a 29 percent increase in staff
meet the proposed case processing standards.
based on filled positions)—23 attorneys,
Two different methods were used to calculate these
23 investigators, 25 support staff, and
preliminary estimates—the workload formula and
7 supervisors. An estimated $10.6 million
a mathematical calculation. Figure 10 summarizes
would be needed to support these additional
the estimated staffing needs under each method.
positions. To support this increased cost, an
• Workload Formula. This method is based on estimated $55 increase in the annual licensing
the existing workload formula developed by fee paid by active attorneys would be required.
Figure 10
State Bar Preliminary Estimate of Additional Staffing Needs
Workload Formula Calculation Mathematical Calculation
Additional Percent Additional Percent
Staff Type Filled Positions (2021)a Staff Needed Increase Staff Needed Increase
Attorney 80 47 59% 23 29%
Investigator 79 25 32 23 29
Support 88 40 45 25 28
Supervisor 25 7 28 7 28
Totals 272 119 44% 78 29%
a Differs slightly from earlier-referenced numbers due to various factors, such as whether positions were filled.
www.lao.ca.gov 15
AN LAO REPORT
ANALYST’S REVIEW OF STATE BAR PROPOSAL
The State Bar’s submitted report fulfills the annual state budget process. The State Bar is also
requirements specified in SB 211. Specifically, not required to justify changes to existing budget
the State Bar developed the standards after levels and requests for additional revenues in the
considering the timely and effective processing same manner as these other entities. This can make
of cases, potential impacts on public protection, it difficult for the Legislature to ensure that the fees
and the allowance of small backlogs of attorney authorized annually align with expenditure levels
discipline cases. As required, to inform this work, that match legislative priorities and expectations for
the State Bar reviewed disciplinary systems how such funding will be used.
in six other states, consulted with experts on
Key Questions for
attorney discipline, reviewed CSA and LAO
reports, and solicited public feedback on the Legislative Consideration
proposed standards. Are Existing Disciplinary Procedures
In this section, we provide our review of the Reasonable? The Legislature will want to consider
State Bar’s report. Specifically, we provide whether the existing disciplinary procedures are
our assessment and identify key questions for reasonable or if changes are warranted. This is
legislative consideration for the entire proposal as because the specific steps in the process impact
well as for each of the three key components of how long it takes to resolve cases, how OCTC
the report: (1) the proposed new case processing should be organized and operated, and the
standards, (2) the establishment of a backlog specific level of resources needed. For example,
goal and metrics to measure the goal, and (3) the as shown in Figure 11, the average amount of
staffing analysis. time needed to file cases in the SBC increased
by 41 percent between 2017-18 (466 days) and
OVERARCHING COMMENTS 2021-22 (658 days), and the median amount of
time increased by 47 percent between 2017-18
Assessment
Assumes Existing Disciplinary
Figure 11
Process Is Generally
Reasonable. While the State Bar
Average and Median Times
continues to consider operational
Needed to File Cases in SBC Increasing
and procedural changes to improve
Number of Days
OCTC efficiency and efficacy,
the State Bar’s proposed case
700
processing standards generally
Average Median
assume that the existing steps 600
of the disciplinary process
500
are reasonable and should
be maintained. 400
Lack of Legislative Approval
300
of State Bar Budget Can Make
Oversight Difficult. As discussed 200
above, unlike nearly all other state
100
licensing entities that regulate
professions, the State Bar’s budget
2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
is not reviewed by legislative
budget committees through the SBC = State Bar Court.
16 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
AN LAO REPORT
(401 days) and 2021-22 (591 days). To the extent NEW CASE
that that Legislature would like to reduce such
PROCESSING STANDARDS
times, it could consider eliminating ENECs. We note
that the attorney discipline experts consulted Assessment
by the State Bar noted that California is the only
Reasonable to Include Both Risk and
jurisdiction that they are aware of which uses a
Complexity in Case Prioritization System…
formal ENEC before charges are filed. The experts
We find that it is reasonable for OCTC to prioritize
suggested eliminating the ENEC prior to charging
cases based on both the actual or potential risk
and shifting it to after charges have been filed in
of public harm and case complexity. Prioritizing
the SBC. Prior to charges being filed, accused
and more quickly addressing high-risk cases can
attorneys would continue to be able to informally
help stop an attorney from continuing to engage
pursue settlement discussions with OCTC (which
in problematic behavior and can help obtain
they currently are able to do).
justice or restitution for those who are wronged.
