https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/ en https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/justice-kelli-evans-and-justice-stacy-boulware-eurie-share-perspectives-diversity-courts Justice Kelli Evans and Justice Stacy Boulware Eurie Share Perspectives on Diversity in the CourtsKaren.Datangel Wed, 03/25/2026 - 14:58 Feature Justice Kelli Evans and Justice Stacy Boulware Eurie began their journeys in law as students at UC Davis at similar times, but neither expected their rise to the bench in California's appellate courts, as they first recounted in a conversation with each other during the Black History Month 2026 Closing Ceremony at the Judicial Council on Feb. 25. "As an attorney, I hoped and thought that one day I would eventually like to become a judge, so when I got appointed to the Alameda County court trial bench, I thought I had made it...and I would have happily retired there," said Justice Evans, associate justice of the California Supreme Court. "It was a surprise when I got the call from the governor saying he wanted to elevate me to the California Supreme Court." "While in law school, I dreamt of being a trial judge and when I was appointed in 2007 [to the Sacramento Superior Court], it was literally a dream come true," said Justice Stacy Boulware Eurie, associate justice of the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District. "There's no way I could have anticipated or predicted the current seat I hold." The two justices shared the stage to discuss insights on diversity and inclusion in the courts, access to justice, the roles of judicial officers and court staff, and other topics. Following are highlights from their conversation. On the role of jurists in honoring diversity and inclusion Justice Evans: When I think about inclusion in particular, I think what it means is making sure people feel seen and are seen, feel heard and are heard, have a shot at opportunities, and in the court system, that they feel like it really works for them. Individual judges can do things in their courtrooms that embody these values. From the bench, you can treat all litigants with respect, make sure that you're implementing procedural justice in your courtroom. You can make sure you're using inclusive and accessible language. You can make sure you're explaining your decisions clearly, particularly to the person on the losing side of the decision. You can do things at a leadership level, like advocate for policies that help promote diversity and inclusion. Another thing judges and individuals can do is community outreach and engagement. The more that our communities understand about the justice business, the better it is for our court system and the more likely we are to have diverse and inclusive court systems. If we help everyone to understand they have a stake in it, they have an opportunity to participate in a system that can and should work for everyone. Justice Boulware Eurie: We're all familiar with systemic opportunities and/or barriers for diversity and inclusion, but I also think there's an individual level of opportunity and obligation to see who's at that proverbial table. No entity or structure is perfect but I do think our branch in particular is a mirror to society. The folks that come in through courthouse doors, those folks who support the work of the trial courts, Courts of Appeal, and the Supreme Court reflect and should reflect California's citizenry. On the importance of diversity of perspectives and experiences in courts Justice Evans: In the California Supreme Court, we have seven justices who are responsible for making decisions that impact all 40 million of us in California. When you have people at that table who have diverse experiences like people who have been defense attorneys, have represented civil rights litigants, worked with law enforcement their whole lives, been subjects of racial profiling, have family members who have been incarcerated, or have been career prosecutors, that's a very rich discussion and it brings voices to the table that have long been missing. When I talk about diversity, I'm not just talking about race, gender, or sexual orientation - I'm talking about life experience, geography, practice areas, income, all sorts of things. I think it's important in the trial courts if not more important at the appellate court levels. The more people with nuanced perspectives who are part of a conversation, we'll have fewer blind spot errors, and we'll have a better understanding of potential impacts on various communities. Justice Boulware Eurie: When we talk about an impartial court and fair and balanced justice, I think some of that comes from diversity of thought, not just traditional values or experiences. Are there voices that are ensuring a check on the system and as drivers of procedural justice, that it's not just one voice being heard? Is there space for different perspectives and values on how the law is interpreted? I think it looks different in a Court of Appeal or Supreme Court because it's not a single individual judge making all the decisions in a courtroom. In the trial court, those different [perspectives can come from] roles of the prosecutor or public defender, or parents' counsel, minor's counsel, and county counsel. I'm pretty proud of California's courts because I think our branch is embracing the opportunities we're talking about. I thought about language and diversity of perspectives. In juvenile court, when we're dealing with children who are removed from their homes - particularly Black families and communities - we may hear "Hey, that's my cousin." You might later figure out "That's my play cousin" and having a bench officer who understands community relationships and ties that exist beyond blood helps to inform the decision-making in about what's in the best interest of the child. This is just one example of