AB 663 California Assembly · 2009-2010 Regular Session

Legal aid: court interpreters: appearances by telephone.

Summary
(1) Existing law, the State Bar Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California, a public corporation. Existing law provides that it is the duty of an attorney to, among other things, never reject, for any consideration personal to himself or herself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed. Existing law provides that a lawyer may fulfill his or her ethical commitment to provide pro bono services, in part, by providing financial support to organizations providing free legal services to persons of limited means. This bill would prohibit a person or organization that is not a specified type of legal aid organization, as defined, from using the term "legal aid," or any confusingly similar name in any firm name, trade name, fictitious business name, or other designation, or on any advertisement, letterhead, business card, or sign. The bill would subject a person or organization that violates this prohibition to specified civil liability. (2) Existing law provides that, in all general civil cases, as defined, a party who has provided notice may appear by telephone at certain conferences, hearings, and proceedings, except as specified. This bill would require the Judicial Council, on or before July 1, 2010, and periodically as appropriate, to enter into one or more master agreements with a vendor or vendors to provide for telephone appearances in civil cases under the provisions described above, or as otherwise permitted by law. The bill would impose requirements regarding those master agreements, including that the vendor charge a party for an appearance by telephone in an amount set by the Judicial Council, and that the vendor pay to the state $15 for each appearance by telephone and a proportionate share of an amount equal to the total revenue received from vendors by all courts for providing telephone appearances for the 2008–09 fiscal year. The bill would require those funds to be deposited in the Trial Court Trust Fund and used for specified purposes. (3) Existing law requires that, when a witness is incapable of understanding the English language or is incapable of expressing himself or herself in the English language so as to be understood directly by counsel, court, and jury, an interpreter be sworn to interpret for him or her. This bill would require the Judicial Council, by September 1, 2010, to establish a working group to review, identify, and develop best practices to provide interpreters in civil actions and proceedings, as specified. The bill would require the Judicial Council to select up to 5 courts to participate in a pilot project, to commence on July 1, 2011, to provide interpreters in civil proceedings. The bill would provide that the initial pilot courts shall participate until June 30, 2014, and would require the Judicial Council to consider whether a pilot court shall continue participating in the project and whether to select another court or additional courts. The pilot project would be funded from the revenue derived from the telephonic appearance fee described above. (4) Existing law requires the Judicial Council to conduct a study of language and interpreter use and need in court proceedings, with commentary, and to report its findings and recommendations to the Governor and to the Legislature every 5 years. Existing law requires that this study serve as the basis for determining the need to establish interpreter programs and certification and establishing these programs and examinations through the normal budgetary process. This bill would require, in addition, as of January 1, 2011, that the study described above serve as the basis of determining the need for and use of interpreters in civil and criminal court proceedings. The bill would require trial courts to collect and report the use of interpreters in all criminal and civil proceedings in the manner specified by the Judicial Council.
Bill status failed 3 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2009
Committee Review
Aug 2010
Assembly Passage
Jun 2009
Senate Passage
Governor
Introduced Feb 25, 2009 Last action Nov 30, 2010
Floor votes · Assembly Jun 1, 2009

How they voted

3823
Passed · 1 other
Total votes 62
Jun 1, 2009
D Democratic38
36 Yea 1 Nay 1
94% Yea
R Republican24
2 Yea 22 Nay
91% Nay
Vote distribution
All Yea All Nay Mixed No data
Full legislative history

Actions timeline

Total actions
21
Key actions
8
Committee
11
Amendments
4
Aug 12, 2010
Upper · Passed
In committee: Held under submission.
upper
Aug 9, 2010
Upper · Passed
In committee: Placed on APPR suspense file.
upper
Jul 6, 2009
Upper · Passed
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
upper
Jun 24, 2009
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Re-referred. (Ayes 3. Noes 1.) (June 23).
upper
Jun 15, 2009
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
Jun 11, 2009
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
Jun 1, 2009
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (38-23-1)
assembly
May 29, 2009
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 5.) (May 28).
lower
May 13, 2009
Committee
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
lower
Apr 30, 2009
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Apr 29, 2009
Lower · Passed
Read second time and amended.
lower
Apr 28, 2009
Introduced
From committee: Amend, do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 2.) (April 21).
lower
Apr 16, 2009
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Apr 15, 2009
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.
lower
Mar 23, 2009
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Feb 26, 2009
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 28.
lower
0 primary · 12 co-sponsors

Sponsors

No sponsor information available.