Category : News Release https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/ en Judicial Council to Consider Legislative Priorities for the Courts https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/judicial-council-consider-legislative-priorities-courts Judicial Council to Consider Legislative Priorities for the CourtsCorren, Blaine Fri, 11/08/2024 - 11:04 News Release SAN FRANCISCO—The Judicial Council at its Nov. 15 business meeting will consider the types of legislation it should support to increase access to justice for court users. This year’s recommended legislative agenda for the courts includes advocating for: Continued stable and reliable funding to address increased costs   Maintenance and improvement of operational efficiencies   Continued advancement of remote access while balancing due process   Availability of verbatim records of court proceedings   Increased security to safeguard personnel, the public, and court systems from physical, online, and cyber threats Other Items on Council Meeting Agenda: Adoption Forms in Family Law: The council will consider adopting one new form and revising six forms to simplify, clarify, and provide additional guidance necessary during the adoption process for all adopting parents, and their counsel if represented. Court Adoption and Permanency Month: The council will acknowledge Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero’s proclamation that November is Court Adoption and Permanency Month. Her proclamation by resolution recognizes the ongoing efforts of California’s juvenile courts and their justice partners to provide children and families with access to fair, understandable judicial proceedings leading to timely, well-informed, and just permanency outcomes. Using Plain Language for Juror Oaths: The council will consider a proposal to use understandable plain language for the oaths administered to jurors and prospective jurors to ensure they fully understand them before voir dire and prior to being seated for a jury trial. Report on How Defendants’ Race and Ethnicity Affects Criminal Case Outcomes: The council will receive a statewide report that describes and analyzes patterns seen in criminal case dispositions of adult felony arrests by race/ethnicity and tests whether any available legal or demographic information can account for the observed patterns. Third-Party Uses of Court Facilities: The council will consider a policy to establish guidelines for the use of court facilities by third parties, including long-term occupancies, short-term events, civics education initiatives, and commercial and vendor services. Distinguished Service Awards: The council will honor the three recipients of its 2024 Distinguished Service Award, which recognizes people and organizations for their extraordinary leadership and contributions to the administration of justice in California. This year’s recipients of the California judicial branch’s highest award are Justice William W. Bedsworth, Judge Terry B. Friedman (Ret.), and court executive Melissa Fowler-Bradley. The complete council meeting agenda and council reports are posted to the California Courts Meeting Information Center. A link to a live webcast of the meeting will be on the California Courts website on the day of the meeting. Court Facilities Advisory Committee Approves Site for New Nevada County Courthouse https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/court-facilities-advisory-committee-approves-site-new-nevada-county-courthouse Court Facilities Advisory Committee Approves Site for New Nevada County CourthouseCorren, Blaine Tue, 11/05/2024 - 10:25 News Release The Judicial Council’s Court Facilities Advisory Committee at its meeting today approved the USDA National Forest Service Office location at 631 Coyote Street in Nevada City as the preferred site for a new courthouse in Nevada County. The committee also approved the land containing the parcels at the corner of Highway 49 and Cement Hill Road in Nevada City as the alternative site, which is required for moving forward with CEQA review of the project. In deciding on the two finalist sites, the committee considered factors such as: Preliminary environmental site assessments Potential biological, cultural, and tribal cultural considerations Site boundaries, topography, access routes, proximity to justice partners and services, potential flood zones, seismic zones, and other issues Once completed, the new building will house the court’s operations currently located in the historic Nevada City Courthouse, and will provide an accessible, efficient, and modern full-service courthouse. The new facility will also improve security, operational efficiency, and customer service. Next Steps Now that the committee has approved the selection of the preferred and alternative sites, the Judicial Council must request approval from the State Public Works Board (SPWB) to proceed. If approved, council staff will engage in purchase negotiations and coordinate further analysis of the preferred site. The council will perform additional real estate due diligence, and implement CEQA and other environmental regulatory requirements. Public outreach will occur at the commencement of CEQA (Notice of Preparation) and at the publication of the draft CEQA document. After further analysis, terms, conditions, and price are determined, a request to acquire the site will be presented to the SPWB for approval. For more information on the project, visit www.courts.ca.gov/76091.htm. California Supreme Court Approves Incentives to Test Drive New Bar Exam Questions https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-supreme-court-approves-incentives-test-drive-new-bar-exam-questions California Supreme Court Approves Incentives to Test Drive New Bar Exam QuestionsBalassone, Merrill Tue, 10/22/2024 - 18:01 News Release The California