https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/ en https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/chief-justice-patricia-guerrero-host-law-day-event-sacramento Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero to Host Law Day Event in SacramentoMartin.Novitski Mon, 04/27/2026 - 11:54 News Release For media interested in attending the event, contact Jackie.D'Almeida@jud.ca.gov for RSVP information. SACRAMENTO— Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero will welcome judges, educators, and students to the Third District Court of Appeal on May 1, in celebration of Law Day, a national day recognizing the rule of law and its role in our constitutional democracy. The Law Day event underscores the judiciary’s ongoing commitment to engaging young people, expanding civic knowledge, and strengthening community partnerships across California. Civic Learning Initiative The event is being organized by Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero’s Power of Democracy Civic Learning Initiative. Students from local high schools will deliver oratory pieces on this year’s Law Day theme, “The Rule of Law and the American Dream,” the initiative will release a new Rule of Law classroom lesson available to any K-12 public school that hosts a judge through the Judges in the Classroom program. In addition, the Chief Justice will announce the recipients of the initiative’s 2026 Civic Learning Awards. The program, co-sponsored by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, honors California K–12 schools for exceptional commitment to civic education. This year’s program will focus honors on replicable models that engage students in civics, service learning, and community service. The event will be livestreamed on the Power of Democracy website beginning at 2:30PM, and a recording of the event will be posted on Monday, May 3. More information about the Civic Learning Awards is available at powerofdemocracy.org/civic-learning-award. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/third-appellate-district-associate-justice-elena-j-duarte-retire Third Appellate District Associate Justice Elena J. Duarte to Retirenatalie.l.ston… Mon, 04/27/2026 - 11:45 News Release California Court of Appeal Associate Justice Elena J. Duarte will retire from the Third District at the end of May after 15 years on the court and over 19 years of judicial service. “The decision to serve the public and be visible in the community for my entire career thus far has been the best decision I ever made,” said Duarte. “I look forward to the possibility of additional opportunities to serve the public in the future.” A native Californian from San Jose, Duarte turns 60 later this year and was appointed to the Court of Appeal in December 2010 by Governor Schwarzenegger. She has been the only Latina on the single division Third District bench the entire time she has served. She is also its longest-serving Latinx justice. Upon her appointment in 2010, three women served simultaneously on the 11-member court for the first time in that court’s history. Duarte sat on the first all-female panel to hear oral argument at the Third District in April 2012, and a photograph of that historic event is displayed in the court’s Memorial Vestibule just before entering the courtroom.  A three-time judicial appointee, Duarte was elevated to her position on the Court of Appeal after serving as a judge on the Sacramento Superior Court from 2008 to 2010. Before moving to Sacramento, she served as a judge on the Los Angeles Superior Court. At the time of her first judicial appointment, she was Chief of the Cyber and Intellectual Property Crimes Section at the United States Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles. Her career as a federal litigator began upon her graduation from Stanford Law School in 1992, when she was accepted into the national Attorney General’s Honor Program and moved to Washington, D.C. as one of 12 honor graduates in the Criminal Division. She subsequently returned to California to prosecute federal cases in both Sacramento and Los Angeles. Duarte will be honored in May as Sacramento County Bar Association’s Judge of the Year and with a lifetime achievement award by the Cruz Reynoso Bar Association, named for the first Latinx judge on the Third District who was then elevated to the California Supreme Court as its first Latinx associate justice. Administrative Presiding Justice Laurie Earl wrote: “In addition to her tremendous contribution to the community, Justice Duarte is a wonderful colleague. She fully prepares for each case that is assigned to her, even those in which she is not the author. She treats litigants fairly and affords those who appear for oral argument the opportunity to be heard and the respect of preparation. She asks questions that go to the heart of the issues before us. She is a solid judge on our court, and her retirement will leave an enormous gap on our bench.” https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/judicial-council-approves-mandatory-reporting-civil-arrests-court-facilities Judicial Council Approves Mandatory Reporting of Civil Arrests in Court FacilitiesCorren, Blaine Fri, 04/24/2026 - 12:44 News Release VIA WEB CONFERENCE—Judicial Council members approved a new rule at their April 24 business meeting that requires courts to report civil arrests—such as those related to federal immigration enforcement actions—that happen in superior court facilities. The new rule aims to help the judicial branch better understand the impacts civil arrests in court facilities have on courts and access to justice and assist the branch in responding to court or community concerns. Sharif Elmallah, court executive officer for the Butte Superior Court, told council members about an incident at the Oroville courthouse