Skip Repetitive Navigation Links
California State Auditor Report Number : 2015-030

State Bar of California
It Has Not Consistently Protected the Public Through Its Attorney Discipline Process and Lacks Accountability

Figure 1

Figure 1 shows the State Bar of California’s organizational structure, consolidated to show the branches relevant to this report, including both the Deputy Executive Director and Chief Trial Counsel. The State Bar of California Board of Trustees is at the top of the organizational structure, followed by the Executive Director. The Executive Director oversees five branches: the Deputy Executive Director and Operations Officer; Chief Trial Counsel; Chief Communications Officer; General Counsel; and Chief Financial Officer. The figure provides expanded detail for the first two branches: the Deputy Executive Director and Operations Officer and the Chief Trial Counsel. The Deputy Executive Director and Operations Officer branch oversees the following departments: Discipline and Regulation, Secretariat, Education, Access to Justice, Human Resources, Lawyer Assistance Program, Information Technology, and General Services. The Discipline and Regulation department oversees the State Bar Court, Admissions, and Professional Competence functions. The Chief Trial Counsel branch oversees the following departments: Intake, Enforcement, Trials, and Audit and Review. A footnote related to the Chief Trial Counsel branch explains that the chief trial counsel reports to the Board of Trustees, and the Executive Director has management oversight of the chief trial counsel’s resources.

 Go back to Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 2 is a flow chart characterizing each stage of the State Bar’s discipline process from complaint receipt to resolution. On this flow chart, dark blue boxes indicate the beginning and end of the discipline process; complaint and resolution; and the intermediate stages are indicated in light blue: Intake, Investigation, Trial, and State Bar Court. At the top of the chart, a dark blue box indicates the receipt of a complaint. In this stage, the State Bar of California receives a written complaint—usually concerning performance—from a California Attorney’s client, a court, an attorney’s opposing counsel, or another member of the public against that attorney. In the center of the chart, a large light blue box indicates the stages of the discipline process. In the first stage, Intake, the State Bar evaluates each complaint received to determine whether it can resolve the complaint immediately or whether it should open an inquiry for informal, preliminary investigation, and resolution. Resolution entails either opening a case by advancing the inquiry to the investigation and trial unit or closing the inquiry. In the second stage, Investigation, investigators receive and examine inquiries and reportable actions forwarded from the intake unit. At the conclusion of each investigation, an attorney decides whether to close the complaint or to resolve the complaint in another manner. For example, the State Bar may impose an informal, confidential resolution or file a notice of disciplinary charges in the State Bar Court. The State Bar refers to this as pre-filing. In the third stage, Trial, the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel prepares cases for trial and prosecutes certain matters in the State Bar Court. In the fourth stage, State Bar Court, the State Bar Court conducts evidentiary hearings and renders a decision with findings and recommendations of discipline. The State Bar Court has the authority to impose public and private reprovals. In cases involving disciplinary issues more serious than reprovals, the State Bar Court recommends appropriate disciplinary actions to the California Supreme Court for review and adoption, if appropriate. At the bottom of the chart, a dark blue box indicates the resolution of the complaint. Case disposition in the State Bar Court or the California Supreme Court can include reproval, disbarment, suspension, discipline, and/or probation of the attorney or attorneys named in the case.

 Go back to Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 3 is a chart that shows the decline in complaints the State Bar of California opened and closed in the intake stage each year between 2009 and 2014. The x-axis shows the calendar years 2009 through 2014 and the y-axis shows the number of complaints, in intervals of 5,000, from 0 to 30,000. A red line across the chart indicates the complaints opened and a blue line indicates the cases closed. In 2009, the State Bar opened 20,642 cases in intake, and closed 17,628 cases. In 2010, the State Bar opened 21,304 cases and closed 23,936. In 2011, the State Bar opened 19,128 cases and closed 18,435 cases. In 2012, the State Bar opened 18,557 cases and closed 19,719 cases. In 2013, the State Bar opened 16,587 cases and closed 17,249 cases. In 2014, the State Bar opened 16,450 cases and closed 15,687 cases. These numbers illustrate that the State Bar opened more cases than it closed in 2009 but it closed more cases than it opened in 2010. In 2011 through 2014, the amount of cases opened and closed were relatively consistent.

 Go back to Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 4 is a chart demonstrating the decline in the State Bar of California’s backlog of disciplinary cases as of December 31 of each year between 2009 and 2014, according to the data that the California State Auditor generated from the State Bar’s Discipline Case Tracking System. The x-axis shows calendar years 2009 through 2014 and the y-axis shows number of cases in intervals of 1,000, from 0 to 6,000 cases. The data is presented by a red line through the chart. This data shows that in 2009, the State Bar’s backlog was 4,276 cases, which increased to 5,174 cases in 2010. Between 2010 and 2011 there was a significant decrease in the backlog, from 5,174 in 2010 to 1,742 in 2011. Between 2011 and 2014, the backlog remained fairly consistent, with 1,742 cases in 2011; 1,834 cases in 2012; 1,916 cases in 2013; and 2,174 cases in 2014.

