Attorneys: discipline: sensitive services.

The California Committee on Judiciary, chaired by Assembly Member Kalra and supported by colleagues Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Stefani, and Zbur, advances a measure that would shield California-licensed attorneys from disciplinary action when actions taken under another state's law implicate rights to sensitive services that would be lawful within California. The core change adds a new provision to the Business and Professions Code creating an explicit category of “excluded events” that would not support discipline, reporting obligations, or denial of admission in California.

Specifically, the measure defines an excluded event as any of several outcomes arising from the application of another state’s law to a person’s practice of law, so long as that action interferes with rights to receive, provide, advocate for, or enable sensitive services as recognized in California. The four enumerated forms are: a civil judgment against the attorney or applicant; judicial sanctions imposed on the attorney or applicant; indictment, information, conviction, or plea related to offenses arising in the course of practicing law; and discipline or findings of professional misconduct by a professional or occupational licensing body. The definition of “sensitive services” is tied to the Civil Code’s definition, with that cross-reference shaping the scope of protection. A Notwithstanding provision would override several existing sections of the Business and Professions Code, barring suspension, disbarment, reporting, or admission-denial based on an excluded event, and the measure would also foreclose those events from being used to compel reporting or establish culpability in California, subject to a California-law similarity exception.

Enforcement and implementation would require the State Bar and the Supreme Court to distinguish excluded events from other bases for discipline, while relying on the Civil Code’s definition of sensitive services to determine scope. The shield applies only when the action is grounded in the application of another state’s law, and a caveat preserves the shield if California law would subject the attorney or applicant to a similar claim. The framework interacts with the existing licensure and discipline regime by limiting reliance on foreign actions as grounds for discipline or admission-denial, while preserving accountability where California law provides a parallel remedy.

The measure implicates a range of stakeholders, including attorneys and applicants who may benefit from the cross-jurisdictional protection, the State Bar and the Supreme Court responsible for implementing guidance and procedures, and clients who rely on California’s disciplinary framework. Notably, the text does not specify an explicit appropriation or an explicit effective date, leaving implementation details to future rulemaking or statutory guidance. Taken together, the proposal creates a targeted safe harbor for certain cross-border actions tied to sensitive services, while preserving California-law-based accountability where applicable.