where federal agents conducted a day-long enforcement operation and took several people into custody. “When people avoid court facilities out of fear, the court system cannot serve them and cannot function as intended,” said Elmallah, who also serves as co-chair of the council’s Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee and Court Executives Advisory Committee Joint Rules Subcommittee. “That affects the victim seeking protection under the law, witnesses whose testimony may be critical for parties to present their cases, and litigants who depend on their participation.” The new rule says reports should include, if known, the location of the arrest at the court facility, the law enforcement agency that conducted the arrest, whether any individuals were taken into custody, and if the arresting officer presented a judicial warrant. “The goal of rule 10.440 is data collection,” said Judge Scott R. L. Young, co-chair of the council’s Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee and Court Executives Advisory Committee Joint Rules Subcommittee. “The Judicial Council can and should understand where, and how, civil arrest activity occurs.” The rule goes into effect May 1, and courts will start reporting the information on civil arrests in court facilities to the council in June. The council expects to start posting the information on a publicly available dashboard in July. Watch video of this agenda item Other Items on Council Meeting Agenda: Representation for Children and Families in Dependency Proceedings: The council approved redistributions of court-appointed juvenile dependency counsel funds for fiscal year 2025-26. The allocations promote equitable distribution of resources and support effective representation for children and families in dependency proceedings. After the initial proposal for allocating the unspent dependency counsel funding was submitted to the council, another court identified $150,000 for reallocation. A revised council report will reflect the updated amount of available unspent dependency counsel funding, which increases from $980,773 to $1,130,773. Watch video of this agenda item Appointment of Counsel in Capital Cases: The council received a report from the 2025 Proposition 66 Counsel Working Group, which examined the appointment of attorneys for petitioners in capital habeas corpus proceedings in both the superior courts and the Courts of Appeal. The report provides strategies judicial branch entities could use to recruit and appoint counsel for petitioners in such proceedings, which includes advocating for appellate counsel funding and reactivating regional committees to assist superior courts in their efforts to recruit attorneys to take these cases. Watch video of this agenda item California Access to Justice Commission: The council heard a presentation from the California Access to Justice Commission on how for 30 years it has supported courts, the bar, and justice system stakeholders with research, reports, and support for the expansion of access to justice through legal services, self-help centers, navigators and small claims advisors, remote court services and proceedings, language assistance, libraries, and other community agencies and services. In addition, the council appointed Sacramento County Judge Andi Mudryk to one of the three positions on the commission appointed by the council. Watch video of this agenda item Gender Inclusivity of Juror Identification and Juror Questionnaires: The council adopted a new standard of judicial administration to ensure gender inclusivity in juror identification and juror questionnaires per Assembly Bill 1899 (2024). The council also approved changes to existing rules of court, forms, and standards to ensure language directed to jurors is gender inclusive. Report on Pretrial Programs: The council received the latest report on court pretrial programs and practices that promote safe, efficient, fair, and timely pretrial release of individuals booked into jail. The report includes data on bookings, release types, assessments conducted, the use of monitoring and supportive services, and case closure outcomes. The complete meeting agenda and council reports are posted to the California Courts Meeting Information Center—an archived webcast of today’s meeting will be posted to the center as soon as it is available. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-supreme-court-amends-rules-professional-conduct California Supreme Court Amends Rules of Professional ConductBalassone, Merrill Thu, 04/23/2026 - 13:21 News Release The California Supreme Court on Thursday issued orders on two State Bar of California petitions to amend the Rules of Professional Conduct, relating to domestic violence restraining order cases and attorney discipline for making false or misleading public statements. Court Approves Amendments to Rule 7.3 on Client Solicitation The court granted the State Bar’s petition to amend Rule 7.3 (Solicitation of Clients), adopting measures aimed at protecting those involved in domestic violence restraining order proceedings. Under the approved amendments, attorneys are prohibited from soliciting clients who are named as respondents in petitions for ex parte temporary domestic violence restraining orders before they have been formally served. Such solicitations could provide advance notice of the proceedings, potentially allowing respondents to evade service and increasing safety risks for those seeking protection through the restraining orders, according to the State Bar. In adopting the amendments, the court clarified the prohibition does not apply if the respondent is a current or former client of the attorney. The court also incorporated cross-references to Rule 1.4, which describes the obligation to keep clients informed of significant developments (Rule 