a type of diversity of experience and the opportunity for more informed decision making when you are hearing from and learning about different experiences. On court staff Justice Evans: Our clerks are procedural guardians. Our research attorneys carry an enormously important load as first line filters for the judges and justices for what's coming in and they often go through incredibly voluminous records. There are other court staff like interpreters, reporters, and self-help attorneys. There are court administrators who are doing work that make our courts accessible to the public. Our librarians are facilitating all of our access to material that we need to do our jobs. We've got court security personnel that are protecting our litigants and jurors. Sometimes this work is done under immense time pressure and public scrutiny. We're in a system full of unsung heroes. People know about judges, but people also need to know about the essential roles in our justice system that make it possible to seek and obtain justice. I also know that the more people learn about these roles - young people in particular - the more they're interested in our work. Young people may not be interested in becoming a lawyer or a judge, but would be really interested in one of these other roles. So the more we can share that information, the better. Justice Boulware Eurie: The one role I want to highlight is IT (Information Technology). In the Sacramento Superior Court in the period during COVID, we were spreading jurors out in different courtrooms and utilizing Zoom for them to hear and participate in selection. We had one particular IT member who was running from courtroom to courtroom, standing in the back -- not just to make sure the Zoom and speakers were working, but to make sure we could all be heard clearly. He was trying to stand in the shoes of the user, hearing what was happening in that courtroom or a different courtroom so there was meaningful participation. We know remote access is something the branch is very committed to and is super important. Advice for law students and aspiring lawyers Justice Boulware Eurie: Keep an open mind. I think a lot of people attend law school and go in with this vision of what it is that they want to do and just like undergrad, it's an opportunity for exploration. There will be an opportunity to learn so many substantive areas that you may not have been familiar with. As it relates to this conversation [around diversity and inclusion], I think of the growing importance of environmental law and looking at the demographics of law schools and who participates in those programs -- often I don't see people of color. Look not only where you can participate, but who can you bring along? What other spaces, clinicals, programs, and internships might you and your peers participate in? Is it always the same folks raising their hands? Is there a way you can nudge a colleague or peer to join you in a lunchtime conversation with a professor on a topic that you might otherwise think is dry as sand? Challenge yourself by learning something new in terms of perspective, life background, and the law. Justice Evans: Do what interests you. It might not be what everyone else is doing. Find people that you think are doing things that are interesting and exciting, and reach out to them and learn more. Try lots of different things and stay flexible. There's lot of different ways to be happy in any career but especially as a lawyer. Watch Justice Evans and Justice Boulware Eurie's full conversation. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-supreme-court-approves-rule-amendments-law-office-study-and-certified-law-students California Supreme Court Approves Rule Amendments for Law Office Study and Certified Law Students ProgramsBalassone, Merrill Thu, 03/19/2026 - 20:15 News Release The California Supreme Court on Wednesday approved amendments to rules governing the Law Office Study and Certified Law Students programs, broadening practical training opportunities for students and clarifying how they may participate in these programs to learn about the practice of law. Under the new amendments, Law Office Study program participants will soon be able to participate in the Certified Law Students program. The Law Office Study program offers an alternative to traditional law school, allowing aspiring lawyers to take the California bar exam after completing at least four years of supervised legal study in a law office or under the supervision of a California judge. The Certified Law Students program allows law students to represent clients and appear in court on a limited basis and under the supervision of a licensed attorney. The court modified the State Bar of California’s original proposal by allowing Law Office Study participants studying under a judge to also participate in Certified Law Students program provided that the supervisors in both programs “make good faith efforts to mitigate or prevent any actual or potential conflicts of interest or ethical concerns that might arise from the general applicant’s dual role.” “For example, a general applicant who studies in the Law Office Study program under the supervision of a judge should avoid appearing before that same judge when representing a client in the Certified Law Student Program,” the court wrote. The new amendments will take effect on June 1. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-supreme-court-approves-more-rigorous-standards-bar-exam-experts California Supreme Court Approves More Rigorous Standards for Bar Exam ExpertsBalassone, Merrill Thu, 12/18/2025 - 14:58 News Release The California Supreme Court on Thursday approved a proposed set of qualification standards for experts involved in developing California’s Bar Exam, but the court modified the proposal to tighten the eligibility requirements for those responsible for question accuracy, content validation, and score setting. In approving the State Bar’s proposal, the court made several modifications, including: Expanded eligibility for content validators and score-setting panelists to include active or retired California judges and justices.   