2023 LEGISLATIVE WORK
AB 615 (Maienschein). International Arbitration: Support Suspended
AB 886 (Wicks). Digital Advertising. No position. Withdrawn
AB 924 (Gabriel). Complaints against Neutrals. Oppose. Withdrawn
SB 40 (Umberg). Attorney misconduct. Oppose. Withdrawn
SB 42 (Umberg). Attorney misconduct. Oppose. Withdrawn
SB 365 (Wiener). Automatic stay pending appeal. No position. Enrolled and presented to the Governor.
AB 615 (Maienschein). International Arbitration: Support Suspended
In 1988, the Legislature enacted the California International Arbitration and Conciliation Act (CIACA). It was based on the model law proposed by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). This model law was amended in 2006, but no action was taken in California to similarly amend CIACA and thus California law was no longer in sync with the rest of the Model Law. AB 615 remedied this anomaly. CDRC supported the bill. The Assembly passed the bill without opposition. However, the Senate Appropriations Committee placed it in the suspense file because of a belief that the bill would impose additional costs on the California courts, a larger number of bills than usual have been placed in the suspense file this year because of the State’s $31.5 billion deficit. AB 615 is now a two-year bill and CDRC expects that the author will reintroduce it in 2024.
AB 886 (Wicks). Digital Advertising. No position. Withdrawn
This bill created the California Journalism Preservation and Protection Act. It would direct digital advertising companies to pay news outlets a "user-driven usage fee" when they sell advertising alongside news content. Digital platform publishers target 70% of news flows to personalize journalism use in California. It also contained an arbitration provision which permitted journalism providers to initiate a final offer arbitration before a three-member American Arbitration Association panel to determine the percentage of the covered platform's advertising revenue that needs to be distributed to the journalism providers. CDRC did not take a position on the bill.
The bill passed the Assembly with bipartisan support, June 1 and moved on to the State Senate. A hearing was initially scheduled for July 11, but before it could be held, the author committed it to a two-year bill and announced that she would reintroduce it in 2024. In the interim, the Senate will hold an informational hearing this fall to further explore issues, the bill attempts to address and tech companies' economic degradation of local newspapers, other media outlets.
AB 924 (Gabriel). Complaints against Neutrals. Oppose. Withdrawn
In early 2023, the Los Angeles Times published an article telling of three retired judges who purportedly failed to properly administer settlement funds arising from lawsuits filed by attorney Tom Girardi. Because the judges were also mediators, the article called for regulation of mediators even though the purported actions of the judges had nothing to do with mediation and there was a question whether the judges acted improperly. This bill was introduced in reaction to the article. It required dispute resolution neutrals to forward any complaints that they received to the State Bar and to maintain a synopsis of the complaint with the State Bar. This hierarchy openly overrode the confidentiality provisions of Evidence Code 1119. This override of the confidentiality provision caused CDRC to form a coalition to oppose the bill. Other members of the coalition were the Consumer Attorneys of California, California Employment Lawyers Association, California Defense Counsel, and California Judges Association. In response to the opposition, the author withdrew it, converting it to a two-year bill. CDRC expects that he will reintroduce it in 2024.
SB 40 (Umberg). Attorney misconduct. Oppose. Withdrawn
This bill required a licensee of the State Bar who knew that another licensee engaged in professional misconduct to file, itemize or clarify information that raised a substantial question about that licensee's honesty, trustworthiness, or ability to perform legal services with competence, to inform the State Bar. The bill also required a licensee to inform the State Bar if the licensee knew that another licensee had conspired or engage in, or has engaged in, treason, sedition, or insurrection against the State of California or the United States. CDRC opposed the bill because it did not make an exception for mediation confidentiality. The author withdrew the bill after the State Bar prepared a similar rule which also contains an exception for mediation confidentiality.
SB 42 (Umberg). Attorney misconduct. Oppose. Withdrawn
This bill was very similar to SB 40. However, it contained two exceptions, to wit, information otherwise protected by the attorney-client privilege and information gained by a licensee while participating in the Attorney Diversion and Assistance Program. By specifically including two exceptions, it would appear that no other exception was considered by the Legislature. Hence, the bill would have superseded the mediation confidentiality provisions set forth in Evidence Code Section 1119 and this caused CDRC to oppose the bill. The author withdrew the bill after he amended SB 40, which previously was a spot bill.
SB 365 (Wiener). Automatic stay pending appeal. No position. Enrolled and presented to the Governor.
This bill provided that local proceedings would not be automatically stayed pending an appeal from the denial of a motion to vacate. Because the bill had no effect on the ability of arbitrators to practice their profession, CDRC did not take a position.