1.4(a)(3)) and the provision allowing attorneys to delay client communications if disclosure could lead to imminent harm (Rule 1.4(c)). The amendments to Rule 7.3 will take effect on June 1. Court Denies Proposed Amendments to Rules 8.2 and 8.4; Seeks Public Comment The court denied the State Bar’s petition to amend Rules 8.2 (Judicial Officials) and 8.4 (Misconduct). The proposed changes sought to clarify that attorneys could face discipline for making false or misleading public statements—including statements framed as opinion—that might prejudice judicial proceedings or endanger judges, court personnel, or others. The court instead directed the State Bar to solicit public comment on alternative language to: Clarify the purpose and scope of Rule 8.2; and Specify that, under Rule 8.4, “true threats of violence or incitements of unlawful imminent action” directed at parties, judges, or judicial officers may constitute conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The court directed the State Bar to circulate the alternative proposal for a 45-day public comment period. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/commission-consider-appointments-courts-appeal-8 Commission to Consider Appointments to Courts of Appeal natalie.l.ston… Wed, 04/22/2026 - 09:24 News Release The Commission on Judicial Appointments will hold in-person hearings in San Francisco on May 22 starting at 9:30 a.m. to consider five appointments by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The commission will consider the following appointments: 9:30 a.m.: Judge Stephen Goorvitch, as associate justice of the Second Appellate District, Division Two (Los Angeles) 10:30 a.m.: Justice Joanne Motoike, as presiding justice of the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three (Santa Ana)  11:30 a.m.: Judge Amy Guerra, as associate justice of the Fifth Appellate District (Fresno) 12:30 p.m.: Judge Eran M. Bermudez, as associate justice of the Fourth Appellate District, Division One (San Diego)  1:30 p.m.: Judge Deborah C. Servino, as associate justice of the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three (Santa Ana) The hearing webcast will be streamed 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 appointments are California Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero (Chair); California Attorney General Rob Bonta; Presiding Justice Frances Rothschild (for the Second Appellate District, Division One, hearing)*; Presiding Justice Manuel Ramirez (for the Fourth Appellate District, Divisions One and Three, hearings); and Administrative Presiding Justice Brad R. Hill (for the Fifth Appellate District hearing).  *Presiding Justice Frances Rothschild will appear virtually for the 9:30 a.m. hearing for Judge Stephen Goorvitch. Appointee Biographies Judge Stephen Goorvitch would fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Judith T. Ashmann-Gerst. He has served as a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge since 2015. Before joining the bench, he served as an assistant U.S. attorney at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Central District of California, from 2007 to 2015. He was counsel at O’Melveny and Myers from 2003 to 2007. He served as a law clerk in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California from 2001 to 2003. He served as a staff attorney in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission from 1998 to 2001. He received his Juris Doctor from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law.  Justice Joanne Motoike would fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Presiding Justice Kathleen E. O’Leary. She has served as an associate justice in the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, since 2022. She served as an Orange County Superior Court judge from 2013 to 2022. Before joining the bench, she was a senior deputy public defender in Orange County from 2008 to 2013. She also worked as a trial attorney at the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal from 2006 to 2008. She received her Juris Doctor from Loyola Law School.  Judge Amy Guerra would fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Bruce Smith. She has served as a judge in the Fresno County Superior Court since 2018. Before joining the bench, she worked as the chief defense attorney at the Fresno County Alternate Defense Office from 2014 to 2018 and as an associate with the office from 2007 to 2014. She received her Juris Doctor from the San Joaquin College of Law.  Judge Eran M. Bermudez would fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Richard D. Huffman. She has served as a judge in the Imperial County Superior Court since 2018. Before joining the bench, she worked as a compliance resolution officer at the University of California, San Diego, from 2016 to 2018 and in private practice from 2005 to 2016. She received her Juris Doctor from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law.  Judge Deborah C. Servino would fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Thomas M. Goethals. She has served as a judge in the Orange County Superior Court since 2009. Before joining the bench, she served as a deputy attorney general at the California Attorney General’s Office from 1997 to 2009. Previously, she worked in private practice and as a law clerk at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 1995 to 1997. She received her Juris Doctor from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law.   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 May 15 (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. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/judicial-council-consider-mandatory-reporting-civil-arrests-court-facilities Judicial Council to Consider Mandatory Reporting of Civil Arrests in Court FacilitiesCorren, Blaine Fri, 04/17/2026 - 15:57 News Release VIA WEB CONFERENCE—Judicial Council members will consider a new rule at their April 24 business meeting that would require courts to report civil arrests—such as those related to federal immigration enforcement actions—that happen in superior court facilities. The proposed rule aims to help the judicial branch better understand the impacts civil arrests in court facilities have on courts and access to justice, as well as assist the branch in responding to court or community concerns. Other Items on Council Meeting Agenda: Report on Pretrial Programs: The council will consider the latest report on court pretrial programs and practices that promote safe, efficient, fair, and timely pretrial release of individuals booked into jail. The report includes data on bookings, release types, assessments conducted, the use of monitoring and supportive services, and case closure outcomes. Gender Inclusivity of Juror Identification and Juror Questionnaires: The council will consider adopting a new standard of judicial administration to ensure gender inclusivity in juror identification and juror questionnaires per Assembly Bill 1899 (2024). The proposal also recommends changes to existing rules of court, forms, and standards that currently use language directed to jurors that is not gender inclusive. Appointment of Counsel in Capital Cases: The council will receive a report from its 2025 Proposition 66 Counsel Working Group, which examined the appointment of counsel for petitioners in capital habeas corpus proceedings in both the superior courts and the Courts of Appeal. The report will summarize information the working group received from speakers with experience in capital habeas corpus proceedings and provide suggestions that judicial branch entities may consider in their efforts to recruit and appoint counsel for petitioners in such proceedings. California Access to Justice Commission: The council will hear a presentation from the California Access to Justice Commission, which works with courts, the bar, and justice system stakeholders to expand access to justice through legal services, self-help centers, navigators and small claims advisors, language assistance, libraries, and other community agencies and services. 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. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/fourth-appellate-district-announces-destruction-old-court-records-20 Fourth Appellate District Announces Destruction of Old Court RecordsMartin.Novitski Wed, 04/08/2026 - 09:00 News Release Riverside—The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, has announced its intention to destroy original proceedings pursuant to Rule 10.1028(d)(1) of the California Rules of Court. All original proceedings (excluding those with published opinions) are preserved for a period longer than 10 years. The records transfer lists of the cases and files relating to this destruction of old court records are available on the court’s website: List Anyone who knows of a reason why any of the records listed should be retained, whether for historical or other reasons, should notify AnnDee Smith, Assistant Clerk/Executive Officer. The reasons for retention should be sent in writing by May 8th, 2026 to:                     AnnDee Smith, Assistant Clerk/Executive Officer                     Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two                     3389 12th Street                     Riverside, CA  92501 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 www.sos.ca.gov/archives. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/third-appellate-district-announces-destruction-old-court-records-0 Third Appellate District Announces Destruction of Old Court Recordsnatalie.l.ston… Mon, 04/06/2026 - 15:43 News Release SACRAMENTO – The Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, announces its intention to destroy the following records in accordance with the California Rules of Court, rule 10.1028(c): Civil cases with case numbers C054608 through C073746. If anyone knows of a reason why a particular case, among the above numbered cases, should be retained, notify Todd C. Eyster, Assistant Clerk/Executive Officer, in writing setting forth in detail the reason(s) for retention. All requests must be received by May 6 and may be sent to 3DC-Comments@jud.ca.gov, or mailed to: Todd C. Eyster Assistant Clerk/Executive Officer Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District 914 Capitol Mall Sacramento, CA 95814 https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/memoriam-associate-justice-howard-b-wiener In Memoriam: Associate Justice Howard B. WienerMartin.Novitski Tue, 03/24/2026 - 12:54 News Release Former Associate Justice Howard B. Wiener of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One, passed away on March 20, 2026.  Justice Wiener was born in Providence, Rhode Island on February 1, 1931, attending public schools there. He graduated from Brown University in 1952 with a bachelor of arts degree in philosophy.  Three years later, he obtained his law degree from Harvard University Law School. Following graduation from law school, Justice Wiener and his wife Joan moved to California, where he served as a law clerk to U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Harrison in Los Angeles from 1955 to 1956.  He was admitted to the California Bar in January 1956. During the next 20 years, he practiced law in a small firm in West Covina, handling all types of cases.  He was also active in the legal community, serving as President of the Pomona Valley Bar Association in 1968, on the Board of Trustees of the Los Angeles County Bar Association from 1969 to 1971, and on the State Bar Board of Governors from 1972 to 1975 (Vice President, 1974-1975). On July 25, 1975, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. appointed him to the San Bernardino County Superior Court.  