Added “well-qualified” as a qualification standard for selecting content validators and score-setting panelists, which the court defined as the ability to demonstrate expertise in the knowledge and skills being tested and familiarity with the abilities required of an entry-level attorney.    Added a new disqualification standard for law school faculty or consultants who have recently served in positions involving substantial responsibilities related to securing or maintaining a law school’s accreditation.   Expanded eligibility for subject matter experts to include licensed attorneys and active judges and justices.   Added “outstanding in their field of expertise” as a qualification standard for selecting subject matter experts, which the court defined as including those having major professional awards, leadership roles, membership in organizations requiring outstanding achievement, high academic credentials, tenured status, authorship of published work, prior experience evaluating the work of others in the same field, or letters of recommendation. The court in September approved amendments expanding the Committee of Bar Examiners’ role in overseeing changes to the Bar Exam. Those amendments also required the development of these qualification standards. The State Bar and the Committee of Bar Examiners will implement the court-approved qualification standards in any future efforts relating to the development of the California Bar Exam. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/video-california-supreme-court-honors-retired-justice-martin-jenkins Video: California Supreme Court Honors Retired Justice Martin JenkinsBalassone, Merrill Thu, 12/04/2025 - 13:41 News Release LOS ANGELES—The California Supreme Court concluded its oral argument session Wednesday with an emotional sendoff to colleague Justice Martin Jenkins, who retired after five years with the court and more than 35 years of judicial service. Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero said Jenkins had worked “tirelessly to improve the administration of justice for all of our courts…as we try to grapple with the most challenging legal and practical problems facing our state.” “Thank you for your invaluable service to the people of this state,” Chief Justice Guerrero said. “You’ve had a remarkable and distinguished career, serving at virtually every level of both our state and federal courts. At each stage, you have served with integrity and distinction.” Jenkins, 71, was appointed by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2020 and was the first openly gay justice and the third African-American man to serve on the court. Jenkins spent almost two years advising Governor Newsom on judicial appointments prior to filling the vacancy on the court created by Justice Ming Chin’s retirement. Before joining the Newsom administration, Jenkins served as an associate justice on the First District Court of Appeal from 2008 to 2019 and as a federal district judge at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California from 1997 to 2008. Earlier, Jenkins served as a judge on the Alameda County Superior Court (1992–1997) and on the Oakland Municipal Court (1989–1992). Jenkins’s prior experience as a practitioner included three years as a trial attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice and three years as a prosecutor with the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office.  https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/memoriam-justice-joseph-r-grodin In Memoriam: Justice Joseph R. GrodinBalassone, Merrill Tue, 11/04/2025 - 12:17 News Release California Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero began the court’s oral argument session Tuesday with a tribute to former Justice Joseph Grodin, who died in April at age 94. “On behalf of the court, I want to express our appreciation for Justice Grodin’s service to the court and the people of this state,” Chief Justice Guerrero said. “He had a distinguished career serving as a labor lawyer, Supreme Court justice, and also a professor, and inspired others with his dedication to justice, integrity, and fairness.” The in memoriam session—open to the public and livestreamed—served as a tribute to Justice Grodin’s service on the court from December 1982 to January 1987. Speakers included Jake Dear, retired Supreme Court chief supervising attorney who worked under Justice Grodin; Professor Reuel Schiller of the UC College of the Law, San Francisco; and Michael Cohen, Justice Grodin’s grandson. View photos of the session below. You can read Justice Grodin's oral history by the California Supreme Court Historical Society here.   https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-supreme-court-rules-state-bar-proposals-appoints-new-state-bar-court-judge California Supreme Court Rules on State Bar Proposals, Appoints New State Bar Court JudgeBalassone, Merrill Thu, 10/23/2025 - 15:11 News Release The California Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled on State Bar proposals affecting disciplinary rules for attorneys and the licensing of members of the military, while also appointing a new judge to the State Bar Court. Rejection of Monetary Sanctions Reduction, Automatic Expungement Proposals The court rejected a State Bar proposal that would have significantly reduced the monetary sanctions imposed on disciplined attorneys. The proposal aimed to lower fines for disbarment from $5,000 to $1,000, and to reduce to zero the existing $2,500 sanction for an actual suspension and the $1,000 sanction for a resignation with charges pending. The court did approve