What Level of Legislative Oversight Is Additionally, it is reasonable to expect more
Needed? The Legislature will want to consider complex cases to take more time than noncomplex
what level of oversight it wants to exercise over cases to thoroughly investigate, obtain clear and
State Bar processes and funding. As noted above, convincing evidence, and resolve. The failure to
we previously indicated in 2019 that increased dedicate sufficient investigatory and prosecutorial
legislative oversight could be beneficial. One such time to high-risk and complex cases could result in
option to consider is including the State Bar in harm to the public to the extent accused attorneys
the annual state budget process to increase do not ultimately receive the appropriate level
legislative oversight by leveraging the expertise of discipline. We would note, however, that the
of the budgetary committees to evaluate State specific definitions of what types of cases constitute
Bar funding requests in a manner similar to other high/low risk as well as complex/noncomplex will be
state departments. (The Assembly and Senate important and should be consistently defined over
Judiciary Committees would retain policy oversight. time. Without clear and consistent definitions, this
This would be similar to what is in place for certain could result in data reporting fluctuating over time
other state licensing departments.) Additionally, and make comparison difficult—thereby making it
requiring the State Bar to submit budgetary difficult to conduct meaningful oversight of OCTC
information in a manner similar to other state performance. As noted before, existing statute
departments would enable easier comparison authorizes the Chief of OCTC to determine which
to ensure standardized or similar treatment cases are complex.
across the various departments responsible for
…But Unclear Why Proposed Case
licensing professions. Another option to increase
Processing Standards for Cases Closed or
transparency and oversight is to consider a fee
Filed in Charging Do Not Incorporate Risk.
specifically to support the disciplinary system
Two of the six case categories—specifically
to ensure the State Bar uses the funding for this
those closed in Intake and those closed or filed in
specific purpose. The current $25 disciplinary
Charging—for which the State Bar proposes case
fee generates around $5.7 million annually—
processing standards do not explicitly differentiate
significantly less than is needed to support the
cases based on risk and complexity. As such,
entire disciplinary system. The Legislature could
only one case processing standard is proposed
consider adjusting this fee and directing that this
for those two case categories—in contrast to
fee be placed in a special fund specifically for
the four different standards proposed for cases
disciplinary system purposes. This would enable
closed after Investigation. According to the State
the Legislature to ensure that the authorized level of
Bar, cases closed in Intake should inherently be
funding was used to support legislatively expected
cases that are low risk and noncomplex. Cases of
service levels.
greater risk and complexity should be referred for
investigation. We find this logic to be reasonable.
www.lao.ca.gov 17
AN LAO REPORT
For cases closed or filed in Charging, the State For example, the Department of Justice
Bar believes that cases that reach this stage are (DOJ)—who is responsible for representing DCA
inherently more complex in nature and that risk licensing boards and bureaus before the Office of
does not greatly impact the amount of time needed Administrative Hearings—reports annually on key
to process the cases. However, if high-risk cases metrics to provide greater insight into DOJ-specific
are prioritized in the Investigation Stage, it would actions contributing to overall formal discipline
be reasonable to assume that those cases would case processing times. Such metrics include the
be referred to the Charging Stage more quickly for average, median, and standard deviation number
resolution. This means that the overall amount of of days (as well as the number of cases) for fully
time needed to process high-risk cases would likely adjudicated matters from receipt of the complaint
be less than the amount of time needed to process from investigators to when charges are filed; from
low-risk cases. Arguably, such cases should be the filing of an accusation to when a stipulated
expected to be resolved more quickly given the agreement is reached; from the filing of charges
actual or potential for public harm. to when a hearing date is requested; and from the
Case Processing Standards Do Not Reflect date a hearing was requested to when a hearing
Full OCTC Workload. Both the existing statutory commenced. We note that OCTC and SBC are fully
time frames and the proposed case processing located within the State Bar, which should make
standards do not reflect full OCTC workload. cooperation easier, in contrast to DCA licensing
Specifically, the case processing standards do disciplinary processes that require coordination
not include the Hearing Stage in which OCTC across several separate state entities.