Supreme Court on Tuesday approved a State Bar of California proposal to provide bar applicants an incentive for a study being held on Nov. 8 and Nov. 9 that will pretest experimental multiple-choice exam questions developed by Kaplan, Inc. Participants in those studies may increase their chances of passing a future bar exam under certain conditions. The scoring adjustment will only be available to participants who meet a threshold of performance on the exam, to be determined by the Committee of Bar Examiners. “No participant shall receive a scoring adjustment simply for participating in the proposed study,” the court’s order read. The court also stated that any scoring adjustment “does not alter the maximum available points for the General Bar Examination or its passing score,” but, instead, “the proposed study potentially provides participants with additional questions through which they may demonstrate competency.” The court denied a related scoring adjustment proposal for participation in special sessions scheduled in conjunction with the July 2025 California Bar exam. The court denied this part of the State Bar’s request without prejudice to its resubmission pending results of the November study and the submission of additional details concerning the State Bar’s plans for the July sessions. The court also granted a petition to make the bar exam be mostly remote administered, beginning in February 2025. On Oct. 10, the court issued an order approving a slate of modifications based on the report and recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on the Future of the Bar Exam. As part of that order, the State Bar was directed to develop a California-specific bar exam. That order also rejected a separate proposal for a licensing alternative, the portfolio bar exam. That proposal would have allowed certain law school graduates to demonstrate their professional competence through a program of supervised legal practice in which work product created for clients would later be graded by an admissions committee. Commission to Consider Appointments to Courts of Appeal https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/commission-consider-appointments-courts-appeal-7 Commission to Consider Appointments to Courts of AppealBalassone, Merrill Wed, 10/16/2024 - 14:17 News Release LOS ANGELES —The Commission on Judicial Appointments will hold public hearings on Monday, Nov. 25 starting at 2 p.m. to consider three appellate court appointments by Gov. Gavin Newsom.  The commission will consider the following appointments during hearings held in the courtroom at the Ronald Reagan State Building, located on the third floor of 300 S. Spring Street in Los Angeles:  Justice Brian M. Hoffstadt as presiding justice of the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Five  Judge Michelle C. Kim as associate justice of the Second District Court of Appeal, Division One  Judge Anne K. Richardson as associate justice of the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Two  The hearing will be webcast live on the California Courts Newsroom.  The state Constitution specifies that a gubernatorial appointment to the Court of Appeal is effective when confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments.  The commission members who will consider the appointment are California Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero (Chair); California Attorney General Rob Bonta (appearing remotely); and Presiding Justice Arthur Gilbert.  Appointee Biographies    Justice Brian M. Hoffstadt would fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Presiding Justice Laurence D. Rubin. He has served as an Associate Justice at the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Two since 2014. Justice Hoffstadt served as a judge at the Los Angeles County Superior Court from 2010 to 2014. He was a partner at Jones Day from 2007 to 2010 and served as an assistant U.S. attorney at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Central District of California from 2000 to 2007. Justice Hoffstadt served as senior counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Policy Development from 1998 to 2000, and at the Federal Communications Commission, Office of General Counsel from 1997 to 1998. He served as a law clerk for the Honorable Sandra Day O’Connor at the U.S. Supreme Court from 1996 to 1997 and for the Honorable Cynthia H. Hall at the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit from 1995 to 1996. Justice Hoffstadt earned a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law.  Judge Michelle C. Kim would fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Victoria D. Chaney. She has served as a judge at the Los Angeles County Superior Court since 2018. Judge Kim served as a deputy alternate public defender at the Los Angeles County Alternate Public Defender’s Office from 2005 to 2018 and as a deputy public defender in the Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office from 2003 to 2005. She earned a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law.  Judge Anne C. Richardson would fill the vacancy that will be created by Justice Brian M. Hoffstadt’s appointment as Presiding Justice of the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Five. She has served as a judge at the Los Angeles County Superior Court since 2018. Judge Richardson was a directing attorney at Public Counsel from 2014 to 2018. She was a partner at Hadsell, Stormer, Richardson and Renick LLP from 1998 to 2014 and was an associate there from 1993 to 1998. Judge Richardson was a public interest fellow at Litt and Stormer from 1990 to 1992 and served as a law clerk for the Honorable Mariana R. Pfaelzer at the U.S. District Court, Central District of California from 1989 to 1990. She earned a Juris Doctor degree from Stanford Law School.  