Roughly three years later in May 1978, the Governor selected him to be an Associate Justice on Division One of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District in San Diego.  Over the next 15 years, Justice Wiener became known for clear and thoughtful opinions that adapted and applied legal principles to compassionately serve the interests of people from all walks of life. Despite practicing law in Los Angeles and the Inland Empire, Justice Wiener quickly became active in the San Diego legal community, serving as President of the William B. Enright American Inn of Court from 1991 to 1993 and later as one of its four distinguished emeritus members.  In 2018 he was honored by all five San Diego Inn of Court chapters with the second-ever lifetime achievement award.  A vocal advocate for education at every level and a mentor for many younger lawyers, Justice Wiener was an adjunct professor at the University of San Diego (USD) School of Law (1979-1986) and California Western School of Law (1986-1994), teaching professional responsibility and appellate advocacy respectively.  He also served as Chair of the Board of Visitors at USD Law School.  In 1982 he obtained a Master of Laws Degree in judicial process from the University of Virginia Law School. Justice Wiener retired from the Court on December 31, 1993.  Beginning in 1994, he was actively engaged in private dispute resolution, serving in more than 1,700 cases as a mediator, arbitrator and private judge.  He is co-author with Jon B. Eisenberg and Ellis J. Horvitz of the California Civil Practice Guide, Civil Appeals and Writs, published by The Rutter Group.  In 2007, he was interviewed for the California Appellate Courts Legacy Project.  The interview is available at California Appellate Court Legacy Project | District Courts of Appeal. Justice Wiener was preceded by his wife Joan, and is survived by his son Daniel, daughters Anne and Carrie, five grandchildren, and nine great-grandchildren. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-chief-justice-delivers-2026-state-judiciary-address California Chief Justice Delivers 2026 State of the Judiciary AddressBalassone, Merrill Mon, 03/23/2026 - 15:21 News Release SACRAMENTO—Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero today delivered the 2026 State of the Judiciary address to the California Legislature. A transcript of her remarks is below, and an archived webcast of the address is available on the California Courts YouTube channel. Watch "Thank you all so much. Thank you Speaker Rivas, Senate President pro Tempore Limón, distinguished statewide constitutional officers and guests. I am proud to be joined here today by my colleagues from the California Supreme Court (and our Clerk and Executive Officer and court staff); justices, judges, and court executives from local courts around the state; members of our Judicial Council; the California Judges Association; the Bench Bar Coalition; and our justice system partners. I thought about different approaches I could take with my remarks this year. With so much going on in our nation—so much controversy, division, uncertainty, and chaos as well—I’ve decided to offer you something different. If anyone is looking for controversial statements or divisive rhetoric, you will not get it. Instead, I offer you normalcy and a calm and measured report regarding the important work our judicial branch has undertaken over this past year, and some of the major issues facing the judiciary. First, I want to commemorate a significant anniversary in the formation of our country. In 1776, our founders boldly declared their independence from Britain and its King, and stated that we are endowed with unalienable rights of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” With force and clarity, they set forth their list of grievances against “the establishment of an absolute Tyranny”—included among their concerns was a statement that the King had “obstructed the Administration of Justice” and “made Judges dependent on his Will alone.” They later offered a different path—establishing our constitutional republic of three separate and coequal branches of government. We must all safeguard this structure and the fundamental principles which form the basis of our government and the promise of this country. This year, the judicial branch plans to celebrate the unique role we play, and the privilege we have, to uphold the rule of law for all who appear before us—without fear or favor, with courage and steadfast commitment to our oath that we have taken to uphold our constitutions. Now we look forward to celebrating our respective roles alongside all of you. Our jobs are made more challenging, however, by the rise in threats against the judiciary—something I’m not sure our founding fathers would have precisely envisioned. The issue of judicial security is prominent in the minds of many judicial officers, and recent events have unfortunately demonstrated that service on the bench can pose significant safety risks. The Judicial Council of California has made judicial security a legislative priority. We need sufficient resources in order to protect “personnel, the public and court systems from physical, online, and cyber threats.” The council also will continue to advocate for legislation designed to protect the privacy of judges—an issue that is fundamentally intertwined with judicial security. A marked increase in negative rhetoric surrounding judges, including from elected officials, has contributed to these concerns. We welcome public scrutiny, transparency, and accountability regarding the legal reasoning reflected in our rulings. Public engagement, whether resulting in praise or criticism for our decisions, is