staff engage in activities to prosecute and resolve New Filed in Charging Definition Further
cases in SBC. Such a metric would be helpful Reduces Measurement of OCTC Workload.
to capture how long it takes to resolves cases As discussed above, the State Bar proposes to
generally. For example, DCA includes a formal change the definition of filed in Charging to mean
discipline performance benchmark of 540 days the date an accused attorney is notified of their
from the complaint receipt through the completion right to request an ENEC—if such a meeting is
of the entire disciplinary process for cases that are ultimately conducted. If a meeting is not conducted,
forwarded to the Attorney General for disciplinary the definition remains the date on which OCTC files
proceedings (including intake and investigation). charges or a negotiated resolution with the SBC.
OCTC should not be solely responsible for This new definition could exclude a potentially
achieving a particular time standard as case significant amount of time and OCTC workload
processing in the Hearing Stage requires from the proposed case processing standards.
coordination with SBC and accused attorneys. According to the State Bar, more than half of cases
However, OCTC is a key participant whose actions that request an ENEC will require multiple ENECs.
will impact the overall ability to effectively resolve Multiple ENECs can add an average of 79 days
cases in the Hearing Stage. As such, OCTC should to case processing times for cases to close or for
continue to monitor and to improve the efficacy charges to be filed in the Charging Stage.
and efficiency of its actions in this stage. A time Unclear Extent to Which Proposed Standards
standard would provide an expectation for how Are Reasonable. In developing the proposed case
long it should take to resolve those cases that processing standards, the State Bar assumed that
may result in the most severe disciplinary actions. it was unreasonable for there to be time periods of
This serves as a benchmark to measure against 60 days or more between case processing events.
actual completion times. In combination with This is because, during such time periods, cases
other reporting requirements, the State Bar and were effectively sitting idle awaiting OCTC staff
Legislature would be better positioned to monitor to take action. The State Bar acknowledges that
and identify the particular areas where delays are this is an aggressive approach that assumes that
occurring or where operational, procedural, or such idle time periods will no longer occur—rather
staffing changes could improve case processing than assuming that idle periods will be shorter in
efficiency or quality. length. It also acknowledges that this approach
18 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
AN LAO REPORT
could mean that time needed for the investigation needed to process specific types of complaints and
process may have been mathematically removed used them to calculate proposed case processing
as well. However, the State Bar believes that this standards. In such an approach, there may be
is an appropriate starting point as it is reasonable time periods where a case sits idle for more than
to expect that such idle periods should not exist 60 days—which is reasonable if there is a clearly
in cases that have not been deferred and that it identified rationale and need for the case to sit idle.
provides an estimate of the minimum amount of The benefit of such an approach is that the resulting
time required for thorough investigation when there case processing standards would be based on
is sufficient staff and resources. actual investigatory and prosecutorial need.
We find that it is reasonable to attempt to Unclear Impact of Implemented or Potential
minimize the amount of time that cases are Operational and Procedural Changes. As noted
sitting idle. However, it is unclear to us how much above, various operational and procedural
necessary investigatory or charging time was changes to OCTC processes have recently been
removed as part of this analysis. For example, implemented. The full impacts of some of these
conversations with State Bar staff indicated that it changes are unknown—such as the practice of
could sometimes take more than 60 days for banks providing flyers to all accused attorneys notifying
to provide documents that are subpoenaed to them of the benefits to hiring legal counsel as of
investigate cases that involve client trust accounts. January 2022. To the extent more legal counsel
Such cases that require this investigatory step is hired, it could result in cases taking more time
likely are forced to sit idle while OCTC staff wait (such as if the accused attorney refuses to settle
for documents to be provided. However, the cases and chooses to fight the case) or less time (such as
processing standards assume no unavoidable if hired counsel helps an accused attorney realize
idle times like this take place despite the delays that early settlement of a case would be beneficial).
