Tuesday, September 29, 2026
Page 1
Newsom Signs Bills Mandating Disbarment for Solicitation, Tightening Criminal Referrals
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed two bills tightening attorney discipline, with one piece of legislation clarifying that any felony conviction, not just ones involving moral turpitude, will trigger referrals to the Supreme Court and the other mandating disbarment for certain violations of prohibitions on capping—or the practice of steering victims of accidents or abuse to a lawyer by way of outside solicitors.
On Sunday, the governor signed Assembly Bills 2039 and 2784, the latter of which is the body’s annual State Bar legislative update. The law leaves untouched the annual licensure fees—capped at $400 for active practitioners and $100 for inactive members—but cleans up language concerning the effect of criminal convictions on lawyers.
Prior to the changes signed into law over the weekend, Business and Professions Code §6101 specified that “[t]he clerk of the court in which an attorney is convicted of a crime shall, within 48 hours after the conviction, transmit a certified copy of the record of conviction to the Office of Chief Trial Counsel,” who was directed to transmit the information to the Supreme Court if the offense involves “moral turpitude.”
Assembly Bill 2784 eliminates the “moral turpitude” limitation for felony offenses, providing that any such conviction shall trigger “proceedings to disbar or suspend an attorney” “by the Supreme Court…upon the receipt of the certified copy of the record of conviction” in accordance with the procedures set forth in §§6101 and 6102.
Discipline Procedures
Those sections call for an immediate interim suspension that is to last until the conviction becomes final, at which point the high court is directed to summarily disbar if the offense is a felony and involves moral turpitude, fraud, or theft.
Sunday’s changes also include a proviso indicating that “postconviction proceedings shall not change the effect of the conviction” for purposes of disciplinary action “unless they result in a finding that the conviction is void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or that the attorney convicted is factually innocent.”
The bill includes new findings, expressing that “[t]he State Bar is a state regulatory agency within the judicial branch of the California government,” which appear to be a response to recent attempts by litigants to argue that the body does not enjoy governmental immunity from suit.
In 2023, an en banc panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held, in the Kohn v. State Bar decision, that the California State Bar is an arm of the state protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity. Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay, joined by Circuit Judge Jennifer Sung, dissented, arguing that the agency is akin to a “public corporation” for which the constitutional shield afforded to governmental bodies is unavailable.
Capping Practice
As to capping, a practice which was already prohibited by existing law, Assembly Bill 2039 adds a new §6152.5 to the Business and Professions Code. Subdivision (a) provides that “the State Bar of California shall enact summarily disbarment procedures…of any licensee” for any “felony conviction [for] capping” or “misdemeanor conviction…where the court finds, or the record establishes, that the licensee acted knowingly and for financial gain.”
Sec. 6152.5 continues:
“Upon receipt of a certified record of conviction described in subdivision (a), the Supreme Court of California shall order disbarment. The State Bar of California shall not negotiate, recommend, or impose an alternative form of discipline, including, but not limited to, reproval, suspension, diversion, or probation, in lieu of revocation.”
The legislation creates a new civil penalty of $25,000 per capping violation, adding that “[e]very client retained and claim filed” based on the illegal practice “shall constitute an individual violation” and that an enforcement action “may be brought by the Attorney General, a city attorney or county counsel.”
Reports of Misconduct
Assembly Bill 2039 further precludes firms or lawyers from retaliating against current or former employees, clients, and others for good-faith reports of attorney misconduct, specifying:
“Protected disclosures include reports made to the State Bar of California, a court, a public prosecutor, or a person with authority to investigate or correct the violation. Nothing in this section shall modify Rule 1.6 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct or relieve any attorney of their duty to maintain client confidentiality under the laws of the state.”
The law additionally sets forth regulations of “attorney-client loan[s] or advance[s],” requiring a written agreement, separate from the retainer contract, which details the total amount financed, repayment terms, and any potential conflicts of interest. The legislation prohibits lawyers from charging their clients interest “whether for case expenses or any other purpose.”
Assemblymember Rick Zbur, D-West Hollywood, together with Diane Dixon, R-Newport Beach, and Ash Kalra, D–San Jose, authored Assembly Bill 2039. The legislative body’s Judiciary Committee is responsible for Assembly Bill 2784.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company