Testimony and Comment  Requests to testify or written comments on the appointment must be received by the commission no later than 5 p.m. on Monday, Nov. 18 (five court days prior to hearing). Anyone wishing to testify before the commission must state that request in writing and include a summary of the facts on which any testimony or opinion will be based.  Submissions via email to coja@jud.ca.gov are strongly encouraged. Hard copies are not required.  If you would like to mail your request, you may also reach the commission at:  Commission on Judicial Appointments  c/o Chief Justice of California  Supreme Court of California  350 McAllister Street  San Francisco, California 94102  Attention: Secretary to the Commission  Guidelines for the Commission on Judicial Appointments are published in the appendix to the California Rules of Court and are posted on the California Courts website.  Fourth Appellate District Announces Destruction of Old Court Records https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/fourth-appellate-district-announces-destruction-old-court-records-11 Fourth Appellate District Announces Destruction of Old Court RecordsMartin.Novitski Fri, 10/11/2024 - 14:48 News Release San Diego—The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One (San Diego) has announced its intention to destroy some of its civil records under Rule 10.1028(d) of the California Rules of Court. DIVISION ONE All civil cases (excluding those with published opinions) are preserved for at least 10 years. The records transfer list of the cases and files relating to this destruction of old court records is available on the court’s website: List Anyone who knows of a reason why any of the above cases should be retained, whether for historical or other purposes, should notify Brandon L. Henson, Clerk/Executive Officer. The reasons for retention should be in writing, should be received by the court by November 13, 2024, and should be addressed to:           Brandon L. Henson, Clerk/Executive Officer           Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District           750 B Street, Suite 300           San Diego, CA 92101 Please note that records and case files for actions that result in a published opinion will be retained permanently by the California State Archives, 1020 "O" Street, Sacramento, CA  95814.  The Reference Desk can be contacted at (916) 653-2246.  Their website is http://www.sos.ca.gov/archive Court of Appeal to Hold Education Program for High School Students https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/court-appeal-hold-education-program-high-school-students-17 Court of Appeal to Hold Education Program for High School StudentsMartin.Novitski Wed, 10/09/2024 - 11:28 News Release WHAT: The Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, will host its educational outreach program, “Appellate Court Experience” (ACE), for students from King Drew Medical Magnet High School.  WHEN: Wednesday, Oct. 16 from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.   WHERE: Court of Appeal Courtroom Ronald Reagan State Building, North Tower, Third Floor  300 South Spring Street, Los Angeles  ACE is co-sponsored by the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Teach Democracy (formerly Constitutional Rights Foundation) and the Los Angeles County Bar Association’s Appellate Courts Committee. The ACE program has helped educate thousands of students about the appellate courts since it first launched in 2005. The program begins with a classroom curriculum administered by appellate attorneys, followed by a visit to the Court of Appeal to observe oral argument for the case previously studied in the classroom. After oral argument, the students are introduced to the appellate court process first-hand with an opportunity to interact with the attorneys arguing the case and the panel of justices who will be reviewing it. Schools wishing to participate in the ACE program should contact Teach Democracy at Laura@teachdemocracy.org. Lawyers interested in volunteering for ACE should send an email to BShatz@manatt.com. California Supreme Court to Hold Oral Argument Outreach Session in Fresno https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-supreme-court-hold-oral-argument-outreach-session-fresno California Supreme Court to Hold Oral Argument Outreach Session in FresnoCorren, Blaine Wed, 10/02/2024 - 13:44 News Release The California Supreme Court will hold a special oral argument session on Wednesday, October 9 in Fresno. This will be the court’s second outreach session under Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero and the first time the court has heard oral argument in Fresno since 2010. The special session will be attended by students and their teachers from local high schools, an elementary school, and a law school. The court’s outreach programs allow students to participate in and learn from the judicial process. At the start of the session, students will have the opportunity to ask the justices questions about the court and their role in the judicial system. After the Q&A session, students will watch oral argument for the cases on calendar that day. The students attending the session will be from Buchanan High School, Bullard High School, Clovis High School, Clovis North High School, Clovis East High School, Clovis West High School, Coalinga High School, Justin Garza High School, Reedley High School, Roosevelt High School, Maple Creek Elementary, and San Joaquin College of Law. The court will host the session from the courtroom of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Fresno, at 2424 Cesar Chavez Boulevard (formerly known as Ventura Street). Media interested in attending the session are asked to contact blaine.corren@jud.ca.govThe session will also be broadcast live on the Supreme Court website and the California Courts Newsroom.   