being arguably justified as OCTC requires such Other changes have drawn concern and/or
information (and cannot obtain it via alternative require additional evaluation. For example, CSA
means) to fully investigate and resolve such cases. recently identified concerns that the organizational
Similarly, an April 2021 CSA report documented shift to generalist teams decreased operational
that the State Bar indicated that it typically takes efficiency, even with attorneys being disciplined at
six months (180 days) or more for the federal a lower rate. Additionally, the State Bar notes that
government to provide requested immigration other potential changes—such as those raised in
records. It is unclear the extent to which OCTC will conversations with staff and stakeholders during
be able avoid such idle times and/or if they impact the preparation of the State Bar’s case processing
particular types of cases. As such, it is unclear the report—are in the process of being considered and/or
extent to which these case processing standards implemented. We also note that other changes could
are reasonable. If case processing standards are be forthcoming as a new Chief of OCTC joined the
unreasonable, it is possible that the quality of State Bar in October 2021. Lacking information
case processing—such as the thoroughness of on the impact of such changes makes it difficult
investigations or the proposed disciplinary action— to assess whether they will help staff achieve the
will decrease in order to meet the standards. For proposed case processing standards.
example, a July 2015 CSA audit found that the Annual Reporting Requirements Will Need
State Bar’s focus on reducing an excessive backlog to Be Updated. State law requiring reporting
of disciplinary cases in the years preceding the of data and metrics in the State Bar’s annual
audit resulted in a decrease in the severity of discipline report will need to be updated,
discipline imposed. regardless of which specific case processing
We note that alternative approaches may have standards are finally adopted by the Legislature.
also been possible. For example, the State Bar Specific data and metrics will be needed to
could have identified those cases that it believed to measure annual performance against any adopted
be accurate representations of the amount of time benchmarks.These include those directly related
www.lao.ca.gov 19
AN LAO REPORT
to the proposed standards. For example, such procedural changes or additional resources are
data and metrics could include average processing needed by SBC to effectively resolve discipline
times for cases closed at the various disciplinary cases in their entirety—arguably what members of
stages categorized by their risk and complexity, the public would be most concerned about.
as well as the number of cases deferred and Are Greater Differentiations in the Case
the amount of time that passes while the cases Processing Standards Needed? In additional
are deferred. Other data and metrics would also to risk and complexity, the Legislature may want
provide helpful context. For example, it could to consider whether additional factors should
be helpful to have mean, median, and standard be considered in the establishment of new case
deviation data between specific steps taken by processing standards. This would help ensure
staff in the disciplinary process—such as the time that disciplinary workload is measured against
period between complaint receipt and referral to appropriate benchmarks. For example, the
investigation, as well as the time period between Legislature could have cases that are closed or
the completion of investigation to the notification filed at the Charging Stage incorporate risk as well.
of the accused attorney of their right to an ENEC The Legislature could also have separate standards
before charges can be filed. Without such metrics, for certain types of cases to be prioritized (such as
it will be difficult for the Legislature to conduct complaints related to client trust funds) or “repeater”
meaningful and consistent oversight of the cases where there are numerous prior or current
disciplinary process and identify potential areas of complaints against the same attorney.
improvement or concern.
Are Changes to OCTC’s Organization and
Additionally, to ensure that data is comparable Operation Needed? The Legislature will also
across reports, it is important to clearly specify the want to consider whether changes to OCTC’s
definitions for the statistics and metrics included current organization and operation are warranted.
in the report. This should include a requirement This is because how OCTC is structured impacts
for the State Bar to provide clear explanations any how effectively and efficiently it operates.
time changes are made in the definitions, criteria, or For example, the Legislature could prefer more
methodologies used to pull and report data. This will specialized trial teams based on case type or
ensure that the Legislature receives the necessary approach (such as more expeditor teams) or the
information and that performance can be compared use of horizontal prosecution in certain case types
consistently and accurately. It would also address or at certain stages of the disciplinary process.
CSA concerns that the annual discipline report does Specialized teams or specializing in particular tasks
not fully and consistently provide information about through the use of horizontal prosecution focuses
the disciplinary system. staff work in particular areas which could result
in the processing of cases more efficiently and
Key Questions for
effectively as staff would be more familiar with how
Legislative Consideration
to investigate (such as what evidence is needed
Should There Be Case Processing Standards and how to obtain that evidence) and prosecute
for the Entire Disciplinary Process? The such cases.