 Go back to Figure 4

Figure 5:

Figure 5 is a graphic showing the strength of the relationship between the State Bar’s backlog and the type of discipline it imposed over the entire audit period of 2009 through 2014. The structure of this graph is a vertical pole, shaded green at the top to represent a strong positive relationship. The color fades to yellow in the center to represent no relationship, and is shaded red at the bottom to represent a strong negative relationship. The pole is segmented eight times and has numeric indicators of relationship, starting at the top with a positive number one, a 0.5 between the second and third segments, a zero between the fourth and fifth segments, a -0.5 between the sixth and seventh segment, and a negative one at the bottom. Text on the left side of the pole says “Less severe discipline increased as the backlog increased” in the top half, and “More severe discipline decreased as the backlog increased” in the bottom half. Four types of discipline are labeled along the pole, beginning with dismissals at 0.73. Then it lists reprovals at 0.26, suspensions at negative 0.30, and disbarment at negative 0.90. There is a note that says “During the period we reviewed, there were not enough admonition cases to make a statistical correlation.”

 Go back to Figure 5

Figure 6:

Figure 6 is a chart comparing the backlog the State Bar reported to the backlog the California State Auditor’s calculated. The chart includes each year from 2009 through 2014 and shows a large disparity in the earlier years and a much smaller disparity in recent years. The chart shows that for 2009, the California State Auditor’s analysis indicates a backlog of 4,276 while the State Bar reported a backlog of 348. For 2010, the California State Auditor’s analysis indicates a backlog of 5,174 while the State Bar reported a backlog of 4,193. For 2011, the California State Auditor’s analysis indicates a backlog of 1,742 while the State Bar reported a backlog of 1,220. For 2012, the California State Auditor’s analysis indicates a backlog of 1,834 while the State Bar reported a backlog of 1,469. For 2013, the California State Auditor’s analysis indicates a backlog of 1,916 while the State Bar reported a backlog of 1,777. Lastly, the chart shows that for 2014, the California State Auditor’s analysis indicated a backlog of 2,174 while the State Bar of California reported a backlog of 1,973.

 Go back to Figure 6

Figure 7:

Figure 7 is a chart that demonstrates the variation in the backlog the State Bar reported in its Annual Discipline Reports each year for 2009 through 2014. It is organized as six groupings of horizontal bars. Each of the six groupings represents a year, with the corresponding bars representing the amount the State Bar reported as its backlog for that year in different discipline reports. The State Bar reported its 2009 backlog as 348 in its 2009 discipline report. In its 2010 discipline report, the State Bar reported its 2009 backlog as 2,580, an increase of 2,232 over what it reported that backlog was in its prior year’s discipline report. In its 2011 discipline report, the State bar reported its 2009 backlog as 2,856, an increase of 276. In its 2012 annual discipline report, the State Bar reported its 2009 backlog as 2,856, matching what it reported in its prior year report. However, in its 2013 annual discipline report, the State Bar reported its 2009 backlog was 4,176, an increase of 1,320 from what it reported in the prior report.

The chart includes a note explaining that state law requires the State Bar to report the current year’s backlog, as well as the backlog for the three previous years.

 Go back to Figure 7

Figure 8:

Figure 8 is a chart comparing the State Bar’s average and reported median discipline case processing times between 2009 and 2014. The chart includes two lines with each including data points for each of the six years from 2009 through 2014. The red line, which is higher, represents the California State Auditor’s analysis of average case-processing time and the lower line represents the median days reported by the State Bar. For 2009, the California State Auditor’s analysis indicated an average case-processing time of 570 days, while the State Bar reported a median of 492 days. For 2010 the average time was 659 days while the State Bar reported a median of 462 days. For 2011 the average time was 528 days, while the State Bar reported a median of 392 days. For 2012, the average time was 361 days while the State Bar reported a median of 235 days. For 2013, the average time was 391 days while the State Bar reported a median of 249 days. For 2014, the average time was 450 days while the State Bar reported a median of 263 days.

 Go back to Figure 8

Figure 9:

Figure 9 is a graph comparing the State Bar’s actual discipline costs with the costs it reported in its Annual Discipline Reports between 2009 and 2014. The graph is a vertical bar graph showing the State Bar reported higher costs in the first four years of the period from 2009 through 2014, and lower costs in the last two years of that period. The graph includes an indicator line through the first four bars indicating what the discipline costs were for the first four years using the State Bar’s current methodology for calculating its discipline costs, which excludes its administration costs. For 2009, the State Bar reported discipline costs of $52.4 million, but its costs would have been $41.6 million using its current methodology. For 2010, the State Bar reported discipline costs of $50.2 million, but its costs would have been 35.9 million using its current methodology. For 2011, the State Bar reported discipline costs of $55.8 million, but its costs would have been $39.4 million using its current methodology. For 2012, the State Bar reported discipline costs of $51.8 million, but its costs would have been $36.4 million using its current methodology. For 2013, using its current methodology, the State Bar reported its discipline costs were $37 million. For 2014, the State Bar reported its discipline costs were $37.7 million. The graph includes a note that says “Beginning in 2012 the State Bar revised its reporting of discipline costs to exclude administration costs, but began to include them again in 2014.”