commendable and should be encouraged. We do not, however, welcome divisive name-calling or inaccurate and uninformed accounts about our roles—we believe this serves only to distort the public’s understanding of the judiciary and shake their confidence in our democracy. And we should all emphatically speak out against normalizing personal attacks against judges—for all our sakes. Fortunately in California, we have many examples of how government should work, even in challenging times, and I would like to express my appreciation for your partnership and your support in these areas. I have spoken in the past regarding our three-branch solutions. I would like to touch upon a few examples. Remote Proceedings Since March 2022, over 6 million proceedings have been conducted with remote technology. In a one-year period from September 2024 to August 2025, that represented over 7,000 proceedings per day. Trends in positive experiences with these services have remained consistent over time, at about 95% satisfaction overall. The data unequivocally shows great public interest in having remote options, but existing statutory authority for remote proceedings is scheduled to expire at the end of this year (on January 1, 2027), or precisely I believe in 2027, but I’ll go with the end of the year for all of you. For the benefit of all Californians who see the advantages of technology and choose to appear remotely, I look forward to working with all of you to meet Californians’ needs and expectations in this area. CARE Act Proceedings As you know, the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, which you passed in 2022 and which has been implemented in phases through December 2024, is now fully operational in all 58 counties. Between October 2023 and January 2026, there have been a total of 3,810 petitions filed. During that same time, courts ordered 925 CARE agreements and plans; and a further 1,835 individuals are still being actively engaged in these court proceedings. The Judicial Council publishes this CARE Act data on its California Courts website, providing a fuller description of the CARE process for anyone to see. These numbers, understandably, may not be satisfactory to those whose loved ones do not qualify for CARE Act assistance. With the recent expansion of the program to cover bipolar disorders with psychotic features—in addition to the original criteria of schizophrenia spectrum disorders—we do hope to reach more people in need and help redefine what justice looks like for Californians living with certain behavioral health challenges. While this is not a panacea, we can be proud of our partnership in this area. For each person who receives assistance—whether it is through a voluntary agreement or court-ordered plan or other referrals for services—their lives are greatly improved because of the CARE Act. In other words, the volume of petitions filed alone does not fully capture the overall effectiveness of the program. I would like to acknowledge the tireless work of our judges, court staff, and community partners who are managing the CARE Act petitions filed in our courts. As you know, they’re helping individuals with severe mental illness access housing, medication, and recovery services before they fall deeper into crisis. And these courts are not just legal forums, they are bridges to stability, safety, and hope for Californians who need it most. I thank our Governor, each of you in the Legislature, and each of our trial courts for your commitment to exploring ways to help these individuals. In addition to these two areas, I also look forward to partnering with you to address other ongoing, and in some instances, longstanding, issues of concern that are facing our courts. Judicial Positions First starting with our trial courts. We are grateful for the $70 million in ongoing funding that has been proposed in the Governor’s budget for the increasing costs of trial court operations. A longstanding problem our courts face, however, relates to the lack of funding for judgeships in counties with the greatest need. We are updating our judicial needs assessment—but the latest report from October 2022 reflects some stark realities I’d like to provide some context on: In recent years, the judicial branch has received funding for the 50 judgeships that were authorized as far back as 2007 (by AB 159 (Stats. 2007)): Two positions were funded in 2018 and allocated to Riverside County Superior Court; 25 positions were funded in 2019; and 23 positions were funded in 2022. Based on the October 2022 report, there was still a need even at that time for 98 additional judicial officers. While this funding has helped to minimize the gap between the number of authorized judgeships and judicial needs, there are still significant, ongoing challenges and needs that remain—with the need for more judges being especially acute in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.   What this means in practical terms is that justice is not served the way that it should be. As an example, in Riverside County Superior Court, during the period from January 9, 2023 to March 6, 2026, 437 misdemeanor cases and 57 felony cases were dismissed pursuant to Penal Code section 1050, subdivision (j), because of the condition of the court’s congested calendar. This is despite the Judicial Council making available temporary assigned judges when requested by the superior court, to help alleviate the burden on the court. Riverside, as an example again, has the highest use of our temporary assigned judges. Last fiscal year, the total expense associated with these assigned judges in Riverside County alone was about $3M. We will continue to make resources available to the courts through our Temporary Assigned Judges Program, and we look forward to working with all of you to find more permanent, predictable, and sustainable solutions to these challenges.   