Year in Review: California Supreme Court https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/year-review-california-supreme-court-7 Year in Review: California Supreme CourtBalassone, Merrill Wed, 10/02/2024 - 09:00 News Release While the prior court year was a time of transition for the California Supreme Court, in which Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero assumed leadership of the judicial branch and Associate Justice Kelli Evans joined the court, the 2023–2024 court year reflected stability and focus on the work of the court. During the 2023–2024 court year, in addition to resolving thousands of routine filings, the court issued written opinions grappling with legal issues arising out of voter initiative measures, the COVID-19 pandemic, environmental law, and equal protection, among other subjects. “I am proud of the work of the court, and I want to thank my fellow justices and court staff for their deep commitment to fairness, equality, and access to justice.  I look forward to continuing our work on behalf of all Californians,” said Chief Justice Guerrero. The Work of the Court The court issued 58 written majority opinions during the September 2023–August 2024 court year (see chart and “High-Profile Cases” below). The court received 5,013 filings, including 3,079 petitions for review, and resolved 4,784 filings, including 3,039 petitions for review. Back on the Road The court in December marked its return to hearing oral argument in Los Angeles, a tradition put on hold for nearly four years during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court’s tradition of hearing oral argument in Los Angeles—as one of three recurring locations for oral argument, along with Sacramento and San Francisco—dates to 1878. The court also has resumed its practice of conducting special oral argument sessions in locations across the state, with the October 2024 oral argument to take place in Fresno. These special sessions provide students and other members of the public with opportunities to witness oral argument at nearby venues. The California Supreme Court returned to hearing oral argument in Los Angeles last December. Strengthening State Bar Protections The court also approved measures to further guard against conflicts of interest involving members of the State Bar Board of Trustees and the State Bar Court. In November, the court authorized changes to rules 9.11 and 9.90 of the California Rules of Court to ensure that candidates for the Board of Trustees and the State Bar Court, the latter of which rules on attorney disciplinary matters, are screened for actual and potential conflicts of interest. Relatedly, Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero approved an updated and amended conflict of interest code for the Board of Trustees. In Memoriam: Associate Justice Edward A. Panelli Former Associate Justice Edward A. Panelli died in July at age 92. Justice Panelli was an associate justice on the court from 1985 to 1994, after previously serving as a judge at the Santa Clara County Superior Court, as an associate justice at the First District Court of Appeal, and as presiding justice at the Sixth District Court of Appeal. Justice Panelli was a mentor to many attorneys, including several future justices and judges, during his long career as a practitioner, judge, mediator, and instructor. The court will conduct an in memoriam session at a future oral argument to recognize Justice Panelli and his contributions to California law. High-Profile Cases   Castellanos v. State of California involved a challenge to Proposition 22, a voter initiative passed in 2020. The court unanimously decided that a provision within this measure that classifies drivers for app-based transportation or delivery companies as independent contractors rather than employees if certain conditions are met does not conflict with the Legislature’s plenary authority under the state constitution “to create, and enforce a complete system of workers’ compensation, by appropriate legislation.” The court reasoned that the constitution’s grant of authority to the Legislature “does not preclude the electorate from exercising its initiative power to legislate on matters affecting workers’ compensation.” In Legislature v. Weber, the court considered whether a ballot proposition seeking to change the California Constitution could properly be placed before the voters by a citizen’s initiative. Among other things, the proposition at issue would have prohibited the Legislature from raising taxes without voter approval and restricted the ability of state and local governments to delegate fee-setting authority to their executive or administrative officers. The court held that the ballot proposition could not be placed before voters by citizen’s initiative, but rather had to follow the procedures for a constitutional revision, because the proposition’s proposed changes “operate together to fundamentally rework the fiscal underpinnings of our government at every level” and would therefore “substantially alter our framework of government.” In Another Planet Entertainment v. Vigilant Insurance Co., the court agreed with “the vast majority of courts nationwide” and rejected a business’s attempt to claim insurance coverage for “direct physical loss or damage to property” based on allegations that the presence of the COVID-19 virus led to pandemic-era business closures. The court held that “direct physical loss or damage to property requires a distinct, demonstrable physical alteration to property,” with the mere presence of the COVID-19 virus not meeting that standard. By a 5-2 vote, the court ruled in People v. Hardin that denying youth offender parole hearings to young adults convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole did not violate equal protection. While leaving open “the possibility of