Legislature will want to consider whether there How Aggressive Should Case Processing
should be case processing standards to monitor Standards Be? The Legislature will want to
the entire disciplinary process or simply OCTC. consider how aggressive case processing
Focusing on the entire system places responsibility standards should be. More aggressive standards
on the State Bar to ensure that OCTC and SBC will either require a greater increase in resources
coordinate effectively with one another. It also or more significant operational and/or procedural
provides OCTC with an incentive to comprehensively changes. We note that State Bar staff indicated
consider the efficacy and efficiency of actions in focus groups that the State Bar’s proposed
throughout the disciplinary process. Finally, case processing standards were only achievable
standards for the entire system would also enable if staff caseload was generally lower than existing
the Legislature to identify whether operational or caseload levels.
20 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
AN LAO REPORT
At the same time, if the
Figure 12
standards are unreasonable
(or even unachievable), the quality
Comparison of 2021 Case Processing Times
of investigations and the severity
Assuming Removal of Certain Amounts of Time
of discipline obtained may suffer.
Where Cases Were Idle
Accordingly, the Legislature may
want to consider adopting less
Median
aggressive case processing
Removal of Idle Time Periods of
standards. For example, the
120 Days or More
State Bar identified that about
26 percent of cases that closed
Removal of Idle Time Periods of
after the Intake Stage or resulted 90 Days or More
in charges being filed between
2018 to 2021 had time periods of Removal of Idle Time Periods of
60 Days or More
90 days or more where cases were
sitting idle and 16 percent had time
periods of 120 days or more where Actual 2021
cases were sitting idle. As shown
in Figure 12, if the Legislature 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800
chooses the same approach as
the State Bar in which idle time
periods of a certain duration are
mathematically removed, selecting accurately from year to year. Clearly specifying
one of these less aggressive standards—in which specific data and metrics, as well as other
times periods of (1) 90 days or more or (2) 120 days requirements (such as requiring descriptions of any
or more, respectively, are mathematically removed— changes in methodology in pulling and reporting
would still likely result in improved case processing data or prohibiting such changes without legislative
times but reduce the likelihood that necessary approval) will ensure the State Bar consistently
investigatory or charging time is eliminated. and accurately reports the information desired
by the Legislature. Such metrics would help the
What Data and Metrics Are Needed to
Legislature to conduct meaningful and consistent
Conduct Legislative Oversight? The Legislature
oversight of the disciplinary process, hold the State
will want to consider what specific data and metrics
Bar accountable for its performance, and identify
should be required by state law in the annual
potential areas of improvement or concern.
discipline report to enable effective legislative
oversight. The State Bar completed implementation
ESTABLISHMENT OF BACKLOG
of a new case management system in 2019 that
captures more case processing information. GOAL AND METRICS TO MEASURE
As such, more data is potentially available SUCH GOAL
for reporting. In developing such metrics, the
Legislature will want to consider what level of detail Assessment
is necessary to comprehensively and accurately
Alternative Definition of “Small Backlog”
assess disciplinary workload and processing.
Could Also Be Reasonable. The State Bar
For example, the Legislature could include some
proposes that a small backlog of cases should
of the statutory reporting requirements related
constitute 10 percent or fewer cases. This was
to DCA licensing cases referred to DOJ for
generally selected as a statistical indicator of
prosecution. Additionally, the Legislature could
outliers—cases that take significantly more time
place requirements on the State Bar to ensure that
to process than other cases. It would be equally
data is being pulled and reported consistently and
reasonable to select a different percentage.
www.lao.ca.gov 21
AN LAO REPORT
For example, it could be reasonable to define this backlog, including the age of the cases in the
a small backlog as 15 percent or fewer cases. backlog. By focusing on pending workload, such
As noted above, in 2021-22, 14 percent of total metrics provide a sense of how much work has not
closed cases did not meet the statutory time been started or remains unaddressed (such as due
frames to dismiss a case, admonish an attorney, to long gaps between case processing events).
