Status update: fee increase

On July 9, the Assembly Judiciary Committee (Committee) approved an amended version of Senate Bill 176, the licensing fee bill. The current legislation sets 2020 total licensing fees for active attorneys at $544, which represents a 29 percent increase over 2019 fee levels and includes both ongoing and one-time augmentations. Total fees for inactive licensees are set at $183 in the legislation.

The fee bill tracks closely to the recommendations of the California State Auditor (Auditor), which the State Bar agreed with, and with some of the recommendations of the Legislative Analyst’s Office; both entities independently reviewed the State Bar’s need for a licensing fee increase. Here is the response statement that the State Bar issued when the amended fee bill passed out of Committee.

As you may know, the annual attorney licensing fee, the State Bar’s primary source of revenue, has not increased since 1998. If the fee had been adjusted for inflation since then, it would now surpass $500. Despite trimming millions of dollars from its budget over the last several years, the State Bar has been running a structural deficit, due to the inevitable divergence between flat revenues and increased costs that has occurred over the decades since the fee was last adjusted.

SB 176 demonstrates a recognition that achieving our mission of public protection requires that we be able to hire needed discipline staff to meet statutory timelines for case processing, cover rising compensation and benefits costs, address our structural deficit, and make needed investments in technology and building maintenance.

We are sensitive to the impact of the planned fee increases, particularly on low and moderate income practitioners. We have been working with the Legislature on enhanced scaling options to minimize the impact of a fee increase on these attorneys. The current scaling threshold was developed 20 years ago and applies only to those who make less than $40,000 annually; the amended bill currently increases this threshold to approximately $60,000. While this is a good start, we continue to work with the Legislature to explore alternatives that could broaden scaling while not significantly reducing the amount of fee revenue that the State Bar receives.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4308611&forum_id=2#38576923)

it's colloquially equivalent to "actually"

as in, actually this doesn't seem like a big deal given the rates hadn't changed since 1998. $545 shouldn't be a big deal for a fucking lawyer.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4308611&forum_id=2#38576943)

That said, why didn't you just resign your bar membership in TX?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4308611&forum_id=2#38581242)

You don't get it. When you do a NJ, NY or many other bar apps (including for in-house counsel), you are forced to disclose ANY bar suspensions you have ever had. If you disclose it, it will be a huge problem. If you don't and they find out, you will be auto-disqualified for lying to the bar.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4308611&forum_id=2#38581335)

Because they too want to charge you scam bar fees

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4308611&forum_id=2#38581380)

Not flame:http://www.calbar.ca.gov/About-Us/Our-Mission/Protecting-the-Public/Public-Comment/Public-Comment-Archives/2019-Public-Comment/Options-for-Regulatory-Reforms-to-Promote-Access-to-Justice

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4308611&forum_id=2#38581646)

I will still be 45 by end of 2026.

Thing is I will never again have a job like this so I don’t see a point in getting another job that would pay like 75% but require me to actually work really hard and without the job security.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4308611&forum_id=2#38581963)