other as-applied challenges to the statute,” the majority in Hardin determined that the defendant had “not demonstrated that the Legislature acted irrationally in declining to grant the possibility of parole to young adult offenders convicted of special circumstance murder, even as it has granted youth offender hearings to young adults convicted of other offenses.” The court also clarified in Hardin how an equal protection analysis should proceed, explaining that “when plaintiffs challenge laws drawing distinctions between identifiable groups or classes of persons, on the basis that the distinctions drawn are inconsistent with equal protection, courts no longer need to ask at the threshold whether the two groups are similarly situated for purposes of the law in question. The only pertinent inquiry is whether the challenged difference in treatment is adequately justified under the applicable standard of review.” In re Dezi C., also decided by a 5-2 vote, resolved a split of authority among Courts of Appeal regarding a recurring issue in juvenile dependency matters. Addressing how reviewing courts should approach a child welfare agency’s failure to undertake an adequate inquiry under the California Indian Child Welfare Act into whether a child is, or may be, an Indian child, the majority concluded that “[w]hen there is an inadequate inquiry and the record is underdeveloped, it is impossible for reviewing courts to assess prejudice.” The majority therefore held that an inadequate “inquiry requires conditional reversal of the juvenile court's order terminating parental rights with directions to the agency to conduct an adequate inquiry, supported by record documentation.” The court considered the impact of a new statute on a University of California, Berkeley housing project and development plan in Make UC a Good Neighbor v. The Regents of the University of California. In 2023, the Legislature passed a law specifying “noise generated by project occupants and their guests” did not constitute “a significant effect on the environment for residential projects” under the California Environmental Quality Act. In light of the new law, the court concluded that an environmental impact report was not inadequate for having failed to study the potential noisiness of future students at the university in connection with the housing project and the development plan. Summary of Key Court Year Statistics [September 1, 2023 – August 31, 2024] (pdf) Action/Category Number Opinions 58 Civil Cases 32 Criminal Cases 21 Death Penalty Cases 5 Filings 5,013 Petitions for Review 3,079                                 Civil Appeals & Writs 1,011                          Criminal Appeals & Writs 2,062                 Death Penalty Appeals & Writs 6 Original Proceedings 1,934                        Civil Writs & Other Matters 298                 Criminal Writs & Other Matters 906                                 Executive Clemency 9                 Death Penalty Appeals & Writs 4                 Death Penalty Habeas Corpus 5                                      State Bar Matters 712 Dispositions 4,784 Petitions for Review 3,039                                 Civil Appeals & Writs 1,024                          Criminal Appeals & Writs 2,007                 Death Penalty Appeals & Writs 8 Original Proceedings 1,745                        Civil Writs & Other Matters 275                 Criminal Writs & Other Matters 802                                 Executive Clemency 2                 Death Penalty Habeas Corpus 0 Death Penalty Habeas Corpus [Transferred] 1                                      State Bar Matters 665 Death Penalty Habeas Corpus Orders to Show Cause 0 Court of Appeal Opinions Ordered Published 1 Court of Appeal Opinions Ordered Depublished 7 California Improving Courthouse Sustainability https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-improving-courthouse-sustainability California Improving Courthouse SustainabilityCorren, Blaine Fri, 09/20/2024 - 10:26 News Release SAN FRANCISCO—The Judicial Council heard a presentation at its September 20 meeting on sustainability efforts the judicial branch is employing at courthouses across the state. “At the heart of our mission are the core values of integrity, reliability, innovation, and efficiency,” said Judge Eric Wersching, a member of the council’s Court Facilities Advisory Committee. “We support access and infrastructure, ensuring that our facilities meet the needs of the judiciary and the public.”     The presentation focused on key courthouse projects that enhance energy efficiency, reduce emissions, conserve water, and improve waste management. Efforts include: Water conservation Solar procurement EV (electric vehicle) charger installations Setting additional sustainability standards for courthouse construction In calendar year 2023, California’s judicial branch reduced the annual water consumption in courthouses statewide by more than 17% compared to the 2019 baseline year. In addition, the council adopted new standards last year that allow the council to target a 12% increase in water conservation and a 15% increase in energy efficiency for its future new courthouse projects. Currently, the branch has already achieved either gold or silver LEED certification by the U.S. Green Building Council for 21 courthouses across the state and has seven more certifications in progress. LEED certification is a third-party certification program and the nationally accepted benchmark for the design, construction, and operation of high-performance “green” buildings. Additional long-term goals for the state’s court facilities include electrifying heating systems and increasing the use of renewable energy. The judicial branch will also seek additional funding for sustainability projects in the state budget, and from available grants and rebates. Watch