Artificial Intelligence I’d also like to touch upon AI. The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence continues to present both challenges and opportunities as we work to expand access to justice and improve efficiency across the judicial branch. In 2025, our Artificial Intelligence Task Force developed comprehensive guidance for courts on the responsible use of generative AI tools. The task force is now focusing on deep fakes and the impact of AI on the admissibility of evidence. I think you’ll agree with me that it’s a critical area to maintain integrity and public trust in judicial proceedings.   The Judicial Council approved a new rule of court on the use of generative AI for court-related work by judges and court staff. These guidelines emphasize accuracy, oversight, and transparency, while proactively mitigating risks related to privacy, bias, and security. They also underscore the importance of human judgment in all AI-assisted processes, ensuring that technology complements—rather than replaces—the expertise of our judicial officers.   The judicial branch is laying a strong foundation with its model policies, training programs, and pilot case studies that explore practical applications of AI.   We are committed to working collaboratively with all of you and our stakeholders to ensure that statutory requirements protect the public without unnecessarily restricting the appropriate and beneficial use of AI tools. Our goal is to strike the right balance between innovation and accountability, ensuring technology does not interfere with—but instead enhances—justice.   Impact of Federal Immigration Enforcement on Court Operations Last year, I also spoke about the considerable stress, anxiety, and confusion experienced by many Californians regarding federal immigration policies and enforcement as they intersect with our state courts. I also previously made clear that the federal government, of course, has the right and obligation to do its job but it should conduct its operations in a way that does not interfere with ours. Unfortunately, that has not happened. Public apprehension has continued to grow because of the way federal enforcement action has occurred—including the presence of federal officers in at least 17 of our state courthouses. These developments raise profound questions about access to justice, community trust, and the safety of individuals seeking legal remedies. The Judicial Council has taken proactive steps to address some of these challenges. Over the past year, we have provided extensive training for our courts on federal executive orders, the legal implications of immigration activity at courthouses, and relevant California statutes that are designed to uphold the principle of equal justice under the law. We have collected data informally so that we have a better understanding of the impact on court operations. Next month, the Judicial Council will consider a proposed California Rule of Court that would formalize our information gathering regarding civil arrests at state courthouses. This will help inform next steps as we consider options for protecting against encroachments on our ability to ensure that courts remain open and accessible to everyone. I would like again to reiterate that we can all perform our independent obligations consistent with our constitutional mandates in support of the rule of law, with our courts focusing on being available to everyone. We will continue to do everything within our power to ensure that all members of the public can freely access our state courts, to safeguard individual rights, and to promote the fair and timely administration of justice. State Bar Update I also want to report back on issues I raised last year with respect to the State Bar and the disastrous experience we had with the February 2025 bar exam. I can still say that in a calm and measured way. As you know, the California Supreme Court and the Legislature share an important partnership concerning oversight of the State Bar, with the court managing licensing and disciplinary functions and the Legislature setting the attorney licensing fee and auditing the bar’s governance and finances. For our part, the court has taken several corrective actions on the bar exam: Approved scoring adjustments to the February 2025 exam and an expansion of the Provisional License Program; Ordered the return to in-person testing using the Multistate Bar Exam provided by the National Conference of Bar Examiners; and Amended rules governing the exam and attorney admissions in order to strengthen and clarify the authority of the Committee of Bar Examiners and its role over attorney admissions. The amended rules address question review, validation, and proctoring; subpoena authority; oversight of the Office of Admissions’ budget; fee setting; and mandated cost-benefit analysis before there’s any proposed changes to the exam. It is too soon to report back on the future of the California Bar, but it is safe to say that nobody wants a repeat of what happened last year, and we will keep this experience in mind in determining what additional steps to take when presented with the State Bar’s recommendations in the near future.   Through our collaborative and complementary governance responsibilities, together we will continue to ensure that the public is protected and qualified new attorneys are admitted to the practice of law in our state.   Legislative Visits   I know that the challenges I have highlighted are not coming as a surprise to many of you, or at least I hope they’re not. I believe the courts have been transparent in explaining the difficulties we face and the needs we have in order to properly serve the public.   