https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/ en 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/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-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. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/judicial-councils-laura-enderton-speed-appointed-executive-director-state-bar-california Judicial Council's Laura Enderton-Speed Appointed Executive Director of State Bar of California Balassone, Merrill Thu, 09/18/2025 - 15:43 News Release Read the full news release via the State Bar of California. The State Bar of California Board of Trustees on Thursday announced its appointment of Laura Enderton-Speed as the State Bar’s next Executive Director. Enderton-Speed has been at the Judicial Council since 2013, serving as the supervising attorney of governmental affairs before being appointed director of the Leadership Support Services Office in July 2018. Said Judicial Council Administrative Director Shelley Curran: “I thank Laura for her outstanding leadership at the Judicial Council, where she made a lasting impact on the administration of justice and earned the respect of her colleagues across the state. Laura’s experience and deep commitment to public service—including her prior work with the state Legislature—will serve her well. We are proud to see her step into this important new role as Executive Director of the State Bar of California, and we look forward to continuing our work together in her new capacity.”  Said Enterton-Speed: "I am honored by the Board’s support and excited to serve as the State Bar’s next Executive Director. Throughout my career in public service, I have worked to strengthen trust in government and advance fairness, accountability, and transparency. I look forward to bringing that experience to the State Bar in service of its vital mission to protect the public and ensure meaningful access to justice for all Californians.”  Enderton-Speed has previously served as the governmental relations and legislative officer for the County of Sacramento, the division chief in the Office of Stakeholder Relations at the California Public Employees Retirement System, the deputy chief of external affairs at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and a policy consultant at the California State Senate. In addition, she is an adjunct professor at the University of the Pacific’s McGeorge School of Law and California State University, Sacramento. She earned her bachelor’s degree in political science from San Jose State University and her juris doctorate from McGeorge School of Law.  https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-supreme-court-makes-appointments-state-bar-board-trustees-committee-bar-examiners-0 California Supreme Court Makes Appointments to State Bar Board of Trustees, Committee of Bar ExaminersKaren.Datangel Thu, 08/21/2025 - 13:09 News Release The Supreme Court of California today announced seven appointments and one reappointment to the State Bar of California's Board of Trustees and the Committee of Bar Examiners, all effective September 19. The court appointed public member José Cisneros as chair of the Board of Trustees for a one-year term. Cisneros is the first ever non-attorney to be appointed chair of the board. He has served as the Treasurer for the City and County of San Francisco since 2004. Cisneros will replace attorney Brandon Stallings as chair, who will step down from the board after completing his term next month. The court has appointed attorney David Jargiello to fill Stallings' impending vacancy. The court also appointed public member Dr. Mark Toney to a one-year term as board vice chair. Dr. Toney has served as the executive director of The Utility Reform Network since 2008. The Board of Trustees is the State Bar's governing body that establishes the strategic direction for the agency and ensures that the organization is fulfilling its mission. In addition, the court made appointments to the Committee of Bar Examiners. Attorney Alan Yochelson, the committee's current vice chair, has been appointed to a one-year term as chair. The court appointed attorney Ashley Silva-Guzman to a one-year term as vice chair. The court reappointed attorney Bethany Peak to another four-year term, and appointed attorneys Christopher Reed and Michael Lee to fill four-year terms created by the impending vacancies of two attorneys departing the committee in September. The Committee of Bar Examiners oversees development and administration of the California Bar Exam and reviews the moral character determination and admissions processes for attorneys. The committee also accredits state law schools and registers unaccredited state law schools. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-supreme-court-proposes-amendments-rules-governing-bar-exam-and-attorney-admissions California Supreme Court Proposes Amendments to Rules Governing the Bar Exam and Attorney AdmissionsBalassone, Merrill Wed, 05/28/2025 - 13:15 News Release See the court's order here. The Supreme Court of California today proposed a series of amendments clarifying the authority of the Committee of Bar Examiners (CBE) over the California Bar Exam and attorney admissions. The court also directed the State Bar of California to circulate the proposed amendments for 45 days of public comment. The amendments include: 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’s approval of the Director of the Office 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.   Other proposed amendments would delete obsolete provisions, update other provisions, and correct minor typographical errors. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-supreme-court-makes-appointments-state-bar-board-trustees-committee-bar-examiners California Supreme Court Makes Appointments to State Bar Board of Trustees, Committee of Bar Examiners Balassone, Merrill Thu, 04/24/2025 - 14:28 News Release The Supreme Court of California today announced appointments to two State Bar of California entities. The court appointed attorney Ryan Harrison to the State Bar Board of Trustees for a partial four-year term, effective April 25. Harrison fills the remainder of the term vacated by former board member Hailyn Chen who termed out last September. The court also made appointments to the State Bar’s Committee of Bar Examiners. Attorneys Juliane Smith and Joshua Montgomery will fill the vacancies created by the departures of James Efting and Robert Brody. Each will serve partial four-year terms effective April 25. The committee oversees development and administration of the California Bar Exam and reviews the moral character determination and admissions processes for attorneys. The committee also accredits state law schools and registers unaccredited state law schools. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/local-courts-and-bar-associations-host-california-bar-admission-ceremony-tuesday-december-10 Local Courts and Bar Associations to Host California Bar Admission Ceremony on Tuesday, December 10, 2024Martin.Novitski Fri, 12/06/2024 - 15:37 News Release The Fourth District Court of Appeal, the San Diego Superior Court and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California will host a Special Joint Session at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, December 10, 2024, to administer the Oath of Office for the induction of new attorneys to the practice of law in California. Upon passing the challenging California Bar Examination, new attorneys, as required by California Business and Professions Code section 6067, take an oath that they will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California and that they will act with “dignity, courtesy and integrity.” This month’s ceremony marks the return to a large-scale celebration which last occurred in 2019. The celebration will take place in the ballroom at the Westin Gaslamp Quarter Hotel, and involves all local courts and the state, county and federal bar associations. “The justices of the Fourth District are pleased to join once again with our colleagues of the state and federal trial courts and to welcome to the profession our new attorneys,” said Fourth District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Judith McConnell. “We are excited to welcome new attorneys into the legal profession, recognize their years of hard work in getting to this moment and celebrate this remarkable achievement,” said San Diego Superior Court Presiding Judge Maureen F. Hallahan. “This is a momentous occasion for new attorneys and their families. It is only fitting that we welcome them into our country’s noblest profession in grand style through this special session of court,” said U.S. District Court Chief Judge Dana Sabraw. The Special Joint Session is planned to include comments from the Fourth District Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Judith McConnell, State Bar of California Trustee Mattheus Stephens, San Diego County Bar Association President Stacey Kartchner, San Diego Superior Court Presiding Judge Maureen F. Hallahan, Federal Bar Association President Blake Currey, and U.S. District Court Judge Cynthia Bashant. The State Bar oath will be administered by the Fourth District Court of Appeal Clerk of Court Brandon Henson and the Federal Bar oath will be administered by John Morrill, Clerk of Court for the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California. 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.