Malpractice actions: architects, engineers, or surveyors.

Bill was assigned Chapter number 137 and received the standard 'State of California Authenticated Electronic Legal Material' header used for chaptered laws.

Assembly and Senate passage headers, clerk signatures, and the Governor's transmittal block were removed as part of the standard conversion from enrolled to chaptered format.

Governor's approval date (August 27, 2026) and Secretary of State filing date (August 27, 2026) were added, confirming the bill became law on that date.

Subdivision (b)(1)(E) previously required the consulting professional to render an opinion that the defendant 'was negligent or was not negligent.' The enrolled version removes 'or was not negligent,' meaning the certificate of merit now requires the consultant to affirmatively find negligence. This makes it harder for plaintiffs to file suit without a professional who agrees the defendant was actually negligent.

Subdivision (b)(1)(D) had a grammatical error ('The person consulted may not be is not a party to the litigation') that was corrected to 'The person consulted is not a party to the litigation.' No substantive policy change.

Standard formatting changes for enrollment: removal of line numbers, addition of chapter designation, page headers, Governor approval block, and reformatting of the legislative counsel's digest. No policy impact.

The Assembly version required a licensed practitioner (not the attorney) to execute the certificate of merit, with detailed requirements including 15 years of licensure, no involvement in the project, and no employment by a party. The Senate version reverts to requiring the attorney to execute the certificate declaring they consulted with a practitioner.

The Assembly version required one certificate per named defendant covering each defendant's respective discipline. The Senate version reverts to requiring only one certificate total regardless of how many defendants are named.

The Assembly version's compliance verification required both the attorney and practitioner to reveal consultation contents. The Senate version reverts to requiring only the attorney to disclose the name, address, and phone number of persons consulted.

The Assembly version expanded the definition of 'action' to include misrepresentation, fraud, nuisance, or any other act, error, breach or omission arising from professional services. The Senate version reverts to the narrower original definition limited to equitable indemnity claims.

New subdivision (j) provides that the changes made by this bill only apply to actions filed on or after January 1, 2027, giving a transition period before the new requirements take effect.

The Assembly version removed the exception that failure to file within 60 days under the statute-of-limitations provision would not be grounds for attorney discipline. The Senate version restores that exception.

The certificate must now be executed by a licensed practitioner rather than by the plaintiff's attorney. The introduced version had the attorney file a declaration that they consulted with a practitioner; the amended version requires the practitioner themselves to sign and attest to their review, non-party status, license number, experience, and opinion on negligence.

The number of required certificates changed from one total (regardless of how many defendants are named) to one per named defendant or cross-defendant, each covering the respective discipline and licensure of that defendant.

Practitioners who may execute the certificate are now limited to those licensed in California with at least 15 years of experience in the same discipline as the defendant. The introduced version allowed practitioners licensed in any state or teaching at an accredited college without a strict in-state licensing requirement for the consulting practitioner.

The definition of covered 'action' was broadened back to include complaints for misrepresentation, fraud, nuisance, and any other act, error, breach, or omission arising from professional services. The introduced version had narrowed this to only equitable indemnity claims.

Landscape architects are explicitly added throughout the bill as a covered profession, appearing in the list of professionals subject to the certificate requirement and in the practitioner qualification provisions.

The privilege provision was restructured: the introduced version gave the attorney a privilege to refuse disclosure of the practitioner's identity and consultation contents; the amended version gives the practitioner a privilege to refuse disclosure of the contents of the consultation, with the privilege also held by the attorney. The post-litigation verification process now requires revealing the contents of the consultation rather than just the practitioner's name, address, and phone number.

Gendered pronouns ('his or her') were changed to gender-neutral language ('their') throughout, and various formatting and line-numbering adjustments were made.