In addition, we have also invited you to come see the good work our courts do even under often difficult circumstances. Thank you for accepting our invitations to visit our various courts across the state. I know Senator Umberg thanks you too. I see him waving in the back. You guys must agree.   We continue to work with our local trial courts to coordinate legislative visits so that members can experience first-hand our day-to-day court operations—the challenges, innovations, and efficiencies—as well as the opportunity to meet with the committed public servants who provide court services to the constituents in your districts.   Since I last addressed you, we have been pleased to facilitate the visits of at least 15 senators and 22 assemblymembers, who have visited 15 local trial courts; some of you have visited more than once, some to more than one jurisdiction in your district, and some of you have worked directly with your local courts to schedule these visits.   We hope that, through these visits, you can see what I know to be true—we have a strong foundation for overcoming the real challenges we face.   We have over 2,000 dedicated public servants who are committed to the fair and impartial administration of justice. These judges, I believe, are significantly underpaid. The last judicial salary adjustment, separate from any adjustments provided under Government Code section 68203, was 19 years ago in 2007, when judges received an 8.5% increase. Judicial salaries are significantly lower than those of certain California state and local government attorneys, with growing pay differentials worsening over many years. I recognize we face a difficult financial budget this year, but I believe it’s necessary to flag this now because this level of inequity jeopardizes the judicial branch’s ability to attract and retain the best-qualified candidates for the bench. I look forward to discussing this further with you in the near future.   Californians rely on and deserve a judiciary that delivers the highest quality of justice and service. We do this through, not only our daily work in the courtroom, but through our commitment to upholding our ethical duties to maintain independence, integrity, and impartiality; our robust educational requirements; and through outreach efforts like our court’s annual special oral argument sessions at various locations throughout the state, my Power of Democracy Civic Learning Initiative, and countless other training, mentoring, and outreach programs held on a regular basis by courts at every level throughout the state.   This year, in addition to commemorating the 250th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence, we also mark an important milestone for the Judicial Council of California—the 100th year since it was founded through a vote of the people in 1926.   Through the council’s work, we have achieved greater consistency across courts, built a statewide administrative infrastructure, and consistently sought better funding for needed systemic improvements.   I am grateful for the vision, dedication, and hard work of the judicial branch leaders and Judicial Council members who have preceded me to build a strong and accountable judiciary that works collaboratively with our sister branches.   Because of this foundation—stemming from the structures we have in place, and more importantly, the people who are committed to this work—the state of the judiciary is strong, resilient, and committed to the rule of law and equal access to justice for all Californians.   Sister Branches And although my focus, of course, is on the judiciary—I also want to acknowledge two points regarding our sister branches of government.   First, I was so honored to swear in the Senate’s new President pro Tempore Monique Limón earlier this year. In the interest of time, I will not repeat all the “firsts” that her selection represents. But we’re so proud of her. It also has been a true privilege to work with Speaker Robert Rivas since his swearing in in June 2023. I also note this means Latinos are the leaders of two of the three branches of government—the judiciary and both houses in the Legislature—for the first time in California’s history.   Second—Governor Newsom. As he concludes his second term as Governor of our great state at the end of this year, I want to thank him for his thoughtful collaboration with the Legislature and the Judiciary, and for his dedicated service to the state.   I want to acknowledge the Governor for his collaboration on our three-branch solutions to improve access to justice in California, his willingness to listen to the needs and concerns of the judiciary, and his efforts to provide stable ongoing funding for the judicial branch.   Through his outreach efforts to encourage more diverse candidates from a variety of legal backgrounds, our Governor has also diversified California’s judiciary in a meaningful way. Of his 695 judicial appointments—with one more coming soon—more than half have been women, and more than half have been people of color. We thank the Governor for strengthening California’s judiciary.   And we’ll have more time with him—so I look forward to our continued collaboration. And I also look forward to the judiciary’s continued, strong partnership with the Legislature in our shared endeavor to serve the people of our state.   In closing, I would like to again reinforce the importance of our nation’s 250th celebration of our independence. The judiciary remains committed to the same guiding principles which are embodied in that document—equality, unalienable rights, justice, and the rule of law.   With your help, we have made great strides in upholding these principles. And the judiciary remains committed to navigating through the obstacles I have highlighted and safeguarding these principles for all future generations. Thank you for the opportunity to address you."