 Go back to Figure 9

Figure 10:

Figure 10 is a map showing the location of the State Bar’s new building in downtown los Angeles. Interstate 110 runs vertically through the map, between West 4th Street and West Pico Boulevard. South Figueroa Street, South Grand Avenue, Broadway, and South Main Street all run parallel to Interstate 110. The State Bar’s new building is located at 845 South Figueroa Street, which is approximately three blocks from LA Live and the Staples Center, and a mile from the Walt Disney Concert Hall.

 Go back to Figure 10

Figure 11:

Figure 11 is an illustration of the total cost and financial resources the State Bar used to purchase its new building in downtown Los Angeles. The right side of the figure has a photograph of the building and states the total cost of the building. The building cost $50 million to purchase and $26.6 million in renovation and other related costs, for a total cost of $76.6 million. According to the State Bar, the total cost of the building as of December 2014 was $74.6 million. However, it was unable to reconcile the difference between that amount and the $76.6 million we cited above. Therefore, we used the amount reported in the audited financial statements. The figure illustrates the various funding sources the State Bar used to pay for these costs, including, a $25.5 million loan with a 4.26 percent fixed interest rate from Bank of America, and $51.3 million from the Los Angeles Building Fund. The Los Angeles Building Fund was composed of $10.3 million collected from the building special assessment fee the State Bar charged its members between 2009 and 2013, $29 million in revenue from the sale of a parking lot in Los Angeles, and $12 million in transfers from seven program funds. The figure details these fund transfers to show how much the State Bar transferred from each of the seven funds to pay for the building, and is color coded. Green represents funds the California State Auditor determined were from funds related to the building, and red represents funds the California State Auditor determined were from funds unrelated to the building. The funds color coded green include: the general fund transfer of $2.2 million and the San Francisco Building Fund transfer of $1.6 million. The funds color coded red include: the Admissions Fund transfer of $1.5 million, the Technology Improvements Fund transfer of $2.4 million, the Legislative Activities Fund transfer of $0.05 million, the Elimination of Bias and Bar Relations Fund transfer of $0.8 million, and the Legal Education and Development transfer of $3.4 million. The illustration has a note on the Legislative Activities Fund, the Elimination of Bias and Bar Relations Fund, and the Legal Education and Development Fund that indicates all three funds are included in the Administration of Justice Fund. There is a final note attached to the Bank of America loan description that says per the loan agreement, the State Bar must maintain $4.6 million as a debt service reserve fund and the State Bar maintains this in its Public Protection Fund.

 Go back to Figure 11

Figure A.1

Figure A.1 is a chart of the State Bar of California’s investigation cases opened and closed 2009 through 2014. The chart includes two lines, one indicating cases opened, and one indicating cases closed. For 2009, there were 5,953 investigation cases opened, and 3,744 cases closed. For 2010, there were 6,641 cases opened and 5,710 cases closed. For 2011, there were 5,376 cases opened and 8,404 cases closed. For 2012, there were 4,532 cases opened and 5,324 cases closed. For 2013, there were 4,603 cases opened and 3,483 cases closed. For 2014, there were 3,983 cases opened and 5,008 cases closed.

 Go back to Figure A.1

Figure A.2

Figure A.2 is a chart of cases opened and closed in the State Bar of California’s trial unit 2009 through 2014. The chart includes two lines, one indicating cases opened, and one indicating cases closed. For 2009, there were 1,641 cases opened in the State Bar of California’s trial unit, and 1,433 cases closed. For 2010, there were 2,362 cases opened and 2,488 cases closed. For 2011, there were 4,565 cases opened and 5,225 cases closed. For 2012, there were 3,448 cases opened and 3,020 cases closed. For 2013, there were 1,762 cases opened and 2,188 cases closed. For 2014, there were 2,710 cases opened and 2,162 cases closed.

 Go back to Figure A.2

Figure A.3:

Figure A.3 is a chart of cases opened and closed in the State Bar Court 2009 through 2014. The chart includes two lines, one indicating cases opened, and one indicating cases closed. For 2009, there were 889 cases opened in the State Bar Court, and 910 cases closed. For 2010, there were 1,647 cases opened and 1,385 cases closed. For 2011, there were 2,524 cases opened and 2,438 cases closed. For 2012, there were 1,464 cases opened and 1,768 cases closed. For 2013, there were 1,345 cases opened and 1,291 cases closed. For 2014, there were 1,241 cases opened and 1,141 cases closed.

 Go back to Figure A.3