https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/ en 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-associate-justice-martin-jenkins-retire California Supreme Court Associate Justice Martin Jenkins to RetireBalassone, Merrill Thu, 10/09/2025 - 19:10 News Release News Release Associate Justice Martin J. Jenkins will retire from the California Supreme Court at the end of October after five years with the court and more than 35 years of judicial service. “I could not imagine a better capstone to my career on the bench than serving on the California Supreme Court,” said Jenkins, who was appointed by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2020 and is the first openly gay justice and the third African-American man to serve on the court. “Having been a judge at every level of the state court system and with the federal district court, I have seen firsthand how judges and justices at each stage of the judicial process faithfully apply the law in a fair and empathetic manner,” said Jenkins. “I have strived to do the same as a trial judge, at the First District Court of Appeal, and finally, at the California Supreme Court.” Jenkins, 71, spent almost two years advising Governor Newsom on judicial appointments prior to filling the vacancy on the court created by Associate Justice Ming Chin’s retirement. Before joining the Newsom administration, Jenkins served as an associate justice on the First District Court of Appeal from 2008 to 2019 and as a federal district judge at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California from 1997 to 2008. Earlier, Jenkins served as a judge on the Alameda County Superior Court (1992–1997) and on the Oakland Municipal Court (1989–1992). Jenkins’s prior experience as a practitioner included three years as a trial attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice and three years a prosecutor with the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office.  “It has been an honor to work with Justice Jenkins at the court,” said Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero. “His collegiality, and the thoughtfulness and care with which he has approached his work, have provided a constant source of inspiration. I speak for all of my colleagues when I thank Justice Jenkins for his many contributions to the court, to the public, and to the law.” https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-supreme-court-hosts-landmark-outreach-session-monterey-county California Supreme Court Hosts Landmark Outreach Session in Monterey CountyBalassone, Merrill Wed, 10/08/2025 - 10:52 News Release MONTEREY—For the first time in more than 45 years, the California Supreme Court convened for oral argument Wednesday in Monterey County, holding a historic session at Colton Hall—the site where California’s first constitution was drafted in 1849. Nearly 100 students from across Monterey County—along with local superior court and appellate court judges and justices—gathered for the special outreach session, which gave them a close-up look at the state’s highest court in action, and a chance to directly engage with the justices. "We're thrilled to be here as part of our outreach efforts, inviting students from multiple schools to watch the court at work during oral argument," said Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero. "Our purpose is to bring the court to the community, so that more people can gain a better understanding of the courts and our judicial system." The visit was the third outreach session held by the California Supreme Court under Chief Justice Guerrero. Sixth Appellate District Administrative Presiding Justice Mary J. Greenwood acknowledged the importance of bringing the court to Monterey—a region deeply rooted in California’s agricultural identity. “We feed the world in Monterey County, and it’s critically important to recognize both today's historic significance, as well as Monterey County's significance to the state, our country, and the world," said Justice Greenwood. Students Ask Justices About Their Positions and the Justice System Before formal proceedings began, students had the opportunity to pose questions to the justices, asking them questions about their path to the bench, their role models, and how students can get engaged in learning about the justice system. Senior Anahi Hernandez from Greenfield High School asked Chief Justice Guerrero about what the judiciary at all levels could learn from recent events about maintaining public trust. "We really embrace our responsibility to follow our ethical rules and responsibilities, and think that's important for the public to be able to see that and understand that we don't rule based on our own preferences. Instead, we follow the rule of law dictated by the facts and the law that's presented before us and try to be transparent and accountable in all our decisions," Chief Justice Guerrero said. "Some people are losing hope. But I still have hope for our country and judicial branch, and the reason is because of all of you here in this room, and in particular the students."   View the full webcast recording here. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/year-review-california-supreme-court-6 Year in Review: California Supreme CourtKaren.Datangel Thu, 10/02/2025 - 10:28 News Release The California Supreme Court’s work during the 2024–2025 court year took the justices around the state. The court heard oral argument in all three of its traditional courtrooms—sitting in Sacramento for the first time since 2020—and conducted a special oral argument session in Fresno. The decisions that followed addressed a broad array of issues, and included several opinions interpreting recent changes to the state’s criminal laws. “I am proud of what we achieved as a court over the past year, and I am grateful to my fellow justices and court staff for their contributions,” said Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero. “Fair and impartial interpretation of the law continues to be our guiding principle.” The Work of the Court The court heard oral argument in 52 cases and issued 45 written majority opinions during the September 2024–August 2025 court year (see chart and “High-Profile Cases” below). Seven argued matters remained pending at the end of the court year due to supplemental briefing after oral argument. The court received 6,003 filings, including 3,542 petitions for review, and resolved 5,844 filings, including 3,379 petitions for review. Both criminal and civil filings increased relative to the previous year, in which the court received 5,013 filings, including 3,079 petitions for review. The Court Returns to Sacramento The court hears oral argument in February 2025 in its Sacramento courtroom.       In February 2025, the court heard oral argument in its Sacramento courtroom for the first time since 2020. Technology upgrades were made to the Sacramento courtroom during this interval to facilitate livestreaming and remote oral arguments, similar to improvements that also have been made to the court’s San Francisco and Los Angeles courtrooms. The court’s tradition of convening in Sacramento as one of three recurring locations for oral argument dates to 1878. The court resumed hearing cases in Los Angeles in December 2023 following a hiatus caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The court also continued its practice of conducting special oral argument sessions in locations across the state. These special sessions provide students and other members of the public with opportunities to witness oral argument at nearby venues and learn more about the court’s work. The October 2024 session took place at the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Fresno and was attended by local public school and law students. The October 2025 oral argument is scheduled to take place in Monterey. Boosting Bar Exam Oversight Citing troubling reports of technical failures, delays, and other irregularities in the administration of the February 2025 California Bar Exam, the court took several steps to increase oversight of the exam and to provide relief to impacted applicants. The court approved various scoring adjustments to address the technological disruptions experienced by many applicants. The court also approved an expansion of the Provisional License Program to include February applicants, limiting eligibility to first-time takers who either failed the exam or withdrew from the exam. These applicants may now practice law under a provisional license, provided they are supervised by an eligible California attorney. The court additionally proposed several amendments to rules governing the bar exam and attorney admission in order to strengthen and clarify the authority of the Committee of Bar Examiners over future changes to the exam and its role over attorney admissions. Following a public comment period and joint review by the examiners and the State Bar Board of Trustees, the court last month adopted rule amendments largely reflecting the court’s proposal. Amendments to Court Policies and Rules Staying abreast of recent changes in the law, including the enactment of the Racial Justice Act of 2020 and subsequent amendments to that statute, in January and June 2025 the court approved amendments to its policies describing the responsibilities of counsel appointed by the court to represent condemned inmates in automatic appeals or death penalty-related postconviction proceedings, as well as amendments to the court’s guidelines regarding compensation for this work. In August, the court adopted amendments to its electronic filing (e-filing) rules that incorporate and clarify the broadened e-filing requirements that were originally implemented through guidelines issued at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. In Memoriam: Justice Joseph Grodin Former California Supreme Court Justice Joseph Grodin died in April, at age 94. Justice Grodin served on the state high court from 1982 to 1987. Said Chief Justice Guerrero: “Justice Joseph R. Grodin was a brilliant jurist whose contributions to California’s legal system — as a labor lawyer, Supreme Court justice, and professor — continue to resonate. Throughout his distinguished career, he exemplified a dedication to justice, fairness, and the rule of law. His thoughtful opinions and commitment to civil rights shaped the landscape of our state’s jurisprudence. As we mourn his passing, we honor his enduring legacy and the profound impact he had on our judiciary.” The court will recognize Justice Grodin and his contributions to California’s justice system at its November 2025 oral argument session. High-Profile Cases  Image               Decisions issued by the court during the 2024–2025 court year addressed an extensive range of issues arising under state and federal law. The following are summaries of six cases that illustrate the court’s work over the past year. In Brown v. City of Inglewood, the court determined that an elected city treasurer could not bring a civil claim alleging retaliatory conduct by city council members under a Labor Code provision that protects whistleblowing employees from reprisals by their employers. Upon reviewing the statutory text, the legislative history, laws addressing analogous subjects, and relevant public policy considerations, the court’s unanimous opinion reasoned that insofar as the antiretaliation statute extends to public employees, it is concerned with claims by “rank-and-file public workers” and did not provide a cause of action to the treasurer, an elected official ultimately answerable to voters. In EpicentRx, Inc. v. Superior Court, the court considered the validity of forum selection clauses, in which parties agree by contract to litigate in a specific state or other jurisdiction. The court unanimously held that forum selection clauses “serve vital commercial purposes and should generally be enforced,” but it cautioned that courts should consider whether enforcement of any specific forum selection clause requiring litigation outside California would violate a strong or fundamental public policy of California. At issue in EpicentRx was enforcement of a forum selection clause in favor of the Delaware Court of Chancery, which one party argued would violate California’s strong public policy in favor of the right to a civil jury trial because the Delaware court does not recognize such a right. The court disagreed and held that “[a] forum selection clause is not unenforceable simply because it requires the parties to litigate in a jurisdiction that does not afford civil litigants the same right to trial by jury as litigants in California courts enjoy.” Nonetheless, the court did not foreclose the possibility that the forum selection clause might run afoul of some other public policy, and it remanded the matter to the lower courts for further proceedings on that question. In Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, the court decided by a 5-2 vote that federal law does not preempt a default rule under state law that the party responsible for drafting an arbitration agreement must pay the arbitrator’s fees and costs within 30 days of receiving the arbitrator’s invoice. The majority opinion rejected arguments that the state statute subjects arbitration agreements to a uniquely exacting standard and interferes with fundamental aspects of arbitration. The majority held that the law, construed “in harmony with background statutes and principles that allow relief from forfeiture where nonperformance is not willful, fraudulent, or grossly negligent,” merely “makes arbitration contracts enforceable on the same grounds as those that apply to other contracts” and “simplifies payment procedures with a clearer rule.” In Olympic and Georgia Partners, LLC v. County of Los Angeles, the court concluded, with three justices concurring and dissenting, that a local property tax valuation of a hotel properly included both occupancy tax revenues that had been assigned to the property owner as an incentive to build the property and a one-time payment made by a hotel management company to the owner in exchange for management and branding rights. The majority opinion explained that “both payments derive from a type of intangible asset that effectively enable the property itself — as opposed to the business operating the property — to generate more revenue.” In People v. Fletcher, the court considered the interaction between criminal sentencing laws targeting recidivist offenders and subsequent ameliorative legislation. The criminal sentencing laws that were at issue, the Three Strikes law and the prior serious felony enhancement statute, are triggered by a prior serious felony conviction for certain gang-related offenses, while the ameliorative legislation, the STEP Forward Act of 2021, imposed new requirements for proving that criminal offenses are gang-related. The court, by a 4-3 vote, held that the STEP Forward Act applied to the determination of whether a prior conviction is gang-related, meaning that a prior conviction must meet the new requirements of the STEP Forward Act in order to qualify as a prior serious felony conviction for purposes of the Three Strikes law and the prior serious felony enhancement statute. In People v. Patton, the court interpreted a recently enacted statute that abrogates certain theories of homicide liability and creates an avenue for resentencing defendants affected by this change. It unanimously decided that “a court, in determining at the prima facie stage whether a petitioner was convicted under a now-invalid theory,” can “rely on unchallenged, relief-foreclosing facts within a preliminary hearing transcript to refute conclusory, checkbox allegations” within a petition. The court concluded that such reliance did not “constitute impermissible judicial factfinding,” explaining that “petitioners confronting a record of conviction that demonstrates relief is unavailable have the burden of coming forward with nonconclusory allegations to alert the prosecution and the court to what issues an evidentiary hearing would entail.” The court noted, however, “that should a trial court encounter a material fact dispute, the court may not resolve that dispute at the prima facie stage and should instead grant petitioner an evidentiary hearing, assuming relief is not otherwise foreclosed.” Summary of Key Court Year Statistics (pdf) [September 1, 2024 – August 31, 2025]  Action/Category Number Opinions 45 Civil Cases 24 Criminal Cases 12 Death Penalty Cases 9 Filings 6,003 Petitions for Review 3,542                                 Civil Appeals & Writs 1,089                          Criminal Appeals & Writs 2,446                 Death Penalty Appeals & Writs 7 Original Proceedings 2,461                        Civil Writs & Other Matters 319                 Criminal Writs & Other Matters 988                                 Executive Clemency 16                 Death Penalty Appeals & Writs 7                 Death Penalty Habeas Corpus 11                                      State Bar Matters 1,120 Dispositions 5,844 Petitions for Review 3,379                                 Civil Appeals & Writs 1,008                          Criminal Appeals & Writs 2,359                 Death Penalty Appeals & Writs 12 Original Proceedings 2,465                        Civil Writs & Other Matters 330                 Criminal Writs & Other Matters 975                                 Executive Clemency 17                 Death Penalty Habeas Corpus 0 Death Penalty Habeas Corpus [Transferred] 1                                      State Bar Matters 1,142 Death Penalty Habeas Corpus Orders to Show Cause 0 Court of Appeal Opinions Ordered Published 1 Court of Appeal Opinions Ordered Depublished 23 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/california-supreme-court-adopts-amendments-e-filing-rules California Supreme Court Adopts Amendments to E-Filing RulesBalassone, Merrill Wed, 08/13/2025 - 15:54 News Release The Supreme Court of California on Wednesday adopted amendments to its electronic filing (e-filing) rules. These amendments are effective immediately and formalize and clarify the court's e-filing guidelines, which the court adopted at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The court continues to require electronic filing, through the TrueFiling platform, of all documents filed in all proceedings before the court, regardless of case type. E-filing remains voluntary for self-represented litigants and trial courts, and any litigant may continue to request an exemption from the e-filing requirement. The amendments also make conforming and technical changes to the e-filing rules. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/court-expands-availability-funds-pursue-relief-under-racial-justice-act-capital-cases-0 Court Expands Availability of Funds to Pursue Relief Under the Racial Justice Act in Capital Cases; Approves Revision to Payment Policies for Attorneys in Capital CasesBalassone, Merrill Mon, 06/23/2025 - 08:16 News Release The California Supreme Court on Wednesday approved a temporary amendment to the Supreme Court Policies Regarding Cases Arising from Judgments of Death (Supreme Court Policies) and the Payment Guidelines for Counsel Appointed by the Supreme Court Representing Indigent Criminal Appellants in California Courts & Guidelines for Fixed Fee Appointments, on Optional Basis, to Automatic Appeals and Capital Habeas Corpus Proceedings in California Courts (Payment Guidelines). The temporary amendment, which will remain in effect through June 30, 2026, expands the availability of funding to develop and present claims under the Racial Justice Act of 2020. Specifically, any counsel appointed by this court prior to July 1, 2023 to represent inmates subject to a sentence of death may seek and obtain permission from the court to obtain such funding. The temporary amendment removes the limitation that had restricted funding to work performed in connection with an initial habeas corpus petition previously transferred by this court to a superior court. The court’s approval and subsequent compensation for attorney fees and investigatory expenses will be contingent on the availability of allocated funds and compliance with the Supreme Court Policies and Payment Guidelines. The court also approved a revision to the Supreme Court Policies. This revision clarifies the scope of the court’s counsel appointment and payment obligations in the event a capital defendant is resentenced to a term less than death or the defendant’s sentence is commuted to a term less than death. In these situations, and absent exceptional circumstances, this court’s appointment of counsel and its associated payment obligations will conclude in any proceeding other than a proceeding before this court. The temporary amendment and revised policies are posted on the court’s website and will become effective on July 1, 2025. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-supreme-court-approves-additional-bar-exam-remedies California Supreme Court Approves Additional Bar Exam Remedies Balassone, Merrill Wed, 06/11/2025 - 12:57 News Release The California Supreme Court on Wednesday issued rulings on two petitions submitted by the State Bar of California concerning the administration of the February Bar Exam, granting several key requests intended to provide further relief to impacted applicants. The court approved an expansion of the Provisional License Program to include the February applicants, but limited eligibility to first-time takers who either failed the exam or withdrew from the exam. These applicants may now practice law under a provisional license, provided they are supervised by an eligible California attorney. The Provisional License Program was originally established in 2020 to support law school graduates whose first bar exam opportunities were disrupted and delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court also granted the State Bar’s request to extend scoring adjustments for applicants who performed well on the November 2024 test sessions. These adjustments will be applied to the first bar exam they take during 2025 or 2026. But the court denied without prejudice a request to explore proposals for admitting attorneys licensed in other states without requiring them to take the California Bar Exam. The court indicated that any such request must await statutory changes to Business and Professions Code section 6062, which currently mandates passage of the exam for admission. The court also granted the State Bar’s request to modify the court’s prior order and allow imputation of performance test scores for the February exam. Due to significant technological disruptions affecting the performance test portion of the exam, the court approved the use of applicants’ essay scores to impute their performance test scores. 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-justices-give-grads-lessons-courage-and-conviction California Justices Give Grads Lessons in Courage and ConvictionBalassone, Merrill Tue, 05/27/2025 - 09:39 Feature California Supreme Court justices addressed thousands of California's newest law school graduates this commencement season. Here's some of the advice they shared: JUSTICE GOODWIN H. LIU (watch)At UC Law San Francisco & University of San Diego Law “[T]he principle that independence of the legal profession is vital to the fair and impartial administration of justice … is under threat today, and you must stand strong and defend it.” “In the days ahead, you will be tested. You may represent people or causes who are unpopular. You may have to make arguments that are hard. You may feel exposed or even threatened. But your clients and our nation are counting on you. My hope, and my plea, is that you stand firm. Have courage. And seize the opportunity to honor your oath. When you do, you will protect the very soul of our democracy.” Photo credit: Todd Cheney JUSTICE LEONDRA R. KRUGER (watch)At UCLA School of Law “You are entering this profession at a time that calls out for principled, passionate, thoughtful lawyers. The world needs people who will stand up and speak out for justice under the law—who have the courage and integrity to do what they know is right, even when it is not always easy or popular. This is also a time when our communities need people who are able to bridge differences, who work to unite rather than divide. One first and important step in that direction is to try to model in your work and in your life what it means to listen to other perspectives respectfully, to speak with civility, and to treat others with dignity.” JUSTICE KELLI M. EVANSAt UC Davis School of Law "It’s easy to think that those who stand up for justice are the people in the spotlight, the ones who make grand gestures and dramatic speeches. But, I have found over the years that justice, more often, is steady and quiet and filled with resolve. It looks like a public defender staying late for a client others have written off. It looks like an immigration attorney demanding due process for all of her clients. It looks like a legal aid attorney fighting evictions one family at a time. It looks like an in-house counsel telling the truth in the boardroom no matter how difficult it might be. It looks like a prosecutor protecting the community while honoring the rights of the accused. More than anything, I think justice looks exactly like you, no matter what type of lawyer you eventually become." Photo credit: Jose Alfonso Perez/UC Davis