some of the proposal’s rule amendments to clarify how attorneys may pay the monetary sanctions in installments. The court also rejected a State Bar proposal to implement an automatic, one-time expungement of an attorney’s public disciplinary record after a period of eight years with no further discipline imposed. Approval of Modified Military Licensure Rule The court approved, with modifications, the State Bar’s proposed amendments to rule 9.41.1 of the California Rules of Court concerning the practice of law by military servicemembers and their spouses, if licensed in other states. These changes bring the rule into compliance with recent federal amendments under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, which now requires the professional licenses of military personnel and their spouses to be honored across state lines with limited restrictions. The court added safeguards by prohibiting licensure under this rule for applicants with prior disciplinary records or pending investigations in other states and requiring background checks to verify eligibility. New State Bar Court Judge The court also appointed attorney Alison Worthington, assistant city attorney for Pasadena, to the State Bar Court’s Los Angeles Hearing Department. She fills the vacancy created by the departure of Judge Cynthia Valenzuela, who was appointed last December to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Worthington’s term will begin on Nov. 1. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-supreme-court-honor-late-justice-joseph-r-grodin California Supreme Court to Honor Late Justice Joseph R. GrodinBalassone, Merrill Thu, 10/16/2025 - 15:53 News Release The California Supreme Court will honor the legacy of former Justice Joseph R. Grodin at the start of its oral argument session on November 4. Justice Grodin, who served on the court from 1982 to 1987, passed away in April at the age of 94. The in memoriam session will begin at 10 a.m. in the Supreme Court’s courtroom, located in the Ronald M. George State Office Complex, Earl Warren Building, 350 McAllister Street, Fourth Floor, San Francisco. The ceremony will be open to the public and livestreamed on both the Supreme Court website and the California Courts Newsroom. Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero said in April: “Justice Joseph R. Grodin was a brilliant jurist whose contributions to California’s legal system—as a labor lawyer, Supreme Court justice, and professor—continue to resonate. Throughout his distinguished career, he exemplified a dedication to justice, fairness, and the rule of law. His thoughtful opinions and commitment to civil rights shaped the landscape of our state’s jurisprudence. As we mourn his passing, we honor his enduring legacy and the profound impact he had on our judiciary.” https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-supreme-court-associate-justice-martin-jenkins-retire California Supreme Court Associate Justice Martin Jenkins to RetireBalassone, Merrill Thu, 10/09/2025 - 19:10 News Release News Release Associate Justice Martin J. Jenkins will retire from the California Supreme Court at the end of October after five years with the court and more than 35 years of judicial service. “I could not imagine a better capstone to my career on the bench than serving on the California Supreme Court,” said Jenkins, who was appointed by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2020 and is the first openly gay justice and the third African-American man to serve on the court. “Having been a judge at every level of the state court system and with the federal district court, I have seen firsthand how judges and justices at each stage of the judicial process faithfully apply the law in a fair and empathetic manner,” said Jenkins. “I have strived to do the same as a trial judge, at the First District Court of Appeal, and finally, at the California Supreme Court.” Jenkins, 71, spent almost two years advising Governor Newsom on judicial appointments prior to filling the vacancy on the court created by Associate Justice Ming Chin’s retirement. Before joining the Newsom administration, Jenkins served as an associate justice on the First District Court of Appeal from 2008 to 2019 and as a federal district judge at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California from 1997 to 2008. Earlier, Jenkins served as a judge on the Alameda County Superior Court (1992–1997) and on the Oakland Municipal Court (1989–1992). Jenkins’s prior experience as a practitioner included three years as a trial attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice and three years a prosecutor with the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office.  “It has been an honor to work with Justice Jenkins at the court,” said Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero. “His collegiality, and the thoughtfulness and care with which he has approached his work, have provided a constant source of inspiration. I speak for all of my colleagues when I thank Justice Jenkins for his many contributions to the court, to the public, and to the law.” https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-supreme-court-hosts-landmark-outreach-session-monterey-county California Supreme Court Hosts Landmark Outreach Session in Monterey CountyBalassone, Merrill Wed, 10/08/2025 - 10:52 News Release MONTEREY—For the first time in more than 45 years, the California Supreme Court convened for oral argument Wednesday in Monterey County, holding a historic session at Colton Hall—the site where California’s first constitution was drafted in 1849. Nearly 100 students from across Monterey County—along with local superior court and appellate court judges and justices—gathered for the special outreach session, which gave them a close-up look at the state’s highest court in action, and a chance to directly engage with the