or file formal charges against an attorney within In contrast, the proposed backlog time standards
180 days for noncomplex cases and 365 days for are based on closed workload. This means that
complex cases. cases that remain open, for whatever reasons, will
Proposed Standard Effectively Sets an Upper not be captured. For example, a case that remains
Limit Goal for Processing Cases. The State Bar’s open in the Investigation Stage for over a year—
proposed case processing standards are based on such as due to a lack of staff to investigate the case
averages, which means that there are cases that or because the investigation is complicated and
will take both more and less time. In order to ensure lengthy—would not be reflected as backlog. Such
that only 10 percent or fewer cases in each case a case would only be reflected under the proposed
category exceed the proposed backlog standards, standards once it was closed after Investigation or
the State Bar expects 90 percent of cases closed in Charging, or if charges were filed—which could
or filed in the SBC will not exceed these proposed be some time in the future. As shown in Figure 13,
standards—meaning a certain number of cases are backlog data reported in 2020 under the prior state
expected to exceed these standards. As such, the definition demonstrates that at least half of cases
proposed standards effectively set an upper limit remained open longer than one year after complaint
goal for processing cases. For example, the State receipt. About 20 percent to 25 percent of cases
Bar proposes an average case processing standard remained open for more than two years—including
of 120 days for high-risk, noncomplex cases closed some that were pending for more than five years.
in the Investigation Stage and a backlog standard Measuring pending workload helps ensure that all
of 180 days. This means that nearly all such cases cases are being captured and monitored in real
should aim for closure in under 180 days. Such an time. This provides administrators, policymakers,
upper bound can help limit the number of cases and others with the ability to conduct effective and
that could otherwise drag on without valid reasons. timely oversight.
Backlog Metrics Tend to
Measure Pending, Rather
Than Closed, Workload. Figure 13
Our understanding is that backlog
At Least Half of Backlog Cases Open
metrics tend to measure pending
More Than One Year After Complaint Receipt
workload in order to provide
administrators, policymakers, and Number of Cases
others with timely information on
when workload is outstanding 3,000
Over Two Years
and/or not able to be completed
2,500 Over One Year - Two Years
in a timely manner. For example,
181 Days - One Year
state law prior to 2021 generally
2,000
defined annual backlog as cases
that were pending—meaning that 1,500
OCTC did not dismiss a complaint,
admonish an attorney, or file formal 1,000
charges against an attorney—six
500
months after complaint receipt as of
December 31 of the preceding year.
-
State law required reporting on 2017 2018 2019 2020
22 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
AN LAO REPORT
Good Reasons Why Cases May Remain the State Bar proposes average case processing
Pending. There may be good reasons why cases standards that recognize that higher-risk cases
remain pending. For example, some cases may should proceed faster, while more complex
be deferred pending resolution of criminal or civil cases should take longer. On the one hand, the
cases. Some cases may also be deferred, or take Legislature could determine that having different
longer to resolve, if OCTC is already pursuing backlog metrics for high-risk versus low-risk cases
serious discipline against an accused attorney or is warranted, because it recognizes the differences
if numerous complaints are being assessed to see in how long such cases should take and could
if OCTC can establish a case that there has been make it easier to track where delays are occurring.
gross negligence or a pattern of repeated failures On the other hand, the Legislature could determine
to provide competent service. According to the that a single metric for all cases (such as the prior
State Bar, one of the attorney discipline expert statutory backlog definition) is warranted, because
consultants raised concern that deferral was it would be easier to track/calculate and focus on all
overused and that OCTC is developing guidelines cases that exceed a designated time period.
for case deferral. Appropriate backlog metrics What Data or Metrics Are Needed to Conduct
should separately categorize workload that is Legislative Oversight? The Legislature will want
pending for valid, clearly understandable reasons to consider what specific data and metrics should
and those that are not. be required by state law in the annual discipline
report to enable effective legislative oversight
Key Questions for
of the backlog. For example, depending on the
Legislative Consideration
definition of backlog used, the Legislature may
How Should Backlog Be Defined and want to require reporting on how long cases have
Calculated? The Legislature will want to consider been pending as well as the reasons why they are
what is an appropriate backlog definition. pending. This would help identify how many cases
The Legislature could restore the definition used are pending for valid reasons and whether certain
previously or develop new ones. For example, actions (such as case deferral) are being used
the Legislature could define backlog to constitute more frequently. Such information would provide
cases that were pending after 300 days without the Legislature with comprehensive context to
case closure, admonishment, or filing of charges assess the backlog and what actions may need
from date of receipt. (This is the time proposed by to be taken. Additionally, the Legislature will want
the State Bar by which 90 percent of cases that to ensure that accurate and consistent data is
reach the Charging Stage should either be closed being reported over time for comparison—such
or result in the filing of charges.) At minimum, we as clearly specifying how to pull or calculate these
recommend the Legislature focus this definition backlog-related statistics and metrics as well as
on pending workload so that it can monitor OCTC what types of cases are included.