Judicial Branch Takes Lead on Environmental Law The council received an update on the importance of environmental law as an emerging area of legal practice. The presentation included an overview of environmental law and climate change, and the role of the California judiciary as a thought leader and leader in judicial education in this area. “Judges are tasked with making informed decisions on complex issues that can significantly impact public health, economic development, and sustainability of ecosystems,” said Justice Ronald Robie. “Judges are responsible for interpreting legislation and ensuring environmental policies and implemented effectively and justly.” The council also heard about California’s complex regulatory framework, standards, and diverse geography and ecosystems that make environmental law such a complex area of the law. The presentation detailed how education for the state’s judges is preparing them to preside over these cases and deal with issues such as scientific testimony, specialized pleadings, and the technical trial process and case management. “These cases often involve complex scientific evidence and large-scale impacts, requiring judges to have a nuanced understanding of both environmental law and science,” added Justice Stacy Boulware Eurie. “Through our education offerings, we strive to ensure that judicial officers are prepared to manage these multifaceted cases effectively.” Watch Other Items on Council Meeting Agenda: Judicial Education on Treatment of Sexual Abuse and Assault Victims: Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero directed the council’s Center for Judicial Education and Research to review the judicial branch’s current training related to the treatment of sexual abuse and assault victims, adding that “everyone entering our courtrooms deserve to be treated with respect and in a manner that gives them trust and confidence our judicial system.” The Chief Justice also called on the council’s education office to ensure its training meets best practices and to make it widely available to all judicial officers statewide. Watch New Court Rules and Forms: The council approved 28 agenda items related to new rules and forms to help implement new legislation or improve case procedures. These include changes in the areas of appellate procedure, civil, criminal, protective orders, probate/conservatorships, traffic, and family and juvenile proceedings. The council also received a presentation on the detailed and collaborative process for creating and revising rules and forms, which includes a period for public comment. The presentation also detailed how the rules and forms help the public navigate the litigation process and ensure the court has the necessary information to help move cases forward. Watch Revisions to Judicial Branch Contracting Manual: The council approved revisions to the Judicial Branch Contracting Manual. The revisions, which become effective on Oct. 1, implement the recommendation from the California State Auditor to add fraud reporting requirements that are substantially similar to the State Administrative Manual. New and Reappointed Council Members: The Chief Justice welcomed the eight recently appointed council members taking part in their first official business meeting since they started their terms Sept. 15. She also acknowledged the five reappointed members for agreeing to continue their work on the council. Each year more than 400 judicial officers, court executives, attorneys, and public servants volunteer to serve on the council and its advisory bodies. Watch Judicial Council Member Nominated for Federal Bench: Council member Judge Michelle Williams Court has been nominated for the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. If Judge Williams Court is approved at her confirmation hearing on September 25, she will vacate her seat on the council. Other council members acknowledged and thanked her for her work while on the council. The complete meeting agenda and council reports are posted to the California Courts Meeting Information Center--an archived webcast of today’s meeting is posted. Supreme Court Makes Appointments to State Bar Board of Trustees and State Bar Court https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/supreme-court-makes-appointments-state-bar-board-trustees-and-state-bar-court Supreme Court Makes Appointments to State Bar Board of Trustees and State Bar CourtKaren.Datangel Thu, 09/19/2024 - 16:10 News Release The California Supreme Court made various State Bar-related appointments on Wednesday. The court reappointed Attorney Sarah Good to the State Bar of California’s Board of Trustees, the State Bar's governing body that establishes the strategic direction for the State Bar and ensures that the organization is fulfilling its statutory mission. Good, a partner and chief talent and inclusion officer at Farella Braun + Martel LLP in San Francisco, will serve a four-year term starting September 20. The court also reappointed, effective November 1, two judges to the State Bar Court, which rules on attorney discipline cases: • Judge Manjari Chawla was reappointed to a six-year term as hearing judge on the State Bar Court's Hearing Department in San Francisco. • Judge Tamara Ribas was reappointed to a six-year term as a review judge on the State Bar Court's Review Department in San Francisco. The Hearing Department is the trial level of the State Bar Court. Five full-time judicial positions are split between Los Angeles and San Francisco. The Supreme Court appoints two of the hearing judges, while the Governor, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules appoint one hearing judge each. The Review Department is the appellate level of the State Bar Court, consisting of the presiding judge and two other review judges. All review judges are appointed by the Supreme Court.