justices. "We're thrilled to be here as part of our outreach efforts, inviting students from multiple schools to watch the court at work during oral argument," said Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero. "Our purpose is to bring the court to the community, so that more people can gain a better understanding of the courts and our judicial system." The visit was the third outreach session held by the California Supreme Court under Chief Justice Guerrero. Sixth Appellate District Administrative Presiding Justice Mary J. Greenwood acknowledged the importance of bringing the court to Monterey—a region deeply rooted in California’s agricultural identity. “We feed the world in Monterey County, and it’s critically important to recognize both today's historic significance, as well as Monterey County's significance to the state, our country, and the world," said Justice Greenwood. Students Ask Justices About Their Positions and the Justice System Before formal proceedings began, students had the opportunity to pose questions to the justices, asking them questions about their path to the bench, their role models, and how students can get engaged in learning about the justice system. Senior Anahi Hernandez from Greenfield High School asked Chief Justice Guerrero about what the judiciary at all levels could learn from recent events about maintaining public trust. "We really embrace our responsibility to follow our ethical rules and responsibilities, and think that's important for the public to be able to see that and understand that we don't rule based on our own preferences. Instead, we follow the rule of law dictated by the facts and the law that's presented before us and try to be transparent and accountable in all our decisions," Chief Justice Guerrero said. "Some people are losing hope. But I still have hope for our country and judicial branch, and the reason is because of all of you here in this room, and in particular the students."   View the full webcast recording here. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-supreme-court-approves-amendments-rules-governing-bar-exam-and-attorney-conduct California Supreme Court Approves Amendments to Rules Governing the Bar Exam and Attorney ConductBalassone, Merrill Thu, 09/25/2025 - 14:05 News Release Court orders amending Title Nine and Rule 9.7 The California Supreme Court on Thursday approved a series of amendments to the California Rules of Court related to oversight of the California Bar Exam, attorney admissions, and rules addressing attorney civility. The new rules will become effective on October 1. Amendments to the Bar Exam and Attorney Admissions Rules Following a public comment period and joint review by the Committee of Bar Examiners (CBE) and the State Bar Board of Trustees, the court adopted amendments largely reflecting the court’s May 2025 proposals: Oversight of the Bar Exam             Require the CBE to: Review all exam questions (Rule 9.6(a)(1)). Establish standards for selecting subject matter experts and validation panelists to review new exam questions (Rule 9.6(a)(2)). Develop standards for accrediting any third-party vendor’s ability to administer or proctor the exam either in-person or online (Rule 9.6(a)(3)). Administrative and Fiscal Authority         Reinstate the CBE’s authority to issue subpoenas in admissions matters (Rule 9.5(b)(1)). Restore the CBE’s oversight of the Office of Admissions’ budget (Rule 9.5(b)(2)). Authorize the CBE to set all admissions-related fees, including bar exam and law school accreditation fees (Rule 9.5(b)(5)). Governance and Appointment Procedures     Clarify the nomination and appointment procedures for CBE members, including disqualification criteria (Rule 9.4). Require the CBE to recommend any candidate under consideration for the Chief of Admissions (Rule 9.5(b)(3)). Examination Reform           Mandate a cost-benefit analysis for any proposed changes to the bar exam, including feasibility, cost-effectiveness, the required staff resources, the “estimated timeframe required to competently implement the proposed changes,” and “[w]hether the proposed changes have previously demonstrated their efficacy under testing conditions similar to those of the bar examination” (Rule 9.6(b)). Judicial Review and Depublication       Introduce Rule 9.16.1, consolidating procedures for the Supreme Court’s review of State Bar-related matters. Create Rule 9.16.2, establishing procedures for requests to depublish State Bar Court decisions.   The court approved several revisions to the amendments, including: Requiring the CBE to make publicly available the various standards it must develop under new rule 9.6.   Ensuring that, in selecting a vendor to draft Bar Exam questions, the vendor has "no financial interest in other matters that might create a conflict of interest with the State Bar or with the vendor's ability to draft fair and reliable exam questions." Proposed Rules on Attorney Incivility The court partially granted the State Bar’s request to implement rules promoting civility among attorneys but rejected the proposal defining incivility as disciplinable misconduct. Amendments to rule 9.7 of the California Rules of Court now require attorneys to annually reaffirm the full attorney’s oath, including a pledge to support the United States and California Constitutions and to uphold civility. The court declined to adopt the request's proposed definition of “incivility” and to subject such conduct to discipline under the California Rules of Professional Conduct, citing concerns about potential vagueness and First Amendment implications. Instead, the court encouraged the State Bar to explore alternative measures, such as codifying existing case law "reducing requests for attorney fees based on an attorney's incivility" and studying the impact of new continuing education requirements on attorney civility.