workload in a comprehensive and timely manner.
It is also important to define how backlog should STAFFING ANALYSIS
be calculated. For example, the Legislature could
exclude cases deferred for valid reasons from the Assessment
calculation of backlog. This would mean that the Reasonable That Only Preliminary Estimates
backlog metric would only reflect those cases for of Staffing and Resource Need Are Provided.
which there is a lack of resources or no valid reason We find it reasonable that the State Bar only
for delay. We note that the criteria for deferral provided preliminary estimates of staffing needs to
would be important in this situation and could merit fulfill SB 211 requirements and indicated its intent to
legislative consideration as well. conduct a comprehensive analysis in the future. It
Should There Be a Single Backlog Metric? would be premature to assess appropriate staffing
The Legislature will want to consider whether there needs since OCTC has recently implemented, or is
should be a single backlog metric. For example, considering implementing, various organizational
www.lao.ca.gov 23
AN LAO REPORT
and disciplinary process changes that could needs compared to minor changes to the criteria for
substantially change how cases are addressed as what types of cases constitute complex cases.
well as what types of staff and how much of their A staffing analysis that begins in 2023 will,
time is needed to resolve cases. OCTC may also by necessity, use data that reflects workload
need to consider further operational and procedural conducted before such changes are fully
changes in order to meet the proposed case implemented. As such, all of these impacts would
processing standards (such as additional expeditor not be accounted for in the analysis. Alternatively,
teams and/or staff) or to address concerns with the staffing analysis may make assumptions related
previously implemented changes (such as concerns to expectations of the full impacts of such changes,
that OCTC’s shift to its current generalist teams in which may not actually be realized. Accordingly,
2017 resulted in decreased efficiency). the resulting study may suffer which could lead
Additionally, legislative action in response to to both too many resources or too few resources
the State Bar’s report, as well as our review, could being identified as being needed—and potentially
impact staffing and resource needs. For example, provided—to support OCTC workload.
less staff could be needed (or a different mix of Difficult to Assess Impact of Additional
staff may be needed) if the Legislature modifies Positions Funded in 2019. The Legislature
the proposed case processing standards to authorized an increase in the annual license fee
provide more time or takes steps to streamline the beginning in 2019 to support 19 additional OCTC
disciplinary process (such as eliminating ENECs disciplinary staff—6 attorneys, 9 investigators, and
prior to charging). As such, we think it makes sense 4 support staff. A new trial team was created with
to delay a comprehensive staffing and resource 12 of these additional positions, while the remainder
analysis to incorporate legislative priorities. were distributed to other OCTC teams. The specific
Full Impact of Organizational and Procedural impact of these positions is difficult to assess
Changes Will Likely Not Be Known in 2023. as the State Bar is unable to provide data clearly
The State Bar indicates its intent to begin a demonstrating their impact. Such information
comprehensive staffing analysis in 2023. However, would have been helpful to determine whether the
the full impacts of recently impacted organizational additional resources and staff were used effectively
and procedural changes as well as any that will be as well as to estimate the impact of any additional
implemented in the near future will not be known provided resources.
at that time. Such changes typically require time to Workload Formula Needs Revision.
implement and for those involved to adapt to before The workload formula will need to be revised to
the full potential of the changes is realized. In some reflect all operational and procedural changes that
cases, changes that were expected to increase have, or will be, implemented since the formula was
efficiency or quality may actually decrease them adopted in 2018. As we raised in our 2019 report,
unintentionally. For example, as noted above, CSA the resulting case weights should capture the
identified concerns that the State Bar’s changes amount of time actually needed to process cases
to its disciplinary system—specifically, converting within the proposed case processing time periods
OCTC trial teams from specialist teams that handle rather than actual processing times reflected in
particular case types to generalist teams who data. (We note that the workload formula actually
generally handle all case types and promoting some captures all OCTC activities, including workload
of its most senior attorneys to full-time supervisors associated after charges are filed in the Hearing
in 2017—significantly reduced the efficiency of Stage.) This is even more important given that
the system. Additionally, some changes will have available data does not reflect the impacts of
greater impacts than others. For example, an OCTC changes that have recently, or will need to be
shift to make greater use of specialized teams or implemented. For the same reasons, the State
horizontal prosecution could have a much more Bar should also be cautious of using relationships
significant impact on ongoing staffing and resource identified in historical data in the workload formula.
24 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
AN LAO REPORT
As we previously reported in 2019, different case what level of additional resources would be
weights may be needed for different complaint justified without an updated study.
types or priority categories to the extent that Should Certain Organizational or Procedural
they require different levels or combinations of Changes Be Assessed Separately From and/or
disciplinary tasks. For example, expedited cases Prior to the Comprehensive Staffing Analysis?
move more quickly because certain investigatory or The Legislature will want to consider whether the
other tasks are omitted which means less staff work impacts of certain organizational or procedural
is required. At the same time, the expeditor team changes should be assessed separately from
requires more investigators than attorneys to meet and/or prior to the initiation of a comprehensive
internal benchmarks for such cases. It is unknown staffing analysis (if the analysis is delayed). As noted
at this time whether more cases will be handled above, an April 2021 CSA report recommended
in an expedited manner to meet the proposed OCTC assess how its current organizational
case processing time standards. We note that the structure impacted its ability to efficiently resolve
State Bar subsequently identified that there were case and what additional changes are needed.
differences between the resources allocated to To the extent significant changes are made to
process particular case types. Additionally, analysis OCTC’s organizational structure, it could seriously
could be merited regarding whether investigator impact OCTC operations and ensuing staffing and
and attorney responsibilities are sufficiently resource needs. For example, the amount of staff
different to merit separate case weights. available to process workload (such as fewer or
more supervisors), the amount of time available
Key Questions for
to process workload (such as more or less time
Legislative Consideration
needed for more senior staff to mentor less
When Should a Comprehensive Staffing experienced staff), the amount of time needed to
Analysis Be Conducted? The Legislature will complete particular tasks (such as less time being
want to consider when the State Bar should needed with more experienced staff due to the
conduct a comprehensive staffing analysis. Given specialization of certain tasks), or the mix of staff
that various operational and procedural changes needed (such as shifting certain responsibilities
may be forthcoming, the analysis would be the from attorneys or investigators to support staff)
most accurate and helpful if it was delayed until could all be impacted. Having such analyses
after the full impacts of those changes on staffing could provide the Legislature with the necessary
and resource needs were realized. We think information to determine whether statutory changes
potentially delaying the staffing analysis further or informal feedback to the State Bar are needed.
to 2024 or 2025 would allow for the preliminary Making such decisions prior to the completion
impacts of such changes to be observed and of a comprehensive staffing analysis could help
incorporated into the analysis. The analysis could ensure the resulting the staffing analysis reflects the
then be updated in 2028 or 2029 to reflect the full Legislature’s perspective and expectations.
impacts of such changes. At the same time, we
recognize that it would be difficult to determine
CONCLUSION
Pursuant to state law, the State Bar submitted needed to achieve the new standards. We generally
a report to our office for review which proposes found some portions of the report reasonable, but
new caseload processing standards for resolving also identified concerns with other portions. Based
attorney discipline cases within OCTC, the on our review, we also identified a series of key
establishment of a backlog goal and metrics to questions for legislative consideration to assist with
measure such a goal, and the staffing requirements any future decisions.
www.lao.ca.gov 25
AN LAO REPORT
LAO PUBLICATIONS
This report was prepared by Anita Lee, and reviewed by Drew Soderborg and Anthony Simbol. The Legislative
Analyst’s Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office that provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature.
To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an e-mail subscription service, are
available on the LAO’s website at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento,
California 95814.
26 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE