Board Sends Community Justice Worker Program Recommendations to California Supreme Court
At its September 17–18 meeting, the Board of Trustees approved a recommendation to the California Supreme Court to establish a statewide Community Justice Worker (CJW) Program. The proposal, once approved by the Court, would authorize trained nonlawyers, known as Community Justice Workers, to provide limited legal assistance to California residents under the supervision of approved legal aid organizations. The program responds to a significant justice gap: The State Bar’s 2024 California Justice Gap Study found that 73 percent of California households reported at least one civil legal problem in the past year, and 86 percent of the lowest-income residents received no or inadequate help resolving their legal problems.
A coalition of legal aid organizations petitioned the Supreme Court in December 2025 to adopt proposed California Rule of Court 9.45.1, establishing the program. In response, the Court issued Administrative Order 2026-06-17-01 in June 2026, directing the State Bar to solicit public comment on a modified version of the proposed rule and determine whether to recommend its adoption. The State Bar received 110 public comments on the proposal, with 86 percent of commenters expressing support for establishing a CJW Program, either as proposed or with modifications. The Board approved a version of the proposed rule largely based on modifications by the Legal Services Trust Fund Commission.
“Today, recognizing the urgent legal needs of Californians and the opportunity for private funding to support a CJW Program, the Board recommended the Community Justice Worker Program move forward,” said Board Chair José Cisneros. “We’re recommending the Legal Services Trust Fund Commission serve as the Authorizing Body, given its deep experience overseeing legal aid organizations across the state. We’re confident this approach gives the program the strong foundation it needs to succeed.”
Board of Trustees Chair José Cisneros and Vice-Chair Mark Toney, PhD, were also sworn in for an additional one-year term in their leadership roles by State Bar Court Presiding Judge Richard A. Honn. Cisneros and Toney were reappointed to their State Bar leadership positions in August by the California Supreme Court, which also reappointed Trustee David Jargiello to his first full four-year term on the Board, after he was appointed to a partial term in 2025. Separately, new public member Jim Cummings—an appointee of California Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas—attended his first Board meeting on Thursday.
The Board unanimously approved a motion to recognize Judge Honn, who is retiring, for his commitment to public service and stellar leadership as the State Bar Court’s Presiding Judge. Judge Honn’s tenure ends October 31, 2026, making him the longest full-time State Bar Court judge, with 23 years of public service on the State Bar Court.
In other actions, the Board:
- Heard a presentation from the Division of Regulation on the Client Trust Account Protection Program’s preliminary results from the first 77 of 100 mandatory attorney compliance reviews, launched in September 2025; the remaining reviews are expected to wrap up by October 2026. Of the 77 reviews completed, 58 percent resulted in a corrective action plan, investigative audit, or referral to the Office of Chief Trial Counsel, while 42 percent were closed with no further action required. Thirty-five percent had at least one instance of misappropriated client funds, totaling more than $2.1 million across 57 occurrences. A portion of that money was misappropriated due to recordkeeping errors or, in some more serious cases, borrowing from client funds; of the $2.1 million, all except roughly $164,000 was returned to clients prior to the attorney receiving notice of the compliance review. The review also found that only 18 percent of firms properly perform or understand required three-way reconciliations, and 96 percent showed evidence of a lack of general attorney supervision over trust accounting. Despite these gaps, feedback was (similar to an earlier voluntary review process) largely positive: 100 percent of attorneys reviewed said their understanding of trust accounting rules improved as a result of the process, and 94 percent described it as a positive or neutral experience.
- Heard a report from the Office of Access and Inclusion on the first year of mandatory pro bono hours reporting for California attorneys: 80 percent of the 200,360 attorneys who responded to the Attorney Annual Renewal were subject to the requirement; of those, 68 percent submitted their pro bono hours, while 20 percent reported not tracking pro bono hours and 13 percent declined to answer. Among attorneys who reported pro bono hours, 45 percent provided pro bono services in 2025, but only 12 percent met or exceeded the State Bar’s Pro Bono Resolution goal of 50 pro bono hours annually—notably lower than the 20 percent and 23 percent reported in prior voluntary surveys, suggesting those samples likely overrepresented attorneys who provide more pro bono hours. The State Bar’s 2024 Justice Gap Study highlights a growing need for pro bono legal services, driven in part by the rise of “attorney deserts”—areas where residents must travel significant distances to access legal help because too few attorneys practice locally. The number of California counties classified as attorney deserts has grown from 11 to 16 over the past decade, and just 3 percent of the state’s active attorneys live in rural areas, compared to 12 percent of California’s residents.
- Approved updating the California Attorney Guidelines of Civility and Professionalism, first established in 2007, to modernize the voluntary, aspirational standards and reflect developments in legal practice, technology, and statewide civility initiatives. The revisions expand guidance on attorney communications, including social media and good-faith dealings with other counsel; add a new section addressing the professional use of technology, including remote proceedings and the use of artificial intelligence; update guidance on scheduling, service, discovery, motion practice, and alternative dispute resolution; modernize courtroom accommodations guidance; add a new section on diversity and the elimination of bias; and expand mentorship guidance addressing the responsibilities of experienced attorneys and supervisors to model professional conduct and support attorney well-being.
- Heard an update from the Office of Admissions on several items, including the California Component ordered by the California Supreme Court, highlighting the Committee of Bar Examiners’ (CBE) progress developing California-specific requirements to complement the NextGen Uniform Bar Exam (NextGen UBE) and serve as the Attorneys’ Exam. The California Supreme Court approved the NextGen UBE on July 15, 2026, to replace the current General Bar Examination beginning in July 2028. The Court also directed the State Bar to develop a California-specific component, to launch in July 2029, covering both general and California-specific law in areas including civil procedure, community property, employment, evidence, family law, professional responsibility, and wills and succession; the CBE must submit a preliminary recommendation to the Court by February 26, 2027, and a final recommendation by June 2027. The Board and CBE will hold a joint meeting in November 2026 during the Board’s regular meeting to discuss the Attorneys’ Exam and score portability, and in January 2027 to adopt a preliminary cost-benefit analysis and recommendations for transmission to the Court by February 26, 2027.
###
Follow the State Bar online
LinkedIn, X, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube
The State Bar of California’s mission is to protect the public and includes the primary functions of licensing, regulation and discipline of attorneys; the advancement of the ethical and competent practice of law; and support of efforts for greater access to, and inclusion in, the